Worth Considering: When protesters argued against an Iraq war by saying it would increase the deficit, I've contented myself that any increase would be small compared to GDP (and compared to the 80s). But here's another way to look at it, courtesy of National Review:

The latest antiwar argument to be floated is the price tag. The Pentagon has been scuffling publicly over estimates ranging from $60 billion to $95 billion. War always runs up debt. The relevant counter-question is, What is the cost of inaction? New York City asked for $20 billion of federal aid after losing the World Trade Center. What would New York, or Washington, or Los Angeles, need after a dirty-bomb blast, courtesy of Saddam and al Qaeda?

To use political word games against the politicians themselves, let's just call this war "an investment in the future."