I’m not exactly sure what you are getting at.

Do you mean a question could be “What do you feel are the economic impacts of military conflicts around the world? Would you as President feel the need to intervene to stop them and how would that benefit America”?

Another tack might be “President Roosevelt’s administration taught us that a clear way out of an economic depression is through large scale military conflict. To this day many in Japan believe that the US was the aggressor in 1942 forcing them into a war over oil and to end the Great Depression. As President would you follow a policy that promotes military activity as an economic stimulus, or do you pledge not to use our armed forces for domestic economic growth?”

(Now before everyone sends in the hate mail, the Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo takes exactly this line in their museum displays about the war. I was quite taken back by the exhibit which ends with one of the few remaining kamikaze jets and kamikaze submarines. Chilling.

And I also know that there is a murky line between economic power and military/imperial power, but I think that the question would still be revealing about how a candidate thinks about the use of military force and how sophisticated he thinks about defense issues. Remember: All wars are economic… eventually.

As horrific as it my sound, wars are beneficial to the economy of the victor. If you follow an imperialist philosophy this comes from resource acquisition, if you follow a Keynesian economic philosophy it comes from the vast expansion of aggregate demand and massive technology spending associated with military production.

Finally, my question completely disregards the human suffering associated with military conflict, both in the theater of combat and amongst the armed forces so engaged, but since you posed your question as an economic one, I have also skipped that point )

btw: Love your web site