Spend $3.7 Trillion Plus on Present Wars?

EIN News says, "Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan Wars: U.S. Cost Is $3.7 Trillion and Up to 258,000 Lives The cost of U.S. military action in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan will run to at least $3.7 trillion, a study has revealed. The staggering figure could reach as high as $4.4 trillion, with the deaths of up to 258,000 people, according to research. In human terms, 224,000 to 258,000 people have died directly from warfare - including 125,000 civilians in Iraq. (dailymail.co.uk)".

ABOMINABLE!

Let's take a look at the reasons why we will be spending at least $3.7 trillion. Each reason, is applicable to at least one of the three countries.

Deny Access to Weapons of Mass Destruction - There were none in each country. Our CIA gave false information about it, with respect to Iraq. Other countries have nuclear weapons, such as Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. None of these are generally friendly to the US. To protect ourselves from nuclear attack, we need strong intelligence and the capability of intercepting intercontinental ballistic missiles. The first is a responsibility of the CIA, if we can get it to work properly. The second is a matter of technical capability, which is not beyond our reach, if we had spent even a small portion of the $3.7 trillion on that.

Possibility of a biological weapons attack can be handled in the same manner as nuclear.

Control Terrorist Threat at Its Source - Good thought, but it does not require ground forces. This can be done by proper functioning of CIA intelligence, and satellite surveillance to locate training camps or operation centers. Attacking can be done with surgical strikes either on the ground, as with Osama bin Laden, or with bombs and missiles from either manned or drone aircraft.

Protect Human Rights of the Local Population - This is an unrealistic abuse of compassion coupled with egotism, which assumes that the US government knows what is desired and best best for all peoples of the world. An obvious fallacy! If the Afghans want the Taliban, and the Egyptians want the Muslim Brotherhood, who are we to say that they can't have them? If there is thought that these controls are being imposed upon the populace by autocratic governments, we again have no right to intervene. Those populaces allowed their governments to develop and they have the responsibility to change governments, if they feel it is not doing the job. Cite the Russian and French revolutions.

Protect The Continued Existence and Expansion of the US Empire - For what purpose? Power sake? Power is of no value unless it is demonstrated by use. In our case, our only use is an apparent attempt to gain more power. As a nation, we do not apparently believe in subjugation and taxing the vanquished. Conversely, we have demonstrated that wherever we have done damage in order to obtain control, we have engaged in restitution. Cite Germany and Japan from World War II and Iraq more recently. Do we want to spend $3.7 trillion plus to obtain power, which is of no practical value?

Keep Our Military Busy - Another ridiculous assertion! If you have no need for the military for the reasons cited above, disband most of it, keeping only what is necessary for protection. Released military service people will tend to increase unemployment, but that is easily corrected by a complete reversal of US government philosophy of big government and persecution of the capitalist system. The fact is that people with military training will be welcomed into the workforce, providing employers have an incentive for such hiring.

I may have missed one or more reasons why we engaged in wars with Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and partially in Pakistan. If so, I would like to hear about them. If they are good reasons for continued military action in those countries and spending $3.7 trillion plus, let's keep going. Otherwise, out, out, out!