What about the War?

Ever since the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centers, barring the recent economic downturn, perhaps the most contentious and debatable issue in the USA has been its military presence on foreign soil. Not that it is something alien to this superpower but then the current military presence has several dimensions which currently do, and will continue to in the future, affect greatly, not only the political arrangements in the world but much more significantly, those in the United States of America.


When George W. Bush announced that USA would be invading Afghanistan, the move was essential to pacify the millions of people filled with angst. But today, 11 years after 9/11, that announcement has molded itself into actions of much more profound implications.


Firstly, the USA invading Afghanistan was understandable, but then its invasion of Iraq without a United Nations mandate in its favor smelled foul, for it pointed out the big brother policy of the USA in all its obviousness. The billions of Dollars spent in these wars and the thousands of lives lost may well be a crucial factor in deciding who will be taking the Presidential Oath in January 2013. 
Today, Osama Bin Laden is dead and perhaps what was the last thread of emotional attachment to this war on terror has been lost. More importantly, it has been replaced with an overwhelming desire to feed one’s family, to fulfill one’s needs, a desire which was curtailed to a great degree by the recent economic depression.


Today, when the Chinese economy dictates the fiscal policies of the world, the United States and its President need to sit up and decide what is more important, spending billions in waging wars to ensure its supremacy or to use the same billions to shore up its economy.


Now, Obama has spelt out the plan to bring back troops from Afghanistan and use that money on nation building, on strengthening the economy.


“Over the last decade, we have spent a trillion dollars on war, at a time of rising debt and hard economic times. It is time to focus on nation-building here at home.” , said Obama, in his speech from the White House East Room, on 22nd June 2011.


Mitt Romney on the other hand has stated that cost will not be a factor in the effort to ensure that USA remains free of any potential military or nuclear threats in the future.


“There will be some who argue it’s too expensive now, we’ve got to bring the troops home right now, or others will say, politically we need to make one decision or another … You don’t make a decision about our involvement in a conflict based on dollars and cents alone...”
- 14 June 2011, New York Times


The condition of the US economy does not make it likely that Romney’s hardlining strategy will be very popular among the popular mass still reeling under the adverse effects of the recession.


Coming to Iran, however, both have said unequivocally that all possible options which might be required to subdue Iran must be kept at hand including military actions. Thus Iran should not be a major factor but the image of Romney that has built up of being someone who is much more likely than Obama to jump into military action might hamper his chances to a great extent.


Finally, it will come down to the question between long term economic growth and stability or the steps to ensure that no other country can potentially ever have a nuclear program in the world. Barack Obama seems to be making the right noises and playing on a much more practical note than the Bush-like opinions of Romney.


And only time shall tell what the American public wants.


Arya Chakrabarty