“For the cost of a single additional soldier stationed
in Afghanistan for one year, we could build roughly 20 schools
there.” This was the premise of Nicholas Kristof’s New York
Times column on Oct. 28, weighing in on the troop buildup story.
Like everyone else, I’ve heard, and uttered, variations on
this guns vs. butter theme, but for some reason, this particular
version startled me with its elegance. Perhaps it is because the region
offers some stunning real-world examples of how the “guns”
end of the equation not only is usually more expensive with
questionable results, but that increasing troops actually increases the
problem. It’s simple—people do not like being occupied, no
matter who does it or why. We added 40,000 troops to Afghanistan over
the past year and insurgency increased proportionately, democratic
government becoming an ever-more distant fantasy as
“elections” are riddled with corruption and fraud.
Likewise, Kristof notes, the United States has spent $15 billion on
military support for Pakistan, where again political and military
instability increases and insurgency and support for the Taliban are on
the rise. In contrast, Bangladesh (once a part of Pakistan) has
invested heavily in education over the past 30 years, particularly for
women, leading to a “virtuous spiral of development, jobs, lower
birth rates, education and stability.” Partly because of this,
Bangladesh is not a refuge for al-Qaeda and the Taliban the way
Pakistan and Afghanistan continue to be, even after eight years of
intense American-led intervention.
I know that it’s a little like comparing apples to oranges,
but I can’t help thinking that this global issue echoes in our
own neighborhood, as well. We spend over $20,000 per prison
inmate—for roughly $30,000 we could hire a new teacher (to teach
20 kids). It is so well-known as to be cliché that the more
educated a population is, the less inclined to criminality it is
(although this cliché is countered in Freakonomics, where
Steven Leavitt and Stephen Dubner make the case that the only
determining factor in decreased criminality is access to abortion). The
broader point is where do we apply our problem-solving
energies—do we invest in prevention or retaliation?
Once upon a time, “The American Way,” in both domestic
and international arenas, was to invest in education (some might say
propaganda). We believed in our institutions of free press, free
markets, democracy and guaranteed human rights. With successful
programs like the post-WWII Marshall Plan in Germany and Japan, we
earnestly promoted these ideologies abroad, convinced that other
countries would overthrow their dictatorships and corrupt governments
to adopt our civic institutions—and pave the way for more trade
for our corporations. Without going into gory historical detail,
suffice it to say that those ideals seem naïve, even infantile, by
modern standards.
At least to us modern, sophisticated types. There are some out there
who picked up on the American Way, even if we abandoned it long ago.
That would be the Taliban and other Islamic extremists, who provide
free schooling and often free meals for students (boys only, of
course).
Fundamentalists educate, the free world sends troops. What’s
up with that?
For a fraction of the cost of a “surge,” we could invest
in long-term regional stability with a modern version of the Marshall
Plan. For a fraction of the cost of more prisons here in Nevada, we
could restore our own historic pride in educational excellence. These
are truly “conservative” values—as in, conserve and
protect what is best about our institutions and these investments will
pay off mightily in future returns. That’s my idea of
patriotism.