As David Walker, former U.S. comptroller general and the author of the fiscally conservative book Comeback America, argues, "The truth is, just because the money relates to defense, homeland security, or another laudable or critical area does not mean that the cost is justified. Given current and projected deficits, we must justify all of our budgets." Most Americans would agree that includes Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, not all Republicans agree. To some, you can't put a price on being the beacon of democracy, and you can't put a limit on our military's involvement in one of the poorest, most unstable nations on Earth. To them, questioning our involvement constitutes a "capital offense."
But others feel you can't be a small-government conservative and a proponent of endless war at the same time. They see a big difference between investing in a strong defense for fighting terrorism and open-ended spending on vague notions of nation-building in the name of democracy. A majority of GOP-ers—and most Americans—have long agreed that fiscal responsibility, a strong defense, and limited government are compatible.
It's a shrinking minority that is allowing unlimited war and more spending to go unquestioned. It's odd that both Obama and neoconservatives should find themselves in that minority.