We can afford it.(Scan)

"This may not be Vietnam, but boy it sure smells like it. And every time I see these bills coming down for the money, it's costing like Vietnam too." So said Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin on the Senate floor recently.

To pay and supply U.S. and coalition troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and then set those countries more firmly on their feet by rebuilding physical facilities, training security forces, and launching economic initiatives, President Bush requested $87 billion in 2004 spending.

That's a lot of money. But contrary to what Senator Harkin says, it's nothing like Vietnam-era costs. During an average year of the Vietnam War, the U.S. military effort consumed around 10 percent of our nation's Gross Domestic Product. And we spent around 14 percent of GDP annually to defend our country during the Korean War. Amidst World War II, defense spending ate up fully 38 percent of our national output (see page 13).

Compare those figures to today's effort for the war on terror. In 2004, total defense spending will amount to just 4 percent of GDP. That doesn't even vaguely resemble Vietnam.

And the truth is, a good chunk of the $87 billion the President requested would be spent even if all our troops were back at their home bases. The 140,000 soldiers in Iraq and the several thousand more in Afghanistan are not going to be demobilized after their work is done overseas. They are going to head back to North Carolina, Kansas, Texas, New York, Georgia, and elsewhere, where they will draw salaries, fire off rounds at training ranges, and put mileage on their vehicles. Sure, they're pulling extra combat pay now, and operating at a higher intensity. But they are also honing themselves into a better fighting force as they bring the war on terror to our enemies in their own backyards.

A further truth is that some of today's military spending is ...