Hmmm. Well, I think that in a general sense it is unwise for both individuals and societies to practice deficit spending, but there are times when it may be necessary. For instance, most people have to incur debt in order to buy a house. So they get a mortgage. Similarly, when a nation gets into a huge war it may need to mortgage its future to pay for that war...and that's just a question of national survival at that point. (if defeat is seen as unthinkable, which is normally the case)

Wars that are entered into by choice are a different matter from wars that are defensive in nature, and I believe that is Amos's point. For instance, Hitler freely chose to attack Poland, Norway, Denmark, the USSR, Holland, Belgium, the USA, and some other countries during WWII. They did not choose to attack him. Hitler did NOT, however, choose to fight the UK and France in 1939, they declared war on him over Poland. He then responded to that state of war with the UK and France. There's a difference, right?

Bush's war with Iraq was freely chosen by America, not by Iraq. The Iraqis have been the recipients of an unprovoked attack by a much superpower. That puts the USA in a rather less easily defensible light than supporters of this war would prefer, I should think, and in the view of most people in the world it was an unjustified attack based on false propaganda claims. So mortgaging your future on unprovoked aggression is not the same as mortgaging your future on legitimate self-defence, is it?

To go into debt when it is unavoidable is understandable. To do it capriciously is to behave irresponsibly.