One does not have to be an economist to see that wars are costly and demand a lot of sacrifice in financial terms from the people. The economy invariably slows down or even totally collapses as what happened in most countries during WW II.

For instance, in the aftermath of WW II the economies of European countries were so devastated that the US ,through the Marshall Plan, had to come in in order to hasten the economic recovery of Europe.

Secretary of State George C. Marshall called on America to "do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health in the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace."

The U.S. Congress approved Marshall's long-sighted proposal in 1948, and by 1952 the United States had channeled some $13 billion in economic aid and technical assistance to 16 European countries. During the program's four years, participating countries saw their aggregate gross national product rise more than 30 percent and industrial production increase by 40 percent over prewar levels.

(Note: The foregoing was pasted from the US INFO.STATE.GOV, The Marshall Plan, Rebuilding Europe)

Notwithstanding claims of prosperity in the mainland which remained untouched by the carnage, the US economy was not spared the deleterious effect of the conflict:

Wartime Prosperity? A Reassessment of the U.S. Economy in the 1940s
March 1, 1992
Robert Higgs
The Journal of Economic History

ABSTRACT: Relying on standard measures of macroeconomic performance, historians and economists believe that “war prosperity” prevailed in the United States during World War II. This belief is ill-founded, because it does not recognize that the United States had a command economy during the war. From 1942 to 1946 some macroeconomic performance measures are statistically inaccurate; others are conceptually inappropriate. A better grounded interpretation is that during the war the economy was a huge arsenal in which the well-being of consumers deteriorated. After the war genuine prosperity returned for the first time since 1929.

“War prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings.”—Ludwig von Mises1

(Note: Pasted from The Independent Institute.)

Still another example was the effect of war on the economy during the American revolution which can be gleaned from the following:

Timeline of the American Revolution

1783

The Army Complains. When a delegation of army officers complained to Congress about their unpaid salaries and pensions, Congress had no quick solution. An anonymous letter urged officers to unite and attempt one last appeal to Congress. If its attempt was ignored, the army was prepared to revolt against Congress. Washington, addressing the army in person at its headquarters in Newburgh, New York, convinced them to be patient, and not to dishonor themselves after their glorious victory. Visibly moved, the officers adopted resolutions to present to Congress, and pledged not to threaten violence or rebellion.

The American Army Disbands. In June, most of Washington's army disbanded and headed for home just before the British evacuated New York. A small force remained until all the British had departed.

Congress Is Threatened. A group of soldiers from Pennsylvania marched on Congress, demanding their pay. Armed and angry, they surrounded Independence Hall. The members of Congress eventually were allowed to leave the building; they fled to Princeton, New Jersey.

(Pasted from The American Revolution -- Home.)

The above examples serve to point out two facts:

1. The reality that the economy of a country at war inevitably deteriorates even though the battles themselves take place somewhere else.

2. The truth that the economy of a country at war is even more devastated when the fighting takes place in its homeland.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are no exceptions; they are a drag on the US economy though after the 9/11 devastating attacks the fighting and destruction shifted to these two countries. The excerpts below give us an idea of the extent of this drag:

The United States has poured more than $500 billion into Iraq, mostly for military operations. But that figure is just a small piece of the much larger bill that taxpayers will pay in the future.Because the money for the war is being borrowed, interest payments could add another $615 billion. A heavily depleted military will have to be rebuilt at a cost of $280 billion. Disability benefits and health care for Iraq war veterans, many of them severely injured, could add another half-trillion dollars over their lifetime.

Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard University public finance Professor Laura Bilmes, both of whom served in the Clinton administration, have included those calculations in a new study of the war's long-term costs. Their estimate of the war's price tag: $3 trillion.

"We are a rich country, and we can, in some sense, afford it. It's not going to bankrupt us," said Stiglitz, a Columbia University professor, who published the findings in a new book, "The Three Trillion Dollar War."But Stiglitz said the war has contributed to a weakening economy - partly by feeding the instability that has sent oil prices to record highs - and has saddled the country with debts that will make it harder to respond to a recession, fix Social Security or meet other future needs.

The government's own figures show the war's costs are rising. The Congressional Research Service estimates that $526 billion has been spent in Iraq since 2003. The Congressional Budget Office calculates that spending on Iraq and Afghanistan combined will cost $1.2 trillion to $1.7 trillion by 2017.

The price tag in Iraq now is more than double the cost of the Korean War and a third more expensive than the Vietnam War, which lasted 12 years.

Stiglitz and Bilmes calculate that it will be at least 10 times as costly as the 1991 Gulf War and twice the cost of World War I.

Only World War II was more expensive. That four-year war - in which 16 million U.S. troops were deployed on two fronts, fighting against Germany and Japan - cost about $5 trillion in inflation-adjusted dollars.

(Note: Pasted from www.sfgate.com)

The American Revolution which was entirely fought on American soil resulted in an economy that could not even afford to pay the Army officers and men; but this fact did not diminish in any way the respect and admiration of the infant nation for Gen. George Washington as Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army. On the contrary, the people rewarded him by unanimously electing him as their first President.

George Washington’s greatness lies primarily in his successful prosecution of the war for independence. His focus, his overriding concern was to win the war against the British forces, drive them back to England, and secure the independence of the American nation.

For the US the Second World War began with a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in Hawaii.

This conflict gave rise to a command economy, “a huge arsenal in which the well-being of consumers deteriorated”, and cost the American people about $5 trillion in inflation adjusted dollars; but this fact did not detract from the popularity of Pres. Roosevelt. A grateful nation was happy to support his administration’s war effort all the way. And public reaction to his death was intense:

Mark Renovitch, an archivist at the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum in Hyde Park, said the attachment to Roosevelt was particularly intense. "Most people felt connected to him, through the radio for the most part," said Renovitch. "And people could see an end in sight to the war, and he had brought them through that."

People broke down in tears when the news was announced that Roosevelt had died on April 12, 1945.

"I was in Washington as a soldier at the time when Roosevelt died," recalled Henry Graff of Scarsdale, an Army officer assigned to interpreting Japanese military transmissions in 1945. "I can still remember people crying on the streets. And for millions of American soldiers, they had no recollection of any other president ... it was like daddy himself had died."

(From Taphophilia (dot) Com... )

FDR’s greatness primarily lies in his brilliant performance as Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces which played an indispensable role in the Allies’ victory against the Axis Powers led by Germany. His overriding concern was to prevent the conflict from spilling over the US mainland. This was the reason why he opted to fight in two theaters: the European and the Pacific.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began with a surprise attack on the American symbols of power right in the heart of mainland USA. This was the worst attack launched on the mainland; its ugly devastation was unparralelled in US history. But what makes this sneak attack terrifying and unforgettable is the fact that it was aimed at civilians rather than a military component or installation like Pearl Harbor!

Pres. Bush responded to this dastardly attack with an invasion of Afghanistan, followed by an incursion into Iraq.

Cost of the conflict has so far exceeded $500 billion dollars. This war on terror“has contributed to a weakening economy - partly by feeding the instability that has sent oil prices to record highs - and has saddled the country with debts that will make it harder to respond to a recession, fix Social Security or meet other future needs.”

Unfortunately for Pres. Bush the state of the economy has primarily become the basis of the American people in rating his performance as Commander-in-Chief. In a sad departure from the tradition of focusing on how to win a war the country is involved in, today’s Americans appear to be self-centered and materialistic. Progress, modernity, and technological advances have somehow conspired to dilute their sense of values. They seem to lack the virtue of patience, to be hurrying all the time to achieve the “American dream”. They have apparently forgotten the nature of the conflict their country is engaged in:

1. The adversaries have no “face”; they prefer to lurk in the shadows, striking at a time and place of their own choosing;

2. The adversaries do not distinguish between civilians and combatants; they refuse to be constrained by rules of combat;

3. They are not reluctant to employ suicide bombings – the scariest and deadliest tactic ever used in the history of warfare;

4. They have total commitment to their cause; they have no fear of death; they are most willing to offer their lives for the advancement of that cause.

Until now Americans are in a state of denial; they refuse to admit that they are in this war for the long haul, that this is the toughest, deadliest war the American nation has ever been involved in!

The American people are very fortunate to have a Commander-in-Chief who fully understood the deadly significance of this war right after 9/11! Like Pres. Roosevelt, Pres. Bush’s first thought was how to effectively shield the American nation from further carnage. The images of those dead women, children, and other civilians must have haunted him day and night. Hence, his decision to bring the war into the adversaries’ home ground without much delay.

To be sure, the decision to invade Iraq was at first controversial, but now fresh evidence confirms the connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Read:

The Mother of All Connections

From the July 18, 2005 issue: A special report on the new evidence of collaboration between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda.

by Stephen F. Hayes & Thomas Joscelyn 07/18/2005, Volume 010, Issue 41

(From the Weekly Standard)

Moreover, the presence of Al Qaeda in Iraq today is an undeniable fact and should put to rest criticisms that the Iraq war is a mistake. Read:

1. For Immediate Release Office of the Press SecretaryJuly 24, 2007

Fact Sheet: Al Qaeda in Iraq

President Bush Discusses War on Terror in South Carolina
(From The White House)

2. US military: No. 2 al-Qaida in Iraq leader killed

By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer – Wed Oct 15, 7:39 pm ET

Pres. Bush’s greatness lies in his firmness and ability as Commander-in-Chief to correctly assess present and future threats to the US posed by global terrorism. He saw early on that his best option was preemptive strikes against Afghanistan and Iraq.

These counterattacks paved the way for a regime change in Afghanistan as well as in Iraq. Since then the adversaries have been less active and on the run most of the time. And more importantly, the presence of US troops in both countries has prevented further attacks on the US mainland. This is Pres. Bush’s greatest achievement which sadly remains unappreciated by the majority of Americans.

Of course the American people have rewarded Pres. Bush with a second term, but now that this final term is coming to an end, it is disheartening to note that their appreciation for what he has done is continuously waning due to the mistaken belief that a robust economy is more important than the safety of the nation.

Commander-in-Chief George Washington’s fellow Americans were realistic; they preferred security and independence to prosperity.

Pres. Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s fellow Americans were equally realistic; they knew that prosperity should take a back seat when a country is at war; security should come first.

Pres. George W. Bush’s fellow Americans seem to be unrealistic; they want to enjoy not only security but also prosperity at a time when the country is waging a war that is tougher and deadlier than any other war it has engaged in -- a war that also promises to rage for as long as its root causes remain unresolved!

Hopefully, history will rectify this unfair appraisal of George W. Bush’s merit as President and Commander-in-Chief.

Till then, this writer wishes to announce to all and sundry that in his book George Washington, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and George W. Bush stand on the same pedestal of greatness!