Yes, we should pay for the surge in Afghanistan

A long-overdue debate has finally erupted over how to pay for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Representative David Obey (D-Wisconsin) has proposed a war surtax to pay for the surge now being contemplated in Afghanistan.

He’s drawn support from Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. (View his debate with Republican Senator Lindsey Graham on ABC here.)

President George Bush has been excoriated for launching a war of choice in Iraq, without taking the time to prepare a post-invasion plan.

But Mr. Bush’s other blunder was cutting taxes at the same time that he was ratcheting up a massive global military operation.

It now appears that President Barack Obama has decided to support a similar war policy to Mr. Bush’s, by escalating military operations in Afghanistan.

My hope is that Mr. Obama won’t propose to carry out this war — estimated to cost $1 million per year per soldier — with even more borrowed money.

Put bluntly, Americans should share the sacrifice, through cuts to domestic programs and through increased taxes.

Any other course is irresponsible and dangerously short-sighted.

War is serious business.

If we choose to send our men and women into harm’s way, we should at least be willing to open our wallets to support them, on the battlefield and when they return home.

Without a surtax, my fear is that we will rack up another pile of promises — VA benefits, post-deployment therapy, GI bills for education — that America can’t keep.

Your thoughts? Comment below.