The recent decision of President Obama to employ United States resources to combat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria has dominated the news during the past week.
Advocates and adversaries of the plan have spoken out, arguing on the basis of human involvement and the financial cost.
Early estimates put the price of U.S. involvement against ISIS at about $10 ?billion per year.
Obama said the operation against ISIS would take an estimated three years to complete.
Three years at a rate of $10 billion a year equals $30 billion, the same amount that the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations claims is needed to eradicate hunger worldwide.
I’m not arguing for or against Obama’s ?operation in Iraq; instead, I am encouraging you to put these numbers into ?perspective.
Americans grossly overestimate the amount of federal funds allocated to foreign aid. A 2013 poll found that most Americans believe 28 percent of our nation’s spending goes to foreign aid. In reality the amount is right around 1 percent.
Fighting hunger and decreasing poverty worldwide elevates communities to participate in the global economic market and prevents the spread of radicalism.
Perhaps if we spent more on combating devastating poverty across the globe, we would be faced with fewer radical threats such as ISIS.