If you’re already furious about the fact that Washington’s efforts to destabilize the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria have resulted in a five-year conflict that’s cost hundreds of thousands of innocent lives and triggered the worst refugee crisis in European history, prepare yourself, because you’re about to become even more furious.

On Sunday, in an Op-ed for the The Philadelphia Inquirer, Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) proposed a war surtax to pay for the fight against ISIS which is costing US taxpayers some $11 million every 24 hours. Below, find the full piece followed by some commentary.

* * *

"If We Must Fight, We Must Pay", by Chris Coons as originally published in The Philadelphia Inquirer

America is at war with the Islamic State, but we are failing to confront the cost of this war.

Deployments of American special operations forces to Syria and Iraq in recent months have rightly revived calls for Congress to pass a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force against ISIS. A war worth fighting is a war worth debating, authorizing, and funding, so Congress should consider the proper scope and strategy of the mission, vote to authorize that strategy, and find a way to pay for the conflict.

There is little precedent in pre-9/11 American history for charging into war without finding a way to pay for it. From the War of 1812, for which Congress approved new taxes in three consecutive years, to the Gulf War, Congress took steps to pay for every major conflict.

Yet, Congress has failed to offset the cost of the post-9/11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Office of Management and Budget estimated in 2002 that the Iraq war would cost $50 billion to $60 billion. The real cost: $1.64 trillion, plus an additional $715 billion for the war in Afghanistan.

Those totals don't even incorporate the large and steadily growing costs of long-term care for our injured veterans and military replenishment. A 2013 Harvard study that includes these factors suggests these wars will cost as much as $6 trillion.

As we pursue our goal of "degrading and destroying" ISIS, we cannot write another blank check for war. As of Nov. 30, the United States had already spent nearly $5.4 billion since U.S. airstrikes against ISIS began in August 2014. That's $11 million every day.

Paying for the wars we fight is a matter of congressional responsibility and national security. A large national debt weakens our ability to respond to global threats, undermines our fiscal position, and limits our diplomatic flexibility. Congress must not disadvantage future generations because we are too timid and irresponsible to make tough choices. The American people sent my colleagues and me to Washington to make hard decisions - not to avoid them.

When we pay for our wars with a credit card, and when the pain of war is felt only by our troops and their families, it is far too easy for our nation's leaders to send soldiers into harm's way without a national conversation about the merits of our involvement, and far too easy for those conflicts to drag on. A proper national debate of the anti-ISIS conflict will demand that Congress and the American people better understand the human cost of the war, too.

Paying for war is also morally responsible. Though fewer than one percent of Americans served in Iraq and Afghanistan, we should only go to war as a nation. If ISIS is a threat that requires a military response, as I believe it is, as Americans we must ask how we can make sure that our servicemen and -women on the battlefield have everything they need to defeat ISIS.

If we are asking our troops and their families to sacrifice, we all should give something to that effort. One way to offset rising costs while allowing all Americans to contribute is a temporary war surtax that includes an exemption for our troops and their families. In March, I introduced a federal budget amendment that would impose a temporary surtax to pay for our military operations against ISIS. When the Senate reconvenes in 2016, I again plan to explore this option.

In 1961, during his farewell address to the nation, President Dwight Eisenhower said the United States "could choke itself to death piling up military expenditures, just as surely as it can defeat itself by not paying enough for protection."

More than half a century later, Eisenhower's words still ring true. We must be relentless in our military campaign against ISIS. Yet we must also heed his warning and pay for the wars necessary to keep us safe.

We should not declare war today only to declare bankruptcy tomorrow. Paying for the wars we fight is our obligation not only to our service members and their families, but to future generations of Americans whose safety and security depend on it.

* * *

While we certainly agree with the notion that the US can't simply put everything on Uncle Sam's "credit card", and while we'll be the first to throw our support behind sound money and fiscal rectitude (well, unless you mean the type of fiscal rectitude which results in "fauxterity", i.e. rising debt but concomitantly rising unemployment as has unfolded across the EU periphery), Cook seems to be completely oblivious to the fact that he's asking the American people to pay so that the US can continue to arm and fund rebels in Syria.

That is, Cook wants you to pay for the effort to destabilize Assad, and, as those who frequent these pages are no doubt aware, that's tantamount to asking you to pay for the promotion of Sunni extremism in Syria. In short: Cook is actually asking for a pro-extremist surtax on the American people.

Quick, someone call Tulsi Gabbard...