"After 13 minutes on why the killing of Osama bin Laden means no real substantive change in the plan for three and a half more years of American war in Afghanistan, after those 13 minutes of hearing from the president -- mostly what I have is a list of questions," Rachel said. Including:
- Will there be an announcement that combat operations in Afghanistan has ended, like we saw in Iraq?
- If so, how soon might that happen?
- When the president says the goal now is that extremists should not be able to launch attacks from Afghanistan on us or on our allies, does he include Pakistan on the list the allies?
- Does the president care that the public is uniformly in favor of getting U.S. troops out, and fast? And if he doesn't, why doesn't he?
Leave a Comment:
I like the fact that he's following through with his promise while also listening to the voices of experience from his generals. We still have to honor the investment in lives and money we've made there by trying to maintain the progress made and not let it slip away by a withdrawal that is too quick.
I read that Rachel attributed 26,000 troops to Obama that were scheduled for deployment when Bush left office and he asked Obama to honor that deployment -- Rachel, please check this out to see if it's true. Meanwhile, it really is time to leave. The only ones who want us to stay are the ones getting rich off of us, mostly the Taliban and the government. We left once before when we should have stayed, turned our backs as the Tailban saw their chance and flooded the country -- then we could have done something about it, now we can't. Time to go and keep intact our record of inability to win a war since Grenada. We will survive that, but we cannot survive this money bleed with our current economy.
Donna why was I deleted????
I flagged you as being offensive and evidently several others did too.
This kind of fits here. It is a real headline:
"Richard Engel Says U.S. Should End ‘Global War on Terrorism’ on ‘The Tonight Show’"
Who knew?
I don't get it. You say, spend good money after bad, and waste more lives in the illusion we can forcefully install an alien culture among a people with ancient traditions.
Why Don was it because I referred to Mad Cow?
The President has adopted the flawed Pentagon view of containment. We are on track for another Vietnam. It's not going to end with this president and it's not going to end pretty.
I could given him 50 ways to leave Afghanistan but he doesn't want to hear them. He's the Decider.
But like most Americans, my sons aren't going to be drafted so I don't care how many other Americans' sons die or are wounded. We truly have become a divided nation when nobody cares who must die so others can save face?
he's trying to have it both ways, as usual. a token drawdown of forces, to appease those of us who believe we should get out.. and not tick off those who believe we should stay - we should end these misguided wars and close about 75% of the military bases we have spread out across the globe.
I think it has been clearly demonstrated that we cannot "win" the "War on Terror" with a purely or even a largely military approach, so how can Obama, or anyone else for that matter justify keeping such a huge military presence in Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else for that matter? If we are trying to keep our country safe from more attacks, how can the focus not then shift to security on the domestic front? What, exactly are we doing now? I don't get it. Both Bush and Obama have insisted that we need to keep troops there but have also said that there is still a large threat to the US coming from that region. After over 10 years, how is this not an admission that what were are doing over there is not working? Bah! Arrrggghhh!!!!!
I dunno... Call me the 'Obama-bot,' but I kinda liked the idea of a broad and generalized 13 minute speech. Whenever I watch him on the teevee, I put myself in the shoes of someone plopped down on their couch in their double-wide taking all of this in. Although I would personally like some more detail, I don't think a quick prime-time address is the moment to go into it. I think the details will emerge soon. He knows full-well that the way to get our country back on track is to get out of these wars and focus on our own nation-building.
The guest from the NYT last night (on w Rachel and Lawrence right after POTUS's speech) made an excellent point that quick draw-down would have a drastic effect on our station right next to Pakistan. We need to stick around a bit longer for this reason alone.
I have to agree with you, Miss Nelda. In my previous life as an executive/manager, I never, ever had the luxury of 13 minutes at 30k feet. All the worker bees out there want their personal, specific issues decided right this minute and the implications of generalized policy interpreted immediately and set in stone for all time. I do understand that; nobody likes to be wrong or fail or look stupid when Murphy's law inevitably comes into play. President Bush did make light of being the decider but really, it is the job of the President of the United States to set the course, which President Obama has done. He says: here is what we're going to do, and when we're going to do it. He has made the decision based on all the information available to him. Now it's up to the Cabinet Officers, the generals and the soldiers on the ground to execute. Go to it!
Ending the the war(s) is going to be key in fixing our country economically. That means the country won't even begin to heal until 2014.
My beef with the pres is that he has ALWAYS listened far more to his critics than to the people on his side and who he is supposed to be representing. He wants to hold onto what we gained in Afghanistan? The phrase "dog in the manger" comes to mind. If the CIA had been throwing their support behind the secular fighters against Russia, Afghanistan would have been a democracy a long time ago...as it had been on track to be before the Russo/Afghan War. Is it too late for that now? Who knows?
What I DO know is that the time we spend there does nothing to forestall the resentment that creates generational enemies. The best we can do is pull out and watch our backs as we leave. Just what are we gaining by slow walking the exit in return for the blood and treasure that we are spilling doing it?
I'm sorry Carolina, I'm not satisfied.
To quote Walt Kelly's Pogo "We have met the enemy and he is us". As I stated in a previous post we cannot continue throwing money hand over fist in an attempt to save foreign entities from themselves; it is time for other nations to "put on their BIG KID PANTS" and start standing up for themselves. Further, it is time for the U.S. to start resolving the growing issues at home, in other words to begin "practicing what we have been preaching" worldwide.
If we treated our economy as our primary form of national security
1) We would be able to better afford these little adventures.
2) We would be better able to help secure economies abroad. The Marshall Plan in post WW2 Germany forestalled the rise of another Hitler. With that as a guiding foreign policy principle...as opposed to the propping up of banana republic strongmen, dictators and mullahs as has been the historical preference...not only would this help spread tranquility and prosperity, but it would help foster Green Economies as well.
Evidently just because something has been proven to work is no excuse to actually implement it.
I don't disagree with you, but easy on the double-wide reference, willya? If President Obama actually cut loose and said exactly what was on his mind, or verbalized the thought process that went into any decision he's made in front of the general public, a significant portion would start breathing through their mouths. What's more appalling is that we seem to have voluntary stupidity running rampant through the populace. The most ridiculous things are spewing from otherwise intelligent and well educated citizens these days.
Thank you Miss Jennifer. DonQ, I appreciate your anti-war stance. I share it but don't forget that the needless, illegal war in Iraq is/was not the same thing as the war in Afghanistan. President Obama got our troops out of Iraq, as he promised to do during the election campaign. He is now refocusing the effort of the "war on terror" to eliminate the costly and stupid nation-building, democracy-spreading, war-lord propping, cold war mind-effing, Iran-containing oil-wealth sucking distractions of the previous administration. Maybe, just maybe, we'll be able to achieve a stable Middle East and some breathing room to regroup strategically.
But, now really...even our favorite pundit, Rachel, is guilty of wanting to know every detail right now. Of course she does! That's her job! It behooves the rest of us to let the President and his government do theirs for a bit, doesn't it?
Maybe the whole War on Terror thing is being pursued the wrong way. I had read an article in Penthouse years ago (uh...yeah, just for the the articles) that drew parallels between terrorist organizations and pirates centuries ago. Both operate out of Havens but a rarely if ever tied to a single nation, though they may operate with the support of given nations. It may be that armies are the wrong tools to use against terrorists as it is an invitation to war against the host nation. Some may say "fine, bring it on"...someone actually DID say that. And maybe it would be fine for Afghanistan. But much less than desirable with nuclear armed Pakistan.
The solution for pirates was to give captains letters of marque, giving them the right to claim a bounty on any pirates they encounter and defeat. Similarly, this would actually be an appropriate use of extrajudicial freelance intelligence groups. I would say mercenaries...but Xe/Blackwater are beyond the pale in my opinion. Place bounties on terrorist groups and their leaders, have freelance specialists gain the intell and have them surgically removed. Leave the armies at home. Occupying forces create their own resistance in foreign countries. Engage the host countries diplomatically, offer them enough to make it worth their while to turn against their own "guests." The bond of hospitality had everything to do with why Afghanistan was unwilling to turn over bin Laden in the first place. Certainly offer them enough to smooth over any hard feelings for having crossed their border to stomp the offending party like a cockroach. These are jobs for sniper rifles, not armies and not nukes.
Maybe we will see more operations of this type under Panetta.
It is time the people, the voting people of American hold all elected officals accountable. If the majority want for instance us out of this war. Then it should happen. Elected officals are public servants employed by the people who voted them in office. And if you had a employee in the private sector who was not doing as he or she was told, shortly they would not be a employee anymore. WAKE up America, these folks work for us, not the other way around. If they don't work for us then we are not a democratic country anymore. And as a American are you willing to accept that?? Folks should ask themself's that!!
I personally think every elected person who doesn't vote the way the people who voted him/her into office wants. Should be recalled or at least not voted back into office again. All the way to the top.
I also took note that the President slipped in a one-sentence comment that in essence claimed that US can now rest easy knowing that the end of military responsibilities in Afghanistan are in sight.
It reminded me, eerily, of similar previous comments made by General William Westmoreland: "As of the end of 1967, I am absolutely certain that whereas in 1965 the enemy was winning, today he is certainly losing…. the end begins to come into view."
Of course, it took 8 more years to reach that end, during which time many US servicepeople were put at grave risk (being asked, among other things, to expand the war into Laos and Cambodia even while the number of troops declined). While I am always hesitant to make one war a metaphor for another, the comments alone make me wonder if people ever learn from past mistakes.
In California we added "no work, no pay" at the last election.
Sacramento refused to do their jobs and issue a balanced budget on time so, as of now and until they do, they don't get paid. Also, if and when they do pass a budget they don't get any lost wages back!
Are they all pissed!!!
I agree and called the White House yesterday. I will not vote for him again, another war president. Out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya!
It's amazing how many lefties that profess to be so upset The Messiah, Clinton, Gore, Trumpka, Fat Eddie, HIS sheeple etc. I suppose you all will vote republican. LMAO
I'll vote "none of the above" if I have to. I can't NOT vote because that would be seen as apathy vs. discontent.
Go ahead.
Vote for "none of the above" and watch what happens. I hope your investments are in order, and your home is already sold.
That way you'll be able to afford to leave this sh!thole when it finishes circling the bowl.
Alan,
Well actually, I got my house in order before I retired, isn't that what you are supposed to do? However I will vote and it won't be for anyone that, fundamentally want's to change my country.
What "fundamental changes" would you be referring to? Wouldn't be the systematic destruction of our country's middle class, would it?
The fact is, this country is changing whether anyone likes it or not.
Your right about it's changing, the middle class, if you listen to the idiots on here the the middle class is destructing it's self. You really need to get out more and away from your union. The governor's NY,NJ FL,MI, OH,WI will help you with your union addition.
Every country has it's enemies, it is something you must learn to live with. Why does America feel the need to destroy any and all enemies at any cost? Where does it end? And doesn't President Obama feel that the longer the presence of American troops in foreign lands, the stronger the hatred grows from it's enemies?
Take out the troops, send in builders, engineers, teachers, law-makers.
This statement is non-sensical. You want to take out the one thing that would protect these builders, engineers, teachers, and law makers? You want to remove the military and put in people who otherwise cannot defend or protect themselves or what they will be doing?
This is the problem with this country. People are so short sighted they only want troops out of Afghanistan, or wherever the hell we are fighting. what are the repercussions of that?
yeah, we can pull out of Libya, then the president of that country can go ahead and massacre all of his own citizens....again. Great Idea! But this country, and these people exist to serve you, don't they, so they should come back here, and we should get you a better paying job, so you can have another credit card and add a third car to your family of 2. The selfishness of this country makes me sick.
You make a lot of bad assumptions about me and I have no idea why.
If America wants to make themselves the police of the world, then you need a few more willing soldiers, some better equipment and a LOT more money, money you can ill afford.
I wouldn't argue against USA deciding they can nation build here or there, that they can stop dictatorships... but how do they decide to get involved? They didn't get involved in Darfur, Rwanda or Cambodia. They left it almost too late in Bosnia.
It's not soldiers that should be policing the world. it is ourselves. We see attrocities happen around the world and our immediate thought is send the troops in... which they're usually not. And when they are sent, it makes things worse and creates more enemies. What is our resposibility? WE say send in the troops and let them get on with it. Whilst we sit comfortable and perhaps watch it on our TVs.
And let's not frget the companies that are making millions whilst your soldiers are dying.
They are all willing soldiers. Every one of them signed up for it.
While I agree we shouldn't be responsible from a "police" standpoint, we should be responsible from a human standpoint. I believe that if someone is unjustly murdering people, everyone has a responsibility to do something, but they should do it based on the facts. I guess the whole war thing just pisses me off, but it's not a black and white area, it is a very muddy grey. I don't know, I'm just sick of people saying 'we should just pull everyone out' or 'we should have never gone to war' because that's an easy thing to say from the couch, when they feel nothing for the loss of human life.
My last paragraph was a collective 'you' which should have been an 'us', apologies for that one.
I am a new viewer and I am delighted to discover such an intelligent, balanced, good humored and civil program. I hope President Obama answers all of Rachel Maddow's questions soon. I do have a few of my own, however. I know the focus of the program is US politics, but I remember wishing someone would intervene in Afghanistan on behalf of Afghan girls and women, several years before September 2001. I would be interested in seeing Ms. Maddow interview some Afghan women and in getting her take on that angle.
Dear Rachel,
Could you be a little more clear and upfront on your views of the war and President Obamas speech? I just still do not understand your viewpoint of being either for the war, or against the war?? And I did watch the Ed Schutz show last night!!
I am glad that you posted these questions on the blog though, because it does clarify it more.
Now nothing against Arabs, really, I like them. It is just that with all the $$ Billions that were are spending there-- so far what $400 Billion in Alphganistan alone?? I honestly don't really care about the Arab nations needs-- let Saudi Arabia help them.
Your guest, Professor Nasr thinks that the USA should keep sending $$$ to Alphganistan because Alphganistan does not have the money to fight the Taliban?? Your Pakistani guest the other night gives us a sob story on how Pakistan needs money for yes, Humitarian needs???
What about us??? Before you know it, Medicaid will be shut down too, and it will not be a happy picture--- starving Americans ??
But as you know--- Love Ya---- but I aint no bleeding heart liberal for (them)
Diana B
Rachel was incoherent. I suggest going on CNN's website and listening to Farid Zacharria's take. He did some actual analysis.
Rachel needs to step it up because what was put on tv last night by all three anchors was pathetic.
Just why are we staying now, other than to line the pockets of military contractors? Who is this serving? Why are we THERE? For the natural gas pipeline? For the Lithium? If it's for resources, there are better ways to get them.
No country who has tried to do anything there has ever won, we should just pitch in the towel! This is becoming Obama's Vietnam... this will lose him the election in 2012 unless he makes a real effort to get us out of there. It's DONE. OVER. IT'S TIME TO LEAVE. There is absolutely no good reason to continue spending $2 billion a month on this when our OWN country needs funds to rebuild from so many disasters and needs to rebuild it's infrastructure.
My county just got denied FEMA funding because even though we can't rebuild without federal help some places are more desperate than ours, like Joplin (which is bad, for sure), but we also have existing disaster areas that could get worse next year unless we get some funding. We had a terrible rockslide that could turn into a mudslide, that could destroy our home, next rain season, unless we get it cleaned up. FEMA turned Jerry Brown down for the funding. I'm not exaggerating about the severity... Our county got hit in numerous places and doesn't have the money to clean up this $2.1 million mess on our road. It's not something we, the residents can do either, nor should we even touch it as it's too unstable.
That was our alpaca corral that it slammed into. And now the county had to make a road through our PRIVATE property so that 33 other families can have access to get out of there. And next rain season that could all turn into mud and destroy my home. It was the rain this last year that caused this disaster.
So I want that $2 billion a month to go to rebuilding of our infrastructure and to FEMA, and to fight off climate change. So that folks like us don't have to be turned down. So that Americans who meet catastrophe don't have to live in an unstable situation like this while money goes to a war on the opposite side of the world that makes absolutely no difference to us except that it drains our resources when we have a real problem. Priorities, people! Afghanistan is not a priority, it's a fixation by the Obama administration and is alienating him from the rest of the country.
So ya, I don't want the war to go on, I want the money to come home. And our troops.
Along the same lines, when I heard the President say the gov't. has spent $1T on the war in Afghanistan, I thought to myself, "I'm sure glad that Medicare and Social Security are fully funded, that our country is debt-free and not owned by China, and the USA is proudly leading the green energy revolution, serving as a great example to the world."
It's time for CHANGE... Where have I heard that before?
Diana, the Afghans are not Arabs. They are Afghans.
Democrats Explicitly Call Out GOP For Sabotaging The Economic Recovery
They've made it explicit. Democrats are accusing Republicans of trying to sabotage the recovery -- or at least stall it -- by blocking all short-term measures to boost the economy, even ones they previously supported.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/democrats-explicitly-call-out-gop-for-sabotaging-the-economic-recovery.php
and I will say another thing-- I heard somewhere where the Commander in Chief such as Pres Obama does make the decisions--- bull pucky!!-- with the Army Commanders and war loving McCain nudging him 24/7 that is!!!
Maybe I should buy stock in the War Contracter business???? and--- why do I think for some reason, that when the troops come home, they will just be sent to Pakistan or Yemen??
Diana B
In my mind, we have a Moral obligation to stay in Afghanistan and at least try to fix what we have broken. And we broke it back when we helped them defeat the USSR. We could have helped them return to democracy (or something like it) at that time. And it would have been relatively cheap. But instead we ran. We allowed the Taliban to take hold, that allowed the Al-Quida and OBL to take refuge and attack our country (9/11). All these years later who knows what will happen if we run out again. What new enemy have we created or allowed to be created, that will return to our shores looking for payback. We have to give them the chance to set-up their own government. Maybe not a Democracy as we know it. But a government of their own. What ever that my be.
It's good to remember that although we signed our Declaration of Independence in 1776. It took another ten years plus to adopt our Constitution.
Ummm ... Rachel? Put down the coffee and listen more carefully. Bringing the 33,000 "surge" troops out by Summer 2012 is a change, as the original plan had them all remaining through the end of 2012. That means the killing of UBL (along with the other successes of our troops and our civilians in Afghanistan) means that we can move the return date for those soldiers ahead a full six months. Now, at an average of 30 days each month, for six months and 33,000 troops - is a plan change of about six million troop-days to the plus.
If this was an road construction project, we would be celebrating and handing our bonus checks for a job well done.
Only if it was a road construction project for the private sector, public employees would get a pat on the back for doing their job and sent home.
bonus checks are something that don't exist for people who do their job for a higher purpose, and for the betterment of a civilization.
Our slide
youtube.com/watch?v=Nw0aO1zVfkc
I agree that this could be a new Cold War and another Vietnam with the same flawed logic but didn't we just see a "new Berlin Wall" moment in Egypt and across the Middle East? Didn't democracy and liberalism do what terrorism failed to do all thos years - topple corrupt dictatorships? It seems that most of the people in the ME understand that terrorism is ineffective and fails to produce change, and that democracy and liberalism are what delivers power into the hands of the people. So will America understand that the era of terrorism as a tool of change is over as well and draw down the funding of anti-terror efforts as we did in the nineties Cold War spending? Or will hotter heads prevail and insist that terrorism is just as big a threat today as it was a decade ago? The answer will come in the next five years, not the next five months. I hope that the reality of the failure of terrrorism will be apparent to Americans as it is to people in the ME.
sometimes, "fixing" things just make them worse, leave Afghanistan to the Afghans. We've messed it up enough.
Rachael, when you step in a pile of crap and then you leave it for someone else to pick up and clean....it takes a while. I am very upset that Bush got us into this mess, and a big mess it is. However, now that it has been started and we have stirred up the entire area and destabilized it, it will not be a quick fix. I too want the troops home and quickly. But don't think that that act will not cause more chaos in an already very unstable part of the worldly. I think that an orderly process to withdraw is a must. We will never be able to stop the corruption and mind set of that region. However, the good that our troops have done in such a corrupt system is a a feat, "second to none". A planned withdrawl will hopefully keep the area there less likely to escalate quickly with all their inborn hostilities and save some lives. But withdraw we must. We shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Rachel's questions. My answers.
Just more classic Obama. SSDD. If Americans want a change, we need to make one.
(And no, I'm not suggesting voting for the Republicans.)
Being in Afghanistan is indeed difficult, especially with the people being conditioned and at a mindset of their own beliefs. Which you will not be able to change unless you stayed there until at least 2 or 3 generations have passed on and you have instilled an educational system and a new set of beliefs. These people are based on a feudal system which has lasted for over probably a 1,000 years. Plus they hate the idea that we are in their country trying to tell them what to do and add in that corrupt drug lord Karsai that Bush put in power even irritates the situation even more. And if Karsai puts in his replacement crony or fellow drug lord that isn't going to improve anything either. So President Obama you say you want some sort of stable government there before you withdraw fully, well that is not going to happen with the current situation there and no matter how long you stay or bankrupt America trying to do the right thing. The people who do have their mindset religious beliefs are still going to cause trouble, especially with that drug lord in power.
But I also have some questions that should be answered and especially when you speak of getting justice from these terrorists, because I do believe the American people should get justice from all the crony terrorists that were involved in the 911 attack -
Why did Bush put Karsai in power? We do have these governmental investigation groups that do investigate people. You cannot tell me that Bush wasn't aware of karsai's connection to drug lords.
Are we going to continue to support Karsai with our soldiers so Karsai can continue to get people addicted to heroine and amass huge wealth from his corrupt actions? Are we setting a good example there that we are helping people to become drug addicts? Is this part of stimulating our economy and getting people working again?
Why did Bush give the information of where Osama Bin Ladin was? Did Bush have an agreement with the Bin Ladin family to save their son?
Why did Bush do nothing to stop the 911 attack, especially when governmental officials were even pounding on the table screaming we were going to be attacked?
Why wasn't Bush and Chenney brought before the right committee to answer the right hardcore questions? And what is their justification for their actions? Did Bush just cause a war so he would be re-elected again, after all he did state the first chance he got he would start a war? Will Bush and/or Chenney be punished for war crimes? And for being traitors to America? Will these other fellow conspirators be brought to justice? Also, can you make sure the right committee is selected that it doesn’t turn into a cover up?
Why was former Senators like Russ Feingold smeared and discredited so they wouldn't be re-elected? After all, there is Senators in their states that have been in office longer than just 12 years. Is it because former Senator Russ Feingold called for the impeachment of Bush?
President Obama are you feeling guilty and trying to be compassionate, because you know how corrupt the Bush administration was in their actions about the 911 attacks that you feel you have to make something right about it? Will you give the American People true justice over the 911 attacks and bring all the conspirators to justice?
President Obama are you just trying to stay in Afghanistan so some greedy wealthy individuals can get their hands on the rich minerals like copper and lithium? If so how many more lives must be lost on both sides to accomplish this task?
Rachel I enjoyed your comments and they reminded me of the old journalist we used to have who gave unbiased reporting. I am disgusted. I don't want my vote lowered to the level of voting for the lesser of the evils, but, that's where it is now. vote republican and no middle class future for my grand kids. vote democrat and just maybe slow the process of no middle class. politicians have always as a whole been for what benefits them but, today they could care less what the middle class wants or needs. the status quo of the elite is like Rome of the past. who do I vote for now? do I vote independent? what good will that do on the national level? Obama is not in touch with his base and I fear just as with Bush a hidden agenda that will not benefit the middle class will appear on the second term. who do I vote for now?
American history is truly amazing; it can be revised and rewritten to suit the current situation!
It took 150 years for the media and the 'experts' to change the reason for the war between the states.
Now, the media tells us Americans believe the only reason the US government went to war was to kill OBL, and now he's dead stop the war.
It took 10 years to find OBL and a team of perhaps 30 people to assassinate him.
So what were 110,000 troops and buckets of money being used for in those 10 years?
Garamendi, in his interview made some good points but he got one thing wrong.
He said we should bring American money back to this country. It never left!
It has just been put in different pockets right here
When Michelle ben Ali Obama comes back from her all expenses paid junket and she and the President sit down to write out the bills who do you think the checks are made out to? It is certainly not the troops, their dependents nor anyone else doing the work.
They after all have already been paid (for) by the defense budget.
If the object, after 9/11, was to kill OBL it would have been achieved by a small force of people and, relatively, little money. (Oh! isn't it how it WAS done?)
War is good for the military industrial complex and their hirelings. So the longer the war the better and keep coming up with better and more obfuscation.
Morton, you seem to be confused about history or historical writing. What you refer to as history being "revised and rewritten" (as though that's a bad thing) is in fact called revisionism. However, unlike the current use (which is generally used by conservatives to suggest that liberals recraft History for their own purposes) it has traditionally meant that the writing of History changes with the times. That said, it took much less than 150 years to see changes in how the history of the Civil War was written.
As well, you seem to have appropriated President Eisenhower's use of the phrase "military industrial complex." He warned of its existence, but the reason why the economy did comparatively well in the 1950s is that he made sure to pay for the massive emphasis on military growth and technological improvement (to the tune of tax rates of 90% for the highest levels of income). But I don't think a long war is ideal if a government is unwilling to find sources of revenue that pay for it.