As to the US - foreign war is one of a very few areas in which th ececutive branch have a relatively free hand without much interefrence from the chatterbox known as the congress. So the war creasts numerous policy opportunities for the executive branch that woul dbe far more constrained in the domestic arens, much more tightly controlled by the congress. So while Obama did not start the war, his administration may have some windfall benefits from it, without facing much pressure to end it. What is more, push to end thewear would undoubtedly face oppsotion from the lements that benefit from it, and would impose addtional cost on the administration. So in th eend, continuing the war does not entail much political cost to the administration, but has some potential benefits, while ending it has no political benefits, but entails political cost. So the choice to continue is obvious.
Wojtek
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
> Were it not for the war in Afghanistan the budget problem would be
> _much_ less overwhelming. Obama & the circles he answers to must think
> that war is _really_ important, and I can't see at all clearly where
> that importance lies. And considering how cooperative (at least
> passively) both Russia and China are, there mus be some agreement on its
> importance among the 'big' powers.
>
> Why is it given such high priority?
>
> Carrol
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>