My abacus says enough, what's yours say? Bringing common sense to conflict resolution

We have all heard these endless debates as to whether and when enough is enough, whether the "course" has to be stayed or ended, etc.

It occurred to me that the only real factor here is the extent to which a military operation can generate enough positive cash flow in the Military-related industries sufficient to justify acquiescing to a pause in the business at hand of killing people.

Heretofore, the Military-Industrial presence has been what you might call a "seasonal business," not unlike Ski resorts or summer allergies.

Since the end of WWII and subsequent Korean War, we have not had the kind of robust and heart-warming global conflict that would keep business going as usual. Alas, such are the fortunes of peace. The Bosnian and Somali operations had very limited tactical political reasons for their existence, and had precious little to do with our long-range interests. Notorious exceptions are Bosnia and Afganistan, major suppliers of drugs.

In short, we have been sorely conflict-depleted for some time. Such a meager state is intolerable. Nevertheless, to quote the Bard, "Hope springs eternal within the human breast:"

Our entry into the Middle East parallels reasons the Viet conflict in may ways---geopolitical exploration, thinning out of the population of youth (and their capacity to produce more youth and therefore consumers) listening posts, intelligence posts; and with the evolving alliances of Russia, China and even Iran, a chronic, healthy and hardy Campbell soup brew of the above, which would cook smolder and fester for some considerable time.

It is so difficult for the American population to think in these terms, because it is so inherently amoral. Fortunately however, this in turn makes it easier for things to run smoothly.

I wonder if it would be possible to derive an economic formula which could take into consideration all the variables:

Lesee, um, Corporate overhead, military opportunities in a variety of potential conflicts, the limit of tolerance of the conflict on the part of the populous---so as to predict the maximum duration of a conflict that would be tolerable, and finally, the minimal conflict duration required to maintain a compliant (surviving) public while the corresponding Industries are ramped up--a moving average of Required Hostility Time, (RHT,) you might say.

With the passage of the Military Tribunals Act superimposed upon the Patriot Act, it will be possible to extend civilian compliance while simultaneously expanding the prison systems. Even now, this is unfolding in California.

We could even add two other Cabinet posts, as Secretary of the Exterior, as well as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. The possibilities are boundless.

From this perspective, perhaps things are looking up after all. Question is: for whom?