In fact, the NPP offers a very media-friendly section on its website that determines exactly how much we could be spending on various social entitlements instead. It’s rather simplistic and idealistic, but bears consideration. That $450 billion would pay for nearly 22 million four-year scholarships to public colleges, NPP claims (without explaining how a student could attend four years of university for about $21,000).

To offer an analogy perhaps more appropriate for Worth, if the wealthiest, most successful Americans would have been forced to pay for this war, this country—and our economy—would be vastly different than they are today. If Bill and Warren and Larry and the Waltons had been drafted to pick up the tab, they would now be living in refrigerator boxes. Using the 2006 Forbes 400 list as a guide, the $450 billion price tag would wipe out the entire net worth of the 30 richest Americans, from Bill Gates all the way down to Nike honcho Phil Knight. And because many of these individuals have their wealth locked up in concentrated stock positions, liquidating their assets would decimate their companies’ stock prices, thereby crippling the U.S. economy.

Despite the ever-escalating costs of this war, somehow the conflict in Iraq remains the big, pink elephant at the wealth management cocktail party that everyone steps gingerly around without ever mentioning. In my three-and-a-half years at this magazine, I can’t honestly remember a conversation I’ve had with a financial professional in which that person volunteered an opinion as to the financial impact the Iraq war will have on investors’ portfolios or entrepreneurs’ businesses. In fact, at least one prospective Worth advertiser once included in its contract a prohibition barring periodicals from running its ad anywhere near coverage that mentioned the war.

Certainly the war to date seems to have had little discernible effect—positive or negative—on the U.S. economy. In March 2005, Worth quoted a professor at Harvard Business School speculating on the psychological impact of the war on investment sentiment. "It’s making people hold back and wonder. And they don’t have confidence in the strength of the country," she said, pointing out how worrisome such hesitancy can be because psychology drives the economy. "You’ll see the same business plan or earnings report differently depending on how you think things are going, and whether you’re feeling more optimistic or more risk-averse."

At that time, the Dow was well below 11,000. Twenty-eight months later, with the war continuing to rage, the Dow hit 14,000. So when will the chickens come home to roost? Soon, it would appear. With President Bush’s approval ratings at their nadir, Democratic presidential candidates are exploiting public opinion by calling for higher taxes on prosperous Americans. While fund managers are being threatened with increased taxes on carried interest, John Edwards has proposed raising levies on Americans making more than $200,000 per year to pay for federal healthcare programs.

Hindsight being 20/20, would Bush’s opponents be so bold if not for his decision to risk his political capital by dropping the nation into a $450 billion quagmire? Today that question is little more than rhetorical, because the horse is already out of the barn. Certainly continued growth in the U.S. economy, which would only be bolstered by more stable, democratic markets in the Middle East, could naturally throw off increased tax revenues to help pay the war tab. When Iraq will reach the point of stable democracy is anyone’s guess.

There comes a time when we all must ask how long we will continue to pour our capital into this conflict. Today would be a good day for the most successful Americans, and the financial services industry that caters to them, to start asking.