The "Good" War in Afghanistan is very expensive?

The three trillion dollar war Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes - Times Online: "The only war in our history which cost more was the Second World War, when 16.3 million U.S. troops fought in a campaign lasting four years, at a total cost (in 2007 dollars, after adjusting for inflation) of about $5 trillion (that's $5 million million)."

The Iraq war turned out to very, very costly. I still believe that Saddam Hussein, a monster, had to be stopped. Ahmadi-nejad is not of the same caliber. So far he does not outright attack another country even if I understand that the Israelis are worried due to his distasteful speeches. Now lately he called the holocaust a myth, again. I believe Ahmadi-nejad is working patiently on swinging the public international opinion to his favor with these speeches, hoping that anti-semitism will continue to grow in for example Europe. He is working very hard on legitimizing the placement of Israel in Palestine.

Since I don't believe that the Afghanistan effort is worth its while anymore it makes me into a person that think the "good" war is the bad war and vice versa.

So why do I make this post? Well, as I said earlier the bad reputation that comes from being involved in a war is costing more indirectly that the cost in lives and money. That can be understood from on-the-street-talk in a periferal country like Sweden. There are Swedes that like Russia more than the US because of this. Therefore, it is a very expensive undertaking that goes on in Afghanistan right now. What Stiglitz and Bilmes point out is that the war cost much more than it is advertised at. I suggest that the effect on the reputation makes it even more expensive. So expensive that wars are not really possible anymore. Only policiary actions not causing civilian causalities would work.