Article in the Washington Post My answer would be yes. The history of every nation in the world has demonstrated that war is one of the worst drains on a national budget. Which is fine, if war is unavoidable. Once we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, war was unavoidable for the US--and as the article mentions, few people protested the institution of a war tax to cover that war. In more recent history, I fully believe that Americans would have supported a 1% tax to fund the pursuit of Bin Laden. (I would have, and I'm as anti-war as they come.) I am very opposed to pre-emptive war, but setting that aside for a minute, let's say that pre-emptive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Libya, are absolutely necessary for national defense. Why not institute the tax instead of borrowing money for them?