This same calculus is mentioned four times in this thread as of now. It completely ignores the human cost, as in lives saved, and cost infrastructure not destroyed and capabilities not degraded. It almost like a concerted effort of bad faith actors to popularize a narrative.
>It almost like a concerted effort of bad faith actors to popularize a narrative.
That's not fair at all. This is simply how wars are fought in the modern era. We all wish we could have saved lives and infrastructure in Afghanistan, in Ukraine, etc. ad infinitum, but as democracies, we have to consider the material costs of war. And guerilla enemies can outlast us (as the Taliban did) by spending little and getting us to spend far more.
The war in Afghanistan ended because there was no way to achieve our goals there given the broad public support for the Taliban, not because we were running money out money. To the contrary, we spend more than ever on defense.
Neither will Ukraine give up once the cost of the war reaches some threshold. They will fight until they are physically unable to carry on, not simply unwilling to spend.
1. We spend a smaller portion of our GDP on defense than before. Military spending as a percentage of GDP is down over the past few decades.
2. The cost of the War in Afghanistan was an important factor in the American publics' changing attitude towards it. Once Trump got elected saying the war was a disaster and we should have never gone there, and we spent trillions on it and got nothing in exchange, the war effort was on borrowed time. And he said that, and was applauded, because American citizens, who still have power in a democracy, don't love spending trillions on a war against an enemy they can't eliminate (partly because they spend far less than us). Those same American citizens roundly rejected the, at the time, leading Republican candidate Jeb Bush, who was most known for his relation to the leader who started that war.
3. Ukraine won't give up because they are being invaded, similarly as Hamas does not give up as they are being invaded. Of course any amount of money is worth one's homeland. But the willingness of the US to continue supporting Ukraine is based on money because, again, American constituents don't like spending billions on other countries even if the cause is just.
This calculus has been rejected four times in this thread now. It completely ignores any recognition of armament economics. It's almost like a concerted effort from lizard deep state street team actors working for internet points to popularize a jingoistic ra-ra USG narrative.
I take offense to being labeled a bad-faith actor trying to control a narrative. It's just an argument. You either agree with me or don't.
In war the economics are money and people. E.g. We could invade Iran. It might cost $300bn US and 100k personnel dead and 200k wounded. It's just pure economics.
US corporations make the same judgment when it comes to safety every day. A drug might kill 5 people from side effects but save 40,000. Is it worth it?
