War Versus Healthcare

[Winstonm]

Glenn Greenwald points out an unusual event: a reader challenged - and the Washington Post responded - to the Post's editorial position that Obama's health care could not increase the national debt but had no such restrictions on increased spending on the war in Afghanistan. The reader wanted to know how the Post could justify those positions, why it was fine to go into more debt for war but increased debt could not be used to provide health care to all.

 

The Post's response:

All this assumes that defense and health care should be treated equally in the national budget. We would argue that they should not be . . . Universal health care, however desirable, is not "fundamental to the defense of our people." Nor is it a "necessity" that it be adopted this year: Mr. Obama chose to propose a massive new entitlement at a time of historic budget deficits. In contrast, Gen. McChrystal believes that if reinforcements are not sent to Afghanistan in the next year, the war may be lost, with catastrophic consequences for U.S. interests in South Asia. U.S. soldiers would continue to die, without the prospect of defeating the Taliban. And, as Mr. Obama put it, "if left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans."

[mycroft]

As opposed to lack of decent health care, which *succeeds*, never mind plots, to kill more Americans.

 

Of course those Americans don't count, because they don't have enough money to have insurance. And without Americans who can't get insurance any other way, where would we get our soldiers to go to Afghanistan?

 

What, cynical, me?

[RichMor]

Of course those Americans don't count, because they don't have enough money to have insurance.  And without Americans who can't get insurance any other way, where would we get our soldiers to go to Afghanistan?

 

What, cynical, me?

Sounds cynical to me, but that doesn't mean it is not true.

 

And just imagine if people could find jobs in addition to affordable health care. Bad news for the all-volunteer Army.

 

RichM

[blackshoe]

The current defense philosophy seems to be "the best defense is a good offense", but I'm not so sure that's the right philosophy. I am sure it's not what the Founders envisioned.

 

In spite of Constitutional provisions to the contrary, we have had a standing Army since the Korean War Police Action. While the argument goes that we still need one, first because of the Cold War, and now because of terrorism, and later probably because somebody or other else is a threat (assuming we defeat terrorism, which is by no means certain), I don't believe that argument. I think we have to be willing to let other countries find their own way, while making sure they all know we'll kick their ass if they mess with us. As for "not countries" like Al-Qaeda, well, that's not easy, but this "War on Terror" doesn't seem to be an answer.

 

As for healthcare, I don't know what the right answer is, but I'm pretty sure letting the government run it ain't it.

[jdonn]

The post makes a terrible defense of the point, most of what they said is nonsense. I think a much better point they could have made (and I'm not at all saying I agree with this) is that the point of more spending in Afghanistan is presumably to bring the conflict to an end, or some kind of long term resolution. Spending on healthcare is, except to the extent it could be reformed again in the distant future, permanent.

[kenberg]

I think I will jump in a bit behind blackshoe here. During the Second World War, we ran a deficit. With other wars too, including the revolution. But these wars had a beginning and an end. True, the conflict with the Soviet Union ended, at least sort of. Russia is still there. Now we are fighting some extremely nebulous enemy, in physical terrain that is inhospitable, and involved in a religious/social environment that at the very least is not our own, even if we do have experts with some understanding of it. Sustainability has to be thought about.

 

Contrary to some beliefs, Americans are really not all that enthusiastic about war. Wilson ran in 916 on the slogan "He kept us out of war". FDR kept his plans to bring us in on the side of Britain as hidden as possible in 1940. Eisenhower ran on "I will go to Korea", clearly suggesting that he would figure how to get us out. LBJ ran as the peace candidate (good God, I campaigned for him) in 1964, and so on. An ongoing commitment to spend lots of money and get lots of people killed is really not sustainable.

 

Sometime back I suggested, a bit but not entirely facetiously, that we explain to our leaders that we will support them in one war. They can pick it. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, they get to choose. We fight it, we win it, we go home. This simplistic idea goes along with the one I had for the Bush speech after 9/11. One line: "The Great Satan is really pissed off".

 

I dunno why they never call me for advice!

[Winstonm]

The current defense philosophy seems to be "the best defense is a good offense", but I'm not so sure that's the right philosophy. I am sure it's not what the Founder's envisioned.

 

In spite of Constitutional provisions to the contrary, we have had a standing Army since the Korean War Police Action. While the argument goes that we still need one, first because of the Cold War, and now because of terrorism, and later probably because somebody or other else is a threat (assuming we defeat terrorism, which is by no means certain), I don't believe that argument. I think we have to be willing to let other countries find their own way, while making sure they all know we'll kick their ass if they mess with us. As for "not countries" like Al-Qaeda, well, that's not easy, but this "War on Terror" doesn't seem to be an answer.

 

As for healthcare, I don't know what the right answer is, but I'm pretty sure letting the government run it ain't it.

I agree with most everything you say - I wish we had a government that we trusted enough to run our health care but I too am mistrustful of their abilities and their honesty.

 

As for the terrorist threat, I know it is real. What I don't believe is that it is some kind of generational war that the U.S. can win by changing the makeup by force of the Middle East. That is neocon delusion, IMO.

 

I would prefer taking the advice of Rand Corporation (and others) that reducing the military presence will reduce the threat - and the threat that is there can be addressed in less conventional ways, including political methods.

[luke warm]

As for healthcare, I don't know what the right answer is, but I'm pretty sure letting the government run it ain't it.

you're only worried about gov't run health care? barney frank should put your mind at ease

[Winstonm]

As for healthcare, I don't know what the right answer is, but I'm pretty sure letting the government run it ain't it.

you're only worried about gov't run health care? barney frank should put your mind at ease

Barney Frank is also creating a bill to address the problems of financial institutions that are "too big to fail". His solution is to create a negative incentive by way of increasing the capital reserves of larger banks - in a way an incentive NOT to grow too big to fail. This is a rather ingenious solution, a government solution, and not a bad thing for government to do.

 

What I worry about more than Barney Frank are those folks who mistakenly narrow their worldview to exclude valid discussion and valid change - even change that goes against what they once thought to be the best way of doing things.

[mycroft]

In a more serious vein, the government can screw up healthcare. And in fact, if they go in with the idea that the big current insurance companies won't take a (rather severe) hit, they will from day 1. And if you talk to many people in my province of RepublicanNorth, you'd find they already have. But they've screwed it up here in ways that cost less than the U.S. government currently spends on healthcare per capita (granted, the U.S. government already gets the crap insurance risks none of the insurance companies want to touch - the old, the really poor, and the military/VA, but that's not healthcare), while still providing a universal level of service that while nowhere near optimal, isn't a total disaster, either.

 

But "we can't admit we made a mistake, all that will do is encourage others to beat up on us" is a loser's game. It's a loser's game when "beat up on us" = "get sued"; it's a loser's game when it means "more terrorist attacks". I can believe, and do believe, that (reasonably sanely) pulling out of both Iraq and Afghanistan will cost American lives in the odd terrorist attack; I can't believe it will cost as many as being there has. But again, with apologies to Blackshoe (and another for the implication (not intended, but it came with the sarcasm) that that's the only reason to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces - that is clearly not true, and I know too many serving members and ex-members to believe that for a minute), Those Americans Don't Count, because they're Not Us. And it's so much more profitable than peace.

 

I think Gwynne Dyer got it right here (bias: I frequently do; even if I don't like it).

[Winstonm]

mycroft   Posted: Oct 27 2009, 07:18 PM

I can believe, and do believe, that (reasonably sanely) pulling out of both Iraq and Afghanistan will cost American lives in the odd terrorist attack; I can't believe it will cost as many as being there has.

 

I do not consider you an irrational person - nor do I consider this an irrational thought. I am, surprised, though, that your belief is not backed by any data, though.

 

Rand Corporation did a study of terrorist organizations over a lengthy perior of time (I think 20+ years but I've forgotten exactly). What they found was that only 7% of all terrorists organizations were defeated through military action. And of that 7%., most success came not against actual terrorists, but against insurgencies (that had characteristic more like opposing armies). Meanwhile, politics and police-like action was vastly more successful.

 

Numerous studies have shown that U.S. occupation leads to more violence and more support for radical Islam and its proponents.

 

I personally believe we owe it to ourselves, our country, and our fighting forces to do more than "believe" what the Military-Industrial complex would have us "believe", as their power and profits are tied directly to more war and not less war.

 

I support the concept consistent with the data - less intervention should lead to more safety, not less.

[luke warm]

Rand Corporation did a study of terrorist organizations over a lengthy perior of time (I think 20+ years but I've forgotten exactly). What they found was that only 7% of all terrorists organizations were defeated through military action. And of that 7%., most success came not against actual terrorists, but against insurgencies (that had characteristic more like opposing armies). Meanwhile, politics and police-like action was vastly more successful.

i wonder if that 7% measures the resiliency of the terrorists or the effectiveness of the type of war waged

[PassedOut]

Looks like we'll learn Obama's decision on Afghanistan in the next few weeks: Obama Says He Is Close to Afghan War Decision.

 

“I am very confident that when I announce the decision, the American people will have a lot of clarity about what we’re doing, how we’re going to succeed, how much this thing is going to cost,” Mr. Obama told CNN in an interview at his hotel in Beijing. Most important, he said, was that he was asking “what’s the end game on this thing, which I think is something that, unless you impose that kind of discipline, could end up leading to a multiyear occupation that won’t serve the interests of the United States.”

If his eventual announcement does all that, I think it will have been well worth the wait.

[kenberg]

Of course he cannot possibly do all that and announcing that he will do so is a serious error. He cannot seriously announce what the end game will be, how we will get there, and what it will cost. When has that ever been done in war? Or rather, when has the prediction ever proved right? The troops will be home for Christmas? Sure, as long as you don't say which Christmas.

 

In the last war that we actually won (not counting Grenada), neither Roosevelt nor Churchill went before the people and stated what it would cost. Gen. McChrystal, whatever you may feel about his recommendations, is certainly no fool. I do not believe that he has said anything remotely like "It will cost x dollars to win this war". Whatever is needed here, it is not some idiot announcing that he knows what he cannot possibly know.

 

Upon reflection, I guess it is reasonable to say that we won Gulf War I in the sense that an objective was announced, get Iraq out of Kuwait, and it succeeded, and more or less along the lines envisioned. Still, I am highly skeptical of any announcement that we will accomplish such and such by spending x dollars and staying for y years. Further, Afghanistan is only a part in a much bigger picture. Any announcement by anyone that they can accurately see ten years into the future will be greeted with all the respect shown to the old Soviet announcements of future grain production (surely a much more controllable and predictable problem).

[Winstonm]

duplicate entry deleted.

[Winstonm]

Here is the key issue utilizing COIN (counterinsurgency):

 

The doctrine calls for “effective governance by a legitimate government.”

 

Here is the U.S. problem with Afghanistan....

Transparency International, a global coalition that tracks corruption, rates Afghanistan at number 179 of 180 nations it monitors. The only nation rated more corrupt than Afghanistan is Somalia...

 

...and Iraq:

 

Iraq, the other place where we’re trying to conduct COIN, ranks 176.

 

Now, explain to me again why General McChrystal needs umpteen thousand more troops to stage a COIN operation when his own manual on COIN says a key condition for success - a real government - is missing in action?

[PassedOut]

Of course he cannot possibly do all that and announcing that he will do so is a serious error. He cannot seriously announce what the end game will be, how we will get there, and what it will cost. When has that ever been done in war?  Or rather, when has the prediction ever proved right? The troops will be home for Christmas? Sure, as long as you don't say which Christmas.

 

In the last war that we actually won (not counting Grenada), neither Roosevelt nor Churchill went before the people and stated what it would cost. Gen. McChrystal, whatever you may feel about his recommendations, is certainly no fool. I do not believe that he has said anything remotely like "It will cost x dollars to win this war". Whatever is needed here, it is not some idiot announcing that he knows what he cannot possibly know.

 

Upon reflection, I guess it is reasonable to say that we won Gulf War I in the sense that an objective was announced, get Iraq out of Kuwait, and it succeeded, and more or less along the lines envisioned. Still, I am highly skeptical of any announcement that we will accomplish such and such by spending x dollars and staying for y years. Further, Afghanistan is only a part in a much bigger picture. Any announcement by anyone that they can accurately see ten years into the future will be greeted with all the respect shown to the old Soviet announcements of future grain production (surely a much more controllable and predictable problem).

I disagree, albeit mildly, with this post. I'm waiting to hear what Obama actually says.

 

Gen. McChrystal, whatever you may feel about his recommendations, is certainly no fool. I do not believe that he has said anything remotely like "It will cost x dollars to win this war".

McChrystal is no fool and Obama is no idiot. Only a fool would say he needed 40,000 more soldiers unless he had a specific goal in mind and a plan to achieve that goal using those specific resources, so we can safely assume that McChrystal has both a goal and a plan and that Obama is reviewing the options that his Defense Department is giving him. We won't know to the penny, of course, how much the war will cost, but there are general ballpark figures such as $1 million per soldier per year in Afghanistan, so we can get a damned good idea.

 

Obama would truly be a patsy if he buckled under to a demand for troops without knowing exactly how they were going to be used and to what end, no matter what smart general asks for them. It might be that the military got used to having a weak president and are now having to make adjustments to deal with a stronger leader. I still remember Vietnam and how the smart generals kept telling LBJ how one more escalation would turn the tide.

 

I personally would not risk a significant amount of company money unless I knew what the plan was and could see how to measure the success of each successive step in the plan. To my mind, Obama owes our soldiers that and more.

 

It might well be that I'll be disappointed with Obama's eventual announcement, but from what he said he is definitely taking the correct approach. Some right-wingers are livid to learn that Obama is not a pussy, but things did not work out so well recently when we had a president easily rolled.

[kenberg]

I think that the fundamental question Obama must address is "Is it worth it?". If we stay there, with some level of troop increase or with our current level, we are going to get people killed and we are going to spend a lot of money. It seems almost impossible that it could (a.) be worth that amount of suffering while (b.) not being worth doing what it takes to get done what has to be done. I can't imagine what Eisenhower went through preparing for D-Day but there was broad general consensus that it was worth it and had to be done. How many would be killed? He didn't know. Would it succeed? He didn't know. But there was agreement that it was worth it.

 

If it is worth it, then we gotta do it. I say this as a 70 year old who won't be taking bullets, but so it is. He is the president, he must decide if it is worth it, and if it is then he must find a way to get the country behind it, with all the suffering, setbacks, unpredictability that war entails. If it isn't worth it, then let's get the guys home for Christmas. Well, starting by Christmas. In or out, damn it.

[Winstonm]

He is the president, he must decide if it is worth it, and if it is then he must find a way to get the country behind it,

 

I believe this concept is a mistake that is made all too frequently - this rather blind trust that the guys at the top have all the information to make the correct decision and lead us in the correct path.

 

Perhaps there is a slight generation gap between me at 58 and Ken at 70. My generation was influenced by the Kennedy assassination, Vietnam, and Watergate - I don't think we trust the government, but feel compelled to challenge their claims as we have seen many times how facts were twisted to fit agenda.

 

It appears to be happening again with this so-called "war on terror".

 

Glenn Greenwald once again is the one pointing out that:

 

The British journalist Johann Hari has written an absolutely vital article for The Independent, examining a growing movement of former hardened Islamic militants who are now devoted to teaching a more moderate and less fundamentalist Islam.  Hari focuses on understanding what motivates some Muslims to turn to radicalism and terrorism in the first place, and how that process can be reversed.  Though these ex-militants have very diverse backgrounds, they all stress two critical facts:  (1) the more the foreign policy of the West is seen as aggressive, violent and oppressive to the Muslim world, the easier it is to convert Muslims to violent radicalism, and (2) the most potent weapon for undermining Islamic extremism is the efforts of Westerners to work against their own governments' belligerent policies:

 

We have a war faction in this country that supports the concept of perpetual low-level warfare - yet their misguided attempts at control and domination lead to the very foreign policy interventions that create terrorists in the first place.

 

As in 1970, it will take the will of the people and not the political process to end the wars as there is no profit in peace. Unfortunately, without a draft there is no personal discomfort for most to support warfare, so the ill will towards these wars has been long in building.

[PassedOut]

He is the president, he must decide if it is worth it, and if it is then he must find a way to get the country behind it,

I believe this concept is a mistake that is made all too frequently - this rather blind trust that the guys at the top have all the information to make the correct decision and lead us in the correct path.

I know you won't be surprised that I agree with Ken 100% on this. Obama is not going to get the country behind him on this by asking for blind trust. He is going to have to explain what makes the war worth the cost and convince a lot of people that he's right. He won't convince everyone no matter what he does, but that goes without saying.

 

Obama seems to think he can make that case. That seems like a tall order to me, but I'll listen to what he says.

 

I also agree with Ken's point that if a war is vital to preserve the very security of the nation, any half-assed approach is ridiculous.

[mike777]

Glenn Greenwald points out an unusual event: a reader challenged - and the Washington Post responded - to the Post's editorial position that Obama's health care could not increase the national debt but had no such restrictions on increased spending on the war in Afghanistan.  The reader wanted to know how the Post could justify those positions, why it was fine to go into more debt for war but increased debt could not be used to provide health care to all.

 

The Post's response:

All this assumes that defense and health care should be treated equally in the national budget. We would argue that they should not be . . . Universal health care, however desirable, is not "fundamental to the defense of our people." Nor is it a "necessity" that it be adopted this year: Mr. Obama chose to propose a massive new entitlement at a time of historic budget deficits. In contrast, Gen. McChrystal believes that if reinforcements are not sent to Afghanistan in the next year, the war may be lost, with catastrophic consequences for U.S. interests in South Asia. U.S. soldiers would continue to die, without the prospect of defeating the Taliban. And, as Mr. Obama put it, "if left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans."

I think Winston raises an interesting point.

 

1) Should we go into debt and if so how much to fight and win a war?

 

 

2) Should we go into debt and if so how much to fight and win decent health care for all?

 

 

My answer is....how much will you lend me before.......?

 

Keep in mind countries can and do disappear....see Europe, ASIA, etc etc in our lifetimes. USSR, East Germany, Yugoslavia, etc etc etc.....

 

OTOH if you think that the UK or Belgium, Canada, USA or etc can never disappear ok.....????

[helene_t]

I believe this concept is a mistake that is made all too frequently - this rather blind trust that the guys at the top have all the information to make the correct decision and lead us in the correct path.

Yeah, maybe offtopic, but I never understood what people find attractive about systems like they have in France, Russia and USA where a single person holds lots of power. I can understand that it makes elections less confusing because you just vote for the most charismatic guy rather than for the party that has the highest average level of charisma among its 100+ nominees, but seriously: does anyone believe that a single person can make informed decisions on hundreds of issues ranging from health care to warfare to bank bailouts?

[Winstonm]

He is the president, he must decide if it is worth it, and if it is then he must find a way to get the country behind it,

I believe this concept is a mistake that is made all too frequently - this rather blind trust that the guys at the top have all the information to make the correct decision and lead us in the correct path.

I know you won't be surprised that I agree with Ken 100% on this. Obama is not going to get the country behind him on this by asking for blind trust. He is going to have to explain what makes the war worth the cost and convince a lot of people that he's right. He won't convince everyone no matter what he does, but that goes without saying.

 

Obama seems to think he can make that case. That seems like a tall order to me, but I'll listen to what he says.

 

I also agree with Ken's point that if a war is vital to preserve the very security of the nation, any half-assed approach is ridiculous.

The point is not whether or not Obama can convince the nation but can he make the right choice? Generals always want more troops - but they are not the best source to ask IF we should be at war.

 

LBJ faced this same task and ended up getting bad advice which the nation would not buy.

[vuroth]

All this assumes that defense and health care should be treated equally in the national budget. We would argue that they should not be . . . Universal health care, however desirable, is not "fundamental to the defense of our people." Nor is it a "necessity" that it be adopted this year: Mr. Obama chose to propose a massive new entitlement at a time of historic budget deficits. In contrast, Gen. McChrystal believes that if reinforcements are not sent to Afghanistan in the next year, the war may be lost, with catastrophic consequences for U.S. interests in South Asia. U.S. soldiers would continue to die, without the prospect of defeating the Taliban. And, as Mr. Obama put it, "if left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans."

Am I to understand that the point of this is that the President has a mandated responsibility for defense, but not for healthcare? That the President addressing the defense of American lives from foreign threats is in his job description, but that addressing affordable healthcare is not?

 

If so, is this a valid constitutional argument? Even if it is, does the President have no mandate to amend priorities, even the constitution, if he feels that it is warranted?

 

I'm a foreigner, and don't know, so I'm asking.

[helene_t]

does the President have no mandate to amend priorities, even the constitution, if he feels that it is warranted?

No the president can't amend the constitution.

 

However this has nothing to do with the gvt's budget, it's not like the constitution says that defense should have priority above health care w.r.t. finances.