As I was leaving Paris on Tuesday morning, the city was hunkering down preparing for another national strike. Transport workers were going to be expressing their dissatisfaction with adjustments in their pension schemes through making commutes to the city and travel across France very difficult. But it was only the latest in a series of such protests. The country that gave the world the word aplomb responded with plenty of it, some workers staying home, others finding others means of transportation, and one seasoned Parisian explaining to me that "we have to get used to this, there will be many more to come before all this is over."

What is "all this?" He was speaking of French political battles, but he could just as easily be addressing the current wave of coming to grip with fiscal realities that is buffeting Europe, causing protests from Greece to Britain. Indeed, as Europe seeks to address the underlying causes of the crisis that nearly sent world markets into an even deeper tailspin months ago, it is clear that so much belt-tightening needs to be done and so many programs that have been taken for granted will need to be cut, that for all Europe there will indeed be many more strikes and protests to come.

In Britain, which I visited before my stop in Paris, the news was dominated by headlines from the Conservative Party Conference and the backlash to the announcement by Chancellor George Osborne that child benefits for wealthier families would have to be cut back. Notably, and with considerable courage, equanimity, and grace, Prime Minister Cameron did not sidestep the issue and indeed pushed in his keynote address for more resolve to undertake even the painful reforms that would be necessary to restore British fiscal health. "I'm not saying this is going to be easy, as we've seen with child benefit this week. But it's fair that those with broadest shoulders should bear a greater load."

At the core of his deservedly well-received speech was the message that in order to cut a deficit of 155 billion pounds, sacrifices were required, regardless of their political costs. Furthermore, and importantly, he suggested this was a national challenge, not just one for the government, "The point I want to make is this, the state of the nation is not just determined by government and those who run it. It is determined by millions of individual actions, by what each of us do, and what we choose not to do."

In today's Washington Post, Ruth Marcus, has an excellent piece entitled "The True Conservatives: Britain's Realists vs. America's Wishful Thinkers" in which she wishes that she could summon up Christine O'Donnell-like witchcraft to transform American conservatives into British Tories. She makes a powerful point. But she does not go far enough. Because if we are conjuring here, let's transform the Democrats too, please.

Read on

RICHARD BOUHET/AFP/Getty Images

Posted By David Rothkopf

Apparently, next Tuesday President Obama is going to announce his policy on Afghanistan. According to reports, he will proceed with sending an additional thirty-something thousand more troops to that country. A recent analysis put the cost per soldier on the ground at $1 million. (The military disputes this saying it is more like half that.) That means, 30,000 troops is a cost of $30 billion.

On Sunday's Meet the Press, Dianne Feinstein said that $1 billion invested in infrastructure produced 40,000 jobs. That means that if the $30 billion were invested in infrastructure, not only would it enhance American competitiveness -- the quality of lives of Americans and the strength of our economy -- it would also produce 1.2 million jobs. Oh, and of course, it would not be a cost item, it would be an investment item (even though our antiquated government accounting system still does not include a capital budget as it should). Say Feinstein is wrong about her math or the military number about the cost of each soldier is right, it still seems fair to conclude that the price of what we might spend escalating our involvement in Afghanistan would produce if invested in critical U.S. infrastructure as many jobs as the administration claims were created or saved by the stimulus package. And what if that infrastructure made America more energy efficient and less dependent on oil from our enemies in the Middle East?

That's the choice Obama would be making with this troop commitment. In a nation ... or any enterprise ... with limited resources, everything is about asset allocation. And there is absolutely no credible argument that can be made that could conclude that spending $30 billion in Afghanistan is better for America ... or enhances our national security more ... than spending it in the United States.

Today's Washington Post carries a story saying that 34.5 percent of young African American men are unemployed. That number, like all such numbers, almost certainly understates the problem. That is not an economic challenge. That is a failure of our system and a wound to our society that makes anything that terrorists could do to us pale by comparison. It is time we started to understand and address the real threats we face.

MANPREET ROMANA/AFP/Getty Images

David Rothkopf is the CEO and Editor-at-Large of Foreign Policy. His new book, "Power, Inc.: The Epic Rivalry Between Big Business and Government and the Reckoning that Lies Ahead" is due out from Farrar, Straus & Giroux on March 1.

Read More