serious q: encryption challenges the authority of government and the power of its leaders. Why would they willingly give up this power, when they can manufacture consent[1] via a perpetual state of war[2] ?
While morally reprehensible, endless "safe" wars are pretty profitable for industry owners if they are run in countries that do not target their valuable industries. Since the tax payer is footing the bill for it all, they're the ones who have to concent to it. Or perhaps not.
Using the invasion of Iraq as an example, there has been many years where public opinion was negative, or at least lukewarm, towards the invasion, though not violently so. Casually reviewing the polling history, this can be observed as early as in 2004. [1] But I think one can safely say that the war hasn't been at the forefront of most people's minds during the last few decades, except for the very beginning. But then, there has been very little mention of the financial cost of the war in the media, if any. And why would there be, as the media also earns a lot of money on these "safe" wars.
The video “Troops Versus Building --- an Iraq War tale” by soldier grunt Blacktail should give you a pretty hands-on idea of the financial cost of the war, however. [2]
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=manufacturing+consent [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=perpetual+war