How to End War

As I write this, we are close to finding out what President Obama's final decision will be for Afghanistan. Quite possibly the toughest decision the president has had to make thus far, with half the country saying "Go for it" and the other half saying "Don't you dare"... This will not be easy no matter what he does. Someone's about to be pissed off!

Supporters of the "War on Terror" handed down from the last administration argue that we must continue to wage the war. That we must not stop fighting terrorism until the world is rid of them. If this is possible?

Protesters of the war argue that it is an Un-winnable war that will turn into another Vietnam. That we will be sending lives and billions maybe trillions of dollars fighting an enemy that Russia failed to destroy roughly 20 years ago.

President Obama is between a rock and a hard place when it comes to Afghanistan.

Information out today suggests that we will probably get a compromise of some sort. The problem is that this, like so many other issues of the day, is an issue where the American public is not ready to make a deal.

In the midst of all this, many are asking another question.

How are we going to pay for this war?

This is one of the main concerns for Healthcare Reform, but the GOP is yet to wage such outrage about how we are going to pay for this war.

Shocker huh?


White House budget director Peter Orszag has estimated that it would cost $40 billion a year if Gen. McChrystal gets his wish of 40,000 additional troops. The pentagon has the figure at a slightly lower cost. He also said that it would destroy many other things that the Obama administration is trying to do with the economy.

Yep. Wars sure are expensive. You just never hear politicians complaining about the cost unless the money will be used here at home, on our citizens. But if it is to reign hell on a nation that most American's probably can't even correctly point to on a map..... well then take as much money as you need! It's only money!


But now, this could all possibly change....


Recently Rep. David Obey (D-Wisconsin) suggested that we should pay for the war by taxing the wealthy.

And it sounds so crazy, it just might work!

We all know very well that for democrats, the best way to get republicans against anything is to suggest that the rich pay for anything. As long as the bottom 95% are flouting the bill they can barely afford, no problems. But if we do something insane, like charging this war to the top 1% (who have more wealth than the bottom 95% combined) What will this do to the republican party?

Will the war still be worth fighting if the rich have to take a outrageous 1% surtax to pay for it?

During WWII, the rich paid 90% in taxes. If not for their contribution to their country, we may have lost that war. But today that would be called socialism.

Or.... this could lead to something bigger than we ever imagined.

If the rich have to pay for the war, maybe then they won't want the war?

When they have to pay their fair share, maybe that will trigger the peace and love that was in them all along. And all we had to do was threaten to raise their taxes a hair to help fight a war that effects everyone equally despite income and tax bracket.

On issues like healthcare reform, the cost factor and the fact that the rich may help pay for it has conservatives up in arms and dead set against it. If the Afghanistan war is paid for by a surtax on the rich, will we actually see anti-war republicans?

This could work.

If you want to rid the world of something, tax the rich for it and it will be gone.

If the rich start paying for our wars, we may never get into another one again.