Uwe Reinhardt: Who's Paying for Our Patriotism?
Worth reading, in today's Post.
The article raises important points, eminently worth thinking about. Many have pointed out that we're not being asked to do anything to aid the war effort, but Reinhardt points out that this may give many of us the illusion that what we (in some sense of 'we'...) are doing is easy or without great cost.
He makes reference to WWII, though I must say that I've recently come to think that the disparity between what was being asked of the troops and what was being asked of those on the home front was even greater in that war. There were deprivations at home, of course, but, let's face it, they were still relatively minor. And those who fought in WWII were in far, far greater danger and suffered far more than our troops today.
Nevertheless, Reinhardt has an interesting point. Many of us--political junkies, that is--sit around obsessing about the war, but I'll bet that most Americans rarely give it a thought. They don't know anyone who's fighting, and the war's being fought on credit. So it seems to be without cost.
He's also right that we--and Republicans in particular--treat our veterans badly. Personally, I've always thought that those in the military should be paid well, and veterans--especially disabled veterans--should be very well taken care of indeed.
Fortunately, these two problems seem to have a common solution. Taxes should be raised until we are actually capable of paying for this war, and until we can treat our troops and or veterans decently. The happy side effect of this policy is that it would drive some of the costs of war home to people. I can virtually guarantee that if this war caused the average American to give up some premium movie channels we'd be out of Iraq before you could say "Six Feet Under."
Remember, I say this as someone who is inclined to believe that we should stay in Iraq until the job is done. Scratch that. Rather, we should stay until we un-botch things a bit. But I also think that the American people should have some sense of what they've gotten themselves into. Scratch that. They should have some sense of what they've allowed themselves to be tricked into. I think we should pay even more, put in more troops, and make things right. And I think that those of is who aren't doing the fighting and the dying should be feeling a good bit of financial pain. It is--pretty much literally--the least we can do.
Worth reading, in today's Post.
The article raises important points, eminently worth thinking about. Many have pointed out that we're not being asked to do anything to aid the war effort, but Reinhardt points out that this may give many of us the illusion that what we (in some sense of 'we'...) are doing is easy or without great cost.
He makes reference to WWII, though I must say that I've recently come to think that the disparity between what was being asked of the troops and what was being asked of those on the home front was even greater in that war. There were deprivations at home, of course, but, let's face it, they were still relatively minor. And those who fought in WWII were in far, far greater danger and suffered far more than our troops today.
Nevertheless, Reinhardt has an interesting point. Many of us--political junkies, that is--sit around obsessing about the war, but I'll bet that most Americans rarely give it a thought. They don't know anyone who's fighting, and the war's being fought on credit. So it seems to be without cost.
He's also right that we--and Republicans in particular--treat our veterans badly. Personally, I've always thought that those in the military should be paid well, and veterans--especially disabled veterans--should be very well taken care of indeed.
Fortunately, these two problems seem to have a common solution. Taxes should be raised until we are actually capable of paying for this war, and until we can treat our troops and or veterans decently. The happy side effect of this policy is that it would drive some of the costs of war home to people. I can virtually guarantee that if this war caused the average American to give up some premium movie channels we'd be out of Iraq before you could say "Six Feet Under."
Remember, I say this as someone who is inclined to believe that we should stay in Iraq until the job is done. Scratch that. Rather, we should stay until we un-botch things a bit. But I also think that the American people should have some sense of what they've gotten themselves into. Scratch that. They should have some sense of what they've allowed themselves to be tricked into. I think we should pay even more, put in more troops, and make things right. And I think that those of is who aren't doing the fighting and the dying should be feeling a good bit of financial pain. It is--pretty much literally--the least we can do.
posted by Winston Smith at
8:21 AM
3 Comments:
Until they do raise taxes, you can donate to the Red Cross Military Members and Families Fund.
There are, of course, lots of other organization out there, but most everyone knows the Red Cross.
Winston,
I agree with Wesley Clark, who said something to the effect of "Republicans love weapons systems. Democrats love soldiers".
I'm not sure you can break the circle just any old place you want. If the American people were told the truth about the Iraq war before it started, that would be one thing. This truth could certainly include the price of this fiasco. But in fact, the American people were manipulated by the Bush Administration and by the willing press. I don't really imagine much of a way we're going to stay until things "get better." Most likely things are going to deteriorate slowly into civil war, with partition perhaps following. And meanwhile our strategic bases, which we are in fact building for the long haul, will remain. See the portrait of Sri Lanka in the current New Yorker for the likely future of Iraq. --Beel
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home