Is it better for our children to throw more of their parents out of work, or to curtail research that might lead to medical breakthroughs, or to raise the cost of public universities? Obviously, growth is preferable to stagnation, for everyone, and there is no sharp distinction between improvements which affect our children or their children's prospects now, and the future. For example, the space program paid off, rather than saddling future generations, by the revolution in telecommunications through satellite technology. Arapnet is paying off in the form of the computer/internet revolution.
The "cost of the war" must be considered in relation to other costs. For example, how much did it cost to maintain sanctions against Iraq, something now unnecessary? What effect will Iraqi oil have on world prices? How much money is being returned to the Treasury in the form of taxes paid by American contractors and their employees? Questions like these, and others, not all readily calculable, will determine the balance sheet of costs. Of course, the controversial question of greater safety is the final determinant, since it is the over- riding, but unquantifiable, rationale. However, it should be noted that the safety gotten now is for the future more than the moment, and therefore our children and grandchildren are the primary beneficiaries. |
