An Interesting Dissection Of The Cost Of OBL To America

Like I said in an earlier post -- killing OBL changes nothing. OBL has achieved his goal, as he has said all along, to bankrupt America. And, unfortunately, OBL's death is not changing any one's thinking up on the Hill. It's business as usual. Keep funnelling money out of America, and keep cutting services to America. The American people see it. They are struggling. States can't pay their bills; people can't pay their bills, our economy is in the shit hole, and voting is really not an option anymore because whether it's a Democrat or a Republican, they are already bought and paid for by special corporate interests (who don't pay taxes to add to the coffers, but take money from the taxpayers to put into their coffers). True progressives just can't seem to get a foothold into any form of government.

As the article (read it in full, it's got lots of statistics comparing American involvement in wars gone by and the costs both plus and negative from such activities) states, the cost of OBL and his ideology is the gift that keeps on giving, or should I say, taking.

The greater expense we can attribute to bin Laden comes from policymakers' response to 9/11. The invasion of Afghanistan was clearly a reaction to al-Qaida's attacks. It is unlikely that the Bush administration would have invaded Iraq if 9/11 had not ushered in a debate about Islamic extremism and weapons of mass destruction. Those two wars grew into a comprehensive counterinsurgency campaign that cost $1.4 trillion in the past decade—and will cost hundreds of billions more. The government borrowed the money for those wars, adding hundreds of billions in interest charges to the U.S. debt.

[snip]

Most important, the fight against bin Laden has not produced the benefits that accompanied previous conflicts. The military escalation of the past 10 years did not stimulate the economy as the war effort did in the 1940s—with the exception of a few large defense contractors—in large part because today's operations spend far less on soldiers and far more on fuel. Meanwhile, our national-security spending no longer drives innovation. The experts who spoke with National Journal could name only a few advancements spawned by the fight against bin Laden, including Predator drones and improved backup systems to protect information technology from a terrorist attack or other disaster. "The spin-off effects of military technology were demonstrably more apparent in the '40s and '50s and '60s," says Gordon Adams, a national-security expert at American Univeristy.

Another reason that so little economic benefit has come from this war is that it has produced less—not more—stability around the world. Stable countries, with functioning markets governed by the rule of law, make better trading partners; it's easier to start a business, or tap national resources, or develop new products in times of tranquility than in times of strife. "If you can successfully pursue a military campaign and bring stability at the end of it, there is an economic benefit," says economic historian Joshua Goldstein of the University of Massachusetts. "If we stabilized Libya, that would have an economic benefit."

Even the psychological boost from bin Laden's death seems muted by historical standards. Imagine the emancipation of the slaves. Victory over the Axis powers gave Americans a sense of euphoria and limitless possibility. O'Hanlon says, "I take no great satisfaction in his death because I'm still amazed at the devastation and how high a burden he placed on us." It is "more like a relief than a joy that I feel." Majewski adds, "Even in a conflict like the Civil War or World War II, there's a sense of tragedy but of triumph, too. But the war on terror … it's hard to see what we get out of it, technologically or institutionally."

It is patently impossible to continue in this fashion. Just how stupid does one have to be to not get this?