Marty on the War, Cost, and Choices

I appreciate Michael's posting of Martin Marty's recent "Sightings" discussion.  I also appreciate Professor Marty's willingness to acknowledge that "[a]dmittedly, national security is an urgent issue and demands plenty of 'investing,' and there were and are 'values and morals' issues on the Iraqi scene.  But when it comes to all 'investing,' we have to ask which values-and-morals causes must suffer at the expense of those we choose and support with our votes."  Often, arguments to the effect that "the money spent in Iraq could be [better] spent on ____" seem to assume the premise that the money being spent in Iraq is being spent to no moral or beneficial purpose.  As Marty recognizes, though, we're not faced at present with a "waste money on nothing or instead feed the poor" choice, but with a "spend money on security and stability [and, I would argue, on the spreading of democracy and the liberation of the oppressed], or spend more domestically" choice.  And, as I hope Professor Marty would concede, reasonable and faithful people can disagree about this choice.  (It is worth noting, also, that Professor Marty's essay assumes that the money being spent on the present wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would be available for teachers, college scholarships, etc., even if we were not at war.  This is, in my judgment, a mistaken assumption; but for the wars, I suspect the government would be spending less, rather than engaging in heavy deficit spending).

Rick