National Interest: America's foreign wars have caused heavy debts

The editor of National Interest, Jacob Hilbron, believes that the United States has only benefited from its foreign wars from accumulated debt and little strategic benefits.

He believes that the ability of the United States to meet its financial benefits - known as "solvency" - and balancing commitments and power has been a subject of constant debate by experts who believe in a realistic foreign policy.

"Nobody should think that he has a fiscal policy if he does not include expenses, revenues, liabilities and assets," Hillburn said in his long-running article from US State of the Union Shield of the Republic. Our usual role is to separate our discussions between our goals from fighting wars and our goals of peace, ideals, interests and commitments, our armaments, our strategic position, our potential allies and our potential enemies. "

The famous political commentator Lebman that such discussions will not result in a policy, pointing out that what puts an end to this controversy is the need for balance between means and ends.

In another quote from Helperon in an article in the Foreign Affairs magazine, political scientist and American scholar Samuel Huntington wrote in 1987, asserting that America had been embroiled in commitments abroad that it was unwilling to pay for at home.

A convincing argument
Hillbron says the level of US debt has been rising steadily since the end of the Clinton presidency, which saw the state budget a financial surplus. Debt during the administration of President George W. Bush jumped from $ 10.6 trillion to $ 19.9 trillion under Barack Obama.

Although Donald Trump said in 2017 that he would eliminate the debt in eight years, he remained silent after taking office in the country with expectations of debt exceeding $ 21 trillion.

If compulsory spending and unpaid tax deductions form a large part of the US debt crisis, engaging in foreign wars has a greater impact on federal budget deficits than is recognized.

In her new book, "Taxing War," Connel's professor of governance, Sarah Krips, points out that a fundamental shift has taken place since 1945 when the United States repeatedly failed to tax wars and relied on debt to finance its foreign wars, Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan.

The Krebs argument seems to be correct - according to Heilbronn - because spending from encumbered funds allows political leaders to curb any opposition to engaging in more limited conflicts rather than appealing to the public for financial sacrifices.

US officials have helped steer the temptation to engage in subtle conflicts in undermining US democracy by avoiding the constraints and popular pressure that often accompanies foreign conflicts, according to National Interest.

The philosophers of Enlightenment
In his article, Hilbronn says that European Enlightenment philosophers like Emmanuel Kant thought the cost of war would help prevent Democratic leaders from doing "reckless acts."

From Kant's point of view, if people have to be approved before any war is declared, it is more natural than anything else that the masses are more cautious when it comes to igniting such a lousy adventure. If war is a necessary evil, then the state must pay for its own resources, Kant says.

On the contrary, Scottish political economist Adam Smith expressed his concern that rulers would incur high costs leading to huge deficits in their country's budgets. In his book "The Wealth of Nations," Smith noted that the masses might view war as an adventure that distracts them from the troubles of everyday life.

In his article, the editor of National Interest said that the first and second world wars were seen in America as "popular" conflicts that did not arouse popular aversion to their costs.

World wars
World War II witnessed a significant increase in tax charges. But the new deal (or neo-dell as you know it in English) - a series of economic programs launched in the United States between 1933 and 1936 - was only a temporary measure.

After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the US Congress decided in 1942 to increase the income tax by adding 90% to the profit tax and 5% to "win tax" on net income.

Contrary to World War I, Congress did not lower taxes after World War II following the defeat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, according to Hilbron.

After 1945, the United States began to wage new wars less extensive than the fierce battles of World War II. The public did not want to reduce the social security umbrella or raise taxes to cover the costs of military conflicts abroad.

The author argues that the failure of the United States to pay the costs of the Vietnam War led to a sharp rise in inflation in the seventies of the last century. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States failed to pay for its limited wars in advance.

Instead of President George W. Bush calling on his citizens to sacrifice, he urged them to shop more. His successor, Barack Obama, tried to play down the cost of deploying US troops to fight in Afghanistan.

Hillbron concludes that Washington sometimes sought to rely on troops to fight for it "by proxy", but "that is not the real solution." He concludes by saying that unless America balances its commitments and power, it risks falling back into the same dangers as its foreign and financial policies, as warned by political commentator Walter Lippmann about a century ago.