War extracts its reasons

President George W. Bush has called terrorism the United States8217; greatest national security threat since World War II and has declared ...

President George W. Bush has called terrorism the United States8217; greatest national security threat since World War II and has declared that the war on terrorism must be waged 8220;for years and decades, not weeks or months.8221; Most Americans agree with this assessment and with the need to pay whatever price is necessary to wage this war. But what is the price? And how will the United States pay for it?

It now seems nearly certain that the aging of America8217;s population 8212; which would pose a massive fiscal challenge over the next few decades itself 8212; will unfold in an era of large additional commitments to its national security agenda. Two other issues, in addition to security costs, require attention because of their profound connections both to US national security and to US fiscal and economic performance: the United States8217; growing financial dependence on foreigners, and the extreme aging overtaking the rest of the developed world.

To paraphrase the poet John Donne, no nation is an island, least of all a superpower with such manifest responsibilities as the United States has in a newly dangerous world. But to commit America to a broader role while remaining blindly ignorant of the ultimate cost of doing so is sheer folly. Clearly, there are long-term tradeoffs to be faced: between economic security and national security, between retirement security and national security, and between today8217;s taxpayers and tomorrow8217;s taxpayers. As yet, however, the leaders of the two major political parties have hardly mentioned these tradeoffs, much less discussed them seriously. When it comes to the long-term fiscal and economic future, US leaders are mute not only on domestic challenges but on global challenges too8230;

The stunning effectiveness of the US armed forces has come with an equally stunning price tag. For most of US history, going to war was like organising a large federal jobs programme, with most of the work done by inexpensive, quickly trained recruits. Today, it is more like a NASA moon launch, entailing a massive logistical tail supporting a professionally managed and swiftly depreciating body of high-tech physical capital. Just keeping two divisions engaged in 8220;stability operations8221; in Iraq for one week costs 1 billion; keeping them engaged for a full year would cost the entire GDP of New Zealand.

Excerpted from the article 8216;Riding for a Fall8217; by Peter G. Peterson in the September/October issue of 8216;Foreign Affairs8217;