"The Hidden Costs of the Iraq War"

New estimates for the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars:

'Hidden Costs' Double Price Of Two Wars, Democrats Say, by Josh White, Washington Post: The economic costs ... of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so far total approximately $1.5 trillion, according to a new study by congressional Democrats that estimates the conflicts' "hidden costs"-- including higher oil prices, the expense of treating wounded veterans and interest payments on the money borrowed to pay for the wars. That amount is nearly double the $804 billion the White House has spent or requested ... through 2008... [The] report, titled "The Hidden Costs of the Iraq War," estimates that the wars ... have thus far cost the average U.S. family of four more than $20,000...

Comments

[elvis]

Isn't it worth it to be free of that terrible Saddam?
We were so afraid of him. Now we are free of that fear!
Now that he's gone, we don't have a care in the world.
Wait a minute..... what's that on the horizon?
Could it be? Why yes. It looks like another "evil empire (R)" about to acquire nuclear options!

Alert the Pentagon! More importantly, alert the weapons contractors! Get Blackwater on the line! Tell the Fed to put the printing presses into hyper-mode.

What? Bridges are collapsing? Tell those people we are a free market! They ride those bridges at their own risk!
What? Millions of kids are without health insurance? They don't need it! They have Youth.
What? Millions of citizens are without health insurance? Will the demon of socialized medicine (a.k.a. "comminizim") never retreat? There are "evil empires(R)" who want to acquire nuclear weapons to explode over our American dream!

We are threatened abroad by "evil empires (R)" and at home by tax fanatics who want to steal from the haves to disperse among the "young bucks" These are truly harbringers of end times.
-----------------
"Evil Empire" is a registered trademark of the Republican Party

[elvis]

Expensive war, huge debts and energy prices poised for take-off. Can stagflation be very far behind? This isn't like Vietnam. This is probably worse.

The debts might never get paid, and energy prices may well never come back into lower-earth orbit.

Keep your eyes open for future presidents wearing cardigans and telling fellow Americans, "this is the moral equivalent of war". Hopefully he will still be among us and hopefully, the Democratic party will be smart enough to ask him to give a repeat performance that evening.

[ilsm]

The recent 'wars' paint new 'make up' on the militray industrial complex "pig" and it gets ever more money.

They are not so hidden costs.

But tell them the "pig" is still ugly and you are "for the terrists".

Keeping the warfare state machine going through false advertizing is a cost of these 'wars'.

Elvis points out the things lost while they put 'make up' on the "pig".

Worse, it sustains a mountainous, inflexible military inventory where any chance of streamlining or moving money to address real threats is fought by the interests in keeping their ridge on the mountain funded and green.

Flexibility is the key to military success and when you are not flexible enough to find new ways of war you soon end in the dust bin of human history.

But there is good money along the way.

To say nothing of losing the 4th and 5th Amendments, privacy and becoming a nation with Gulags that tortures.

[elvis]

The recent articles about Reagan's racism is well reflected here.
We can afford a war with Muslims who aspire to rise above their class (by wishing for nukes).
The war channels money to the right types (mainly white types).

But we can't afford any more "entitlements" for our own citizens. Wink-wink, nudge, nudge. We know who benefits from those entitlements--welfare mothers in Cadillacs and young bucks.

The list of better things that could have been done with that money is so long that future historians will have an endless supply of possible term paper topics. The opposite list-worse ideas, is so short that I can only think of one: deliver nuclear weapons and instruction manuals directly into the hands of terrorists.

[elvis]

Worse, it sustains a mountainous, inflexible military inventory where any chance of streamlining or moving money to address real threats is fought by the interests in keeping their ridge on the mountain funded and green.

yes and there are real threats out there. Unfortunately that don't have funny names or dark-colored skin.

[ilsm]

The real threats will not respond to F-22's or carrier battle groups.

[bakho]

$2.5 Trillion if Iraq turns into another Korea:

http://www.senate.gov/~budget/democratic/statements/2007/stmt_cbokoreastudypressconftrans092007.pdf

Under the radar:
Bipartisan task force on budget:

http://www.senate.gov/~budget/democratic/documents/2007/bipartisantaskforceposthearingrelb103107.pdf

[save_the_rustbelt]

I sat beside an armor refurbishment expert on a plane flight a month ago. Much of the armor was built in the next county over so I know a little about the processes.

His company is rotating personnel through Baghdad on two year terms (already scheduled for four more years).

His company expects to be busy for a decade (at least)fixing and upgrading busted armor,plus regular upgrades of electronics and etc.

Not to mention many Army Guard TOEs are down to 40% or so on equipment.

[baileyman]

The number has to be much higher, figuring the malinvestment. I'm thinking of all the lost yield on the waste, not counting the destructive consequences of actually using the military assets we invested in.

We could have been investing in infrastructure and other social assets with immediate, long duration, positive yield to us all. Instead our military asset investment program must be generating a large negative yield. Sure, it transfers cash to some who otherwise wouldn't have it, and they spend it, and it multiplies, but that's not counting the pure waste of the malinvestment. Properly accounted, the multiplier on positive yielding infrastructure and social assets must be fantastically larger.

Calculating these things is above my head, though.

[anne]

There is an encouraging aspect to the repeated emphasis on the material cost of war and occupation, an emphasis that was on the costlessness of war and occupation for so sadly long. Joseph Stiglitz must especially be noted in lending confidence and prestige to those few scholars bold enough to make clear what the squandering of resources would mean.

[Don]

One of the costs rarely enunciated is the crash of the dollar. I know, I know...some economists think that a weak dollar is good, and represents balance of trade issues, etc. Bunk. When a fiat currency precipitously loses value internationally, it is a very democratic world-wide referendum on the government that is printing the currency. This US government has lost way more than a trillion plus dollars in international prestige and power by its feckless prosecution of its ill-advised military adventures. Find some way out of this quagmire, and only then will there be any hope of salvaging the value of the paper that represents the value of the government that prints it, the trade imbalances be damned.

[Patricia Shannon]

[The] report, titled "The Hidden Costs of the Iraq War," estimates that the wars ... have thus far cost the average U.S. family of four more than $20,000

And interest in the future.

[bakho]

Why does the Headline have the qualifier "Democrats say"? Are the facts disputed?

[calmo]

From the article bakho,Brian Hart, a spokesman for Sam Brownback (Kan.), the committee's senior Republican senator, said, "The Democrats didn't bother to run this report by any of their Republican JEC colleagues or staff."...so much for the Republican part of the Joint committee that cannot even bring itself to speak directly to WaPo.
On another note, projected costs are estimates we hope that are careful and thorough: reports that constitute facts (that we can examine and discover what happened and how) but about those estimates...not facts about future events, yes?

[hari]

Elvis - thanks for your cogent and clear thoughts!

My own opinion is simply GWB came to WH with a "racist" or balck and white image of the outside world - a world he hardly cared to learn/know except during a short holiday in China when Bush Sr. was US Ambassador - and if you analyse his policy-making decisions after 9/11, caught in that postcard image is his abject ingorance and, of course, the global political tutor, Condi!

Historians, including economic historians, will have a grand time focusing on how he devastated US moral standing globally within such a short time span, and empitied the Treasury of Clinton's surplus.

There's was an Agenda, in the works, and it'll be revealed inevitably but postumously, I'm afraid.

[Brooks]

If one believes our war in Iraq would be bad policy even if it were free, then even spending $1 is bad. Of course, spending trillions is much worse, but that's only a matter of degree (just how bad) rather than an assessment on whether or not it is worth it (benefits exceed costs, both broadly-defined).

If, on the other hand, one believes that the Iraq war, if free (zero financial cost), WOULD be good policy, then the question of whether or not it is worth it becomes a real question.

I think the classic paradigm of "guns vs. butter" is faulty. More precisely, I think "national security" (and related spending and other costs, financial and otherwise) should be viewed as merely PART of two broader objectives: physical security and economic security.

Consider physical security. A potential terrorist attack threatens the physical security of Americans. But so does inadequate healthcare, or fewer cops on the street, etc. (In fact, years ago here in Manhattan when cops started searching bags at subway entrances -- and with a policy under which anyone not wanting to be searched could just walk away, making the cost-effectiveness of the policy even more dubious -- I remember thinking that more muggings and murders could probably be prevented if those cops were back on the street instead). A terrorist attack is but one threat to our physical security (and even more broadly, our physical well-being), not something categorically different from say, inadequate healthcare leading to preventable infant mortality.

Same concept with economic security. A breach of "national security" (terrorism, some nation impeding our oil supply, disruption of the Internet, etc.) would harm us economically, but obviously so would foregone spending and efforts in other areas.

So, while my framework involves more complex trade-offs and is, therefore, probably more difficult to apply, I think it makes more sense. I realize, of course, that many people apply this framework intuitively to some extent, but I think we should try to apply it more rigourously and explicitly in both our thinking and our discourse.

[Barry]

Except how does the Iraq war make us more secure? How would it, even if it had gone far better?

[Brooks]

Barry,

While I'm not arguing one way or the other, clearly it would not be completely unreasonable for someone to think there were POSSIBLE ways in which the Iraq war could have made us more secure if it had gone better. If someone believed, for example, that Saddam was close to having a nuclear weapon that he would give to a terrorist to blow up some American city. Now, before everyone hyperventilates and jumps down my throat, I'm NOT saying that such an assumption would have been valid, ok? Moreover, my point is broader than just the Iraq war. My point is just that decisions on going to war and other expenditures of money, lives, etc., for the sake of "national security" should be viewed as part of the broader set of choices we have to make regarding physical and economic security. So, for example, spending $100 Billion to prevent a terrorist attack that would kill 50 people should be weighed against spending that $100 on healthcare to save 100,000 babies from preventable infant mortality. They are both threats to physical security our decisions on allocation of resources and sacrifices we make should be made in that context. So unless you believe that war or even military spending can never have any benefit in terms of physical or economic security, let's not get bogged down in the specifics of the Iraq war, at least as far as the argument I've made.

[James Killus]

I have nothing to add to the pure poetry that is elvis.

[anne]

"If someone believed, for example, that Saddam was close to having a nuclear weapon that he would give to a terrorist to blow up some American city."

What we need to do is use analogies to make sure we continue to cultivate falseness because falseness must be cultivated. The point is actually to cultivate fear along with falseness but pretend to be doing no such thing.

Let us think carefully whether we can come up with a more fearsome and false analogy, just for the sake of teaching.

[anne]

If someone believed, for example, in the tooth fairy, then someone believing in the tooth fairy might go about collecting teeth to leave for the fairy. My point though is that teeth are not toes. Say what?

[Brooks]

anne,

Please drop the suspicion and accusations. I shouldn't have to say this, and I went out of my way to point out that I was not saying the assumptions of my hypothetical were were valid, but if it will calm you down: Saddam had no WMDs. Saddam had no substantial or operational connections to al Qaeda or any other terrorists who threatened the U.S.

I hope that helps.

[anne]

There are qualitative differences in the analogies and the differences count. There is a reason the Administration and abettors repeatedly used the most fearsome imagery to project an America so threatened that any physical or psychological or moral or material cost was irrelevant. "Your money or your life." This is a Clint Eastwood, "make my day" joke.

All that is important is to understand that Iraq was no threat to America. Suggesting otherwise makes for impossible argument. We were not about to invade Iraq for the sake of democracy.

[ken melvin]

All of these make an attack on Iran reasonable because surely if ever valid, they are more so now. Giuliani for President. Joe Lieberman for VP. America's never wrong.

[Brooks]

anne,

I'll leave aside the stuff you've been saying and just ask you this:

1) Do you believe that no reasonable person could possibly have believed that going to war in Iraq could POSSIBLY provide a security benefit of any sort?

2) Do you believe NO war under any circumstances can possibly provide any security benefit of any sort?

3) Do you believe that NO spending on the military (even in peacetime) can possibly provide any security benefit of any sort?

These are not rhetorical questions. I'm just trying to get a better sense of your views on something more relevant to this thread and to my point here than your unwarranted criticism of my analogy.

[Brooks]

anne,
I meant to say "my hypothetical", not "my analogy".

[Brooks]

Barry,

To round out my answer to your question above by addressing the situation and our choices TODAY, it is not completely implausible that a complete withdrawal from Iraq ASAP would cause a net decrease in our physical and/or economic security (vs. some alternative policy). There are several unknowns with enormous implications. Would it be more likely that full-scale civil war would erupt? Would it be more likely that Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and/or Turkey would invade? Would the price of oil skyrocket (even further)? Would it make it less likely that participants in conflicts elsewhere in the world today and in the future would be willing to side with us if we appear to be abandoning those who did so in Iraq?

Now, let me be clear to everyone (and this includes you, anne). I am NOT making an argument for or against withdrawing completely ASAP. I am merely pointing out that it's not crazy to think that doing so could adversely affect our physical and/or economic security. Whether such a view is valid or not, it is not obviously one or the other beyond a reasonable doubt.

[baileyman]

(I hope Anne will reply that there is always a positive non-zero probability of benefit, however small, but that the expected benefit for any reasonable person doing the calculation would be massively negative.)

[Brooks]

baileyman,

I'm not sure which of those questions you were referring to. Do you believe that NO Defense spending (i.e., having a military) can increase our physical or economic security?

[anne]

Notice the malicious way of arguing, which I understood from the beginning but thought to ignore thinking maliciousness was simply foolish. The point of war-mongers is to find at all costs a reason for war and to drive all others to agree to war.

Would you be willing to save the tooth fairy, if the tooth fairy were beset by magic pumkins? Or, would you allow the pumpkins to have their way with the poor defenseless virginal fairy? Me, I say the heck with the fairy having always enjoyed pumpkins.

[anne]

I well understand, but suppose the tooth fairy were your older sister? What then? What of those pumpkins? Me, I say "Go, Pumkins." OMG! Woman revishing pumpkins on the loose, looking for my sister (not yours). OMG!

So, we find war-mongers mongering away as they must.

[Brooks]

anne,

So I'm a malicious war-monger, eh? Your attacks are really uncalled for. I will probably stop trying to engage you in rational discussion, because it does not seem possible. But perhaps out of courtesy to the others you'll stop taking up space with such wildly inappropriate and wholly unjustified diatribe.

[anne]

"If someone believed, for example, that Saddam was close to having a nuclear weapon that he would give to a terrorist to blow up some American city."

If someone believed, for example, in tooth fairies, that would make someone a believer in tooth fairies. Nutty and dangerous as a fruitcake, but a believer in tooth fairies nonetheless.

[NLS]

Brooks,

Why are you so scared of terrorists? Does that mean they won?

[anne]

There are some people who care that an insanely needless and inevitably tragic war and occupation have cost hundreds of thousands of lives and millions of lost homes and untold physically and psychologically wounded and will have a material cost of more than $2 trillion. There are some who care not a fig. I get it.

[Patricia Shannon]

When I took a relationships course years ago, the instructor mentioned that one of the things that causes problems between couples is when one of them likes to argue, and the other one doesn't. I think it is safe to assume that extends to any relationship. It opened my eyes. Some people like to argue.
And some people are into power, or are mean, and like to get other people upset.
And some people feel that any disagreement is a personal attack. (I admit, I have had a problem in that area, which has improved with age, because I worked at changing this irrational response).
If you don't enjoy arguing, I suggest you skip or skim over the bloviators that do.

[Brooks]

Barry,

A bit more to answer your comment "Except how does the Iraq war make us more secure? How would it, even if it had gone far better?"

Another rationale for the war subscribed to by some was the neocon belief that we could establish democracy in Iraq as a model for the Arab world (and Iran), causing it to spread throughout the region, which (due to greater freedom and prosperity) would, the theory went, make folks there less likely to want to blow us up.

One can say that such an expectation, as either a likelihood or even as a substantial possibility, was unwise (and while it's certainly easier to do so in hindsight -- or at least hindsight from the vantage point of today vis a vis events so far -- , but I do not think it was obviously completely nutso (Tom Friedman, not someone I regard as crazy, believed in that strategy).

The point I'm just trying to make is NOT that any of those expectations or assessments of potential outcomes and assignment of probabilities were wise, only that it's not beyond reason for someone to have viewed it that way, since your question seemed to imply that, even if all had gone well, there's no way that our physical or economic security could have been improved.

(ok, anne, there's your cue. Take what I've said and misconstrue it and say that I'm heartless and evil and that I'm endorsing the war and that I love war in general and care nothing about human suffering.)

[Brooks]

Patricia,

Re: "some people feel that any disagreement is a personal attack"

I don't know if that was meant to refer to me, but if so, I hope you're not implying that my viewing anne's calling me a "malicious" "war-monger" as a personal attack is evidence that I see personal attacks in mere disagreement.

[baileyman]

I've spoken of the yield on public asset investments, as if that should be enough to illustrate the foolishness of our US investments in war assets. (As an aside, I note that GWB torpedoed almost every balance sheet he's ever had any responsibility for--why we should expect any different with the world's largest balance sheet in his hands...)

But there's a net worth argument, too. In a time when a people is underinvesting in their physical infrastructure, for instance, like bridges, ask any civil engineer, it must be true that the yield on these uninvested projects is higher than market rate, else it wouldn't be underinvesting. Which is to say, there's a pure gain in net worth to make by doing these projects.

I think it goes further than this. But that much at least I'll sign on to.

As to getting more secure with less defense spending, that's a no-brainer. Suppose you're spending EVERYTHING on defense. A reduction would certainly improve some aspect of security, like, food security, health security, education security, leisure security, etc., what else?

If I weren't so unconcerned with the threats from poor foreign brown people and so concerned with the threats from white (largely) male dominators, I'd have more leisure, and more security I'm sure.

[Brooks]

baileyman,

Re: "As to getting more secure with less defense spending, that's a no-brainer. Suppose you're spending EVERYTHING on defense. A reduction would certainly improve some aspect of security, like, food security, health security, education security, leisure security, etc., what else?"

I assume you realize that that's a straw man rather than the question I asked. And nothing else in your comment answered my question. Do you wish to answer the question I actually asked?

[mdm]

Indeed, NLS, they have won. All one needs for evidence is to compare our society before and after this whole Iraq fiasco. W. may think we're doing fine but he is also bat-shit crazy... though he was educated at Andover, Yale, and Harvard... only public school for me... >

[Movie Guy]

The WaPo article, 'Hidden Costs' Double Price Of Two Wars, Democrats Say, doesn't begin to describe the most glaring so-called "hidden costs" of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other conflicts since 1990.

At the top of my personal list, the most damaging hidden costs of the Iraq war are (1) taken as a whole, the worst performing members of Congress to serve during my lifetime, regardless of party, (2) sadly, the most gutless and self-absorbed generations of American youth attending colleges and universities, perhaps ever - as evidenced by their collective lack of forceful public opposition to the Iraq war and all other interventions and conflict participation not justified in accordance with the mandates of the U.S. Constitution, and (3) the repeated, non-effectual chatter offered in personal and group communications, most noticeable in mass communication markets such as the web logs (blogs).

If there was ever a time for the citizens of the United States of America to stand up and be counted, this may have been it.

There isn't anything hidden about the lack of forceful public protests and boycotts throughout the USA, including the halls of Congress, every week if not every day since 2003. But the related national costs of such inactions may be hidden, as we have yet to see the final bill of the stupidity of (1), (2), and (3) stated above.

Regards,

Movie Guy

PS: As for the financial costs of the Iraq war, no one on this thread bothered to mention the third and fourth paragraphs from the end of the article by Josh White, WaPo. But that's another matter, entirely, as are the financial costs. That's the least of our national problems at this point. Just look where we're headed as a nation...

[James Killus]

Let me say that I have no problem whatsoever with any young person who chooses to keep his/her head down and not to engage in "forceful public opposition" to a war that was initially supported by those who had much more opportunity to learn the lessons of war and who chose to learn the wrong lessons.

Evil governments rule through terror, through secrecy and through lies. When a government spends its resources trying to scare its citizens, keeping its own operations in secret, and telling blatant and obvious falsehoods, it is not unreasonable for people to fear retribution for stepping out of line.

I have no quarrel with any of the Vietnam generation who went to Canada, either. The north is looking mighty attractive again, and were I younger, I might be giving it serious thought.

[NLS]

Look at Movie Guy... blogging. Not tipping cars... but, blogging.

[baileyman]

Brooks asked: "Do you believe that NO Defense spending (i.e., having a military) can increase our physical or economic security?"

I misread. I thought I recalled you stated this in terms of no reduction.

It's such an absurd question I am supposed to say "Of course not". But I think it's fair to consider the question.

Were my little town in Massachusetts an independent state, it would have to consider where its outside threats were. I guess there are some. It would have to consider whether it should fund a military to contain those threats. Now, I think I know enough about my neighbors to know that they might, if thrown into this position, fund a military. But the local cost of it, and the pervasive peace I think would convince them otherwise. There would, after all, be many neighboring towns that would not fund their own military. I think eventually my particular town would disband its military.

I invite you to compose this argument nationwide. Very few towns, left to themselves, would choose a military. You need to ask then why the vastly larger entity of the USA should. Surely its threats are relatively smaller than the towns themselves. Else it would be worthwhile disbanding the USA.

I suppose you may think a military intrinsically brings only peace and no threats. A fair reading of history I think indicates that having a military invites its use.

You may think that our threat against someone else reduces the threat to us, but not I.

[anne]

"Another rationale for the war subscribed to by some was the neocon belief that we could establish democracy in Iraq as a model for the Arab world (and Iran), causing it to spread throughout the region, which (due to greater freedom and prosperity) would, the theory went, make folks there less likely to want to blow us up."

This is definitive war-mongering and definitive immorality and definitively insane. But, what do hundreds of thousands of dead and countless wounded and millions homeless and trillions squandered count when we have happy immoral insane war-mongers spreading democracy through the Arab (and Iran) world.

[anne]

"Another rationale for the war subscribed to by some was the neocon belief that we could establish democracy in Iraq as a model for the Arab world (and Iran)...."

This from the stream of rationales that show us war and occupation at the cost of trillions is cheap at twice the price, while Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are too expensive at any price. What after all is the health of a needy child worth when we could rather destroy Fallujah?

Another rationale and another and another, war war war, happy for the Arab world (and Iran). But, I am not nor have I ever been nor will I be for war.

Cut Medicaid, now!

[Brooks]

baileyman,

Re: "It's such an absurd question I am supposed to say "Of course not". But I think it's fair to consider the question."

It's not "an absurd question". It's an extreme, just to try to either determine or at least to get a sense of the bounds of your position (whether it is pure or a matter of degree, and if the latter, how far you would take it). Asking that type of question (regarding an extreme) is a common and useful tool of Socratic dialogue and other philisophical discussion. In fact, you had such a question in your prior comment (re: if we were spending ALL of our money on Defense), which would have been fine if it hadn't been different from the question at hand (and by the way, I agree with your answer to your question).

As for the balance of your answer, before responding, can I get confirmation that your answer to my question, which was "Do you believe that NO Defense spending (i.e., having a military) can increase our physical or economic security?" is "Yes, that's what I believe"? That seems to be your implication when you conclude with "You may think that our threat against someone else reduces the threat to us, but not I", but adding an explicit "yes" (if that's what you're saying) would be helpful and appreciated.

Were my little town in Massachusetts an independent state, it would have to consider where its outside threats were. I guess there are some. It would have to consider whether it should fund a military to contain those threats. Now, I think I know enough about my neighbors to know that they might, if thrown into this position, fund a military. But the local cost of it, and the pervasive peace I think would convince them otherwise. There would, after all, be many neighboring towns that would not fund their own military. I think eventually my particular town would disband its military.

I invite you to compose this argument nationwide. Very few towns, left to themselves, would choose a military. You need to ask then why the vastly larger entity of the USA should. Surely its threats are relatively smaller than the towns themselves. Else it would be worthwhile disbanding the USA.

I suppose you may think a military intrinsically brings only peace and no threats. A fair reading of history I think indicates that having a military invites its use.

You may think that our threat against someone else reduces the threat to us, but not I.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/opinion/14friedman.html

November 14, 2007

Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda
THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

President Bush squandered a historic opportunity to put America on a radically different energy course after 9/11....

[anne]

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F30A13F83B540C778CDDAF0894DB404482

June 4, 2003

Because We Could
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

The failure of the Bush team to produce any weapons of mass destruction (W.M.D.'s) in Iraq is becoming a big, big story. But is it the real story we should be concerned with? No. It was the wrong issue before the war, and it's the wrong issue now.

Why? Because there were actually four reasons for this war: the real reason, the right reason, the moral reason and the stated reason.

The ''real reason'' for this war, which was never stated, was that after 9/11 America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world. Afghanistan wasn't enough. Because a terrorism bubble had built up over there -- a bubble that posed a real threat to the open societies of the West and needed to be punctured. This terrorism bubble said that plowing airplanes into the World Trade Center was O.K., having Muslim preachers say it was O.K. was O.K., having state-run newspapers call people who did such things ''martyrs'' was O.K. and allowing Muslim charities to raise money for such ''martyrs'' was O.K. Not only was all this seen as O.K., there was a feeling among radical Muslims that suicide bombing would level the balance of power between the Arab world and the West, because we had gone soft and their activists were ready to die.

The only way to puncture that bubble was for American soldiers, men and women, to go into the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, house to house, and make clear that we are ready to kill, and to die, to prevent our open society from being undermined by this terrorism bubble. Smashing Saudi Arabia or Syria would have been fine. But we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was right in the heart of that world. And don't believe the nonsense that this had no effect. Every neighboring government -- and 98 percent of terrorism is about what governments let happen -- got the message. If you talk to U.S. soldiers in Iraq they will tell you this is what the war was about.

The ''right reason'' for this war was the need to partner with Iraqis, post-Saddam, to build a progressive Arab regime. Because the real weapons of mass destruction that threaten us were never Saddam's missiles. The real weapons that threaten us are the growing number of angry, humiliated young Arabs and Muslims, who are produced by failed or failing Arab states -- young people who hate America more than they love life. Helping to build a decent Iraq as a model for others and solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are the necessary steps for defusing the ideas of mass destruction, which are what really threaten us.

The ''moral reason'' for the war was that Saddam's regime was an engine of mass destruction and genocide that had killed thousands of his own people, and neighbors, and needed to be stopped.

But because the Bush team never dared to spell out the real reason for the war, and (wrongly) felt that it could never win public or world support for the right reasons and the moral reasons, it opted for the ''stated reason'': the notion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that posed an immediate threat to America....

[anne]

So, then, we have crazy Tom Friedman now and then. Now the energy-monger, then the war-monger. Always crazy as crazy can be.

[Brooks]

baileyman,
Sorry about my massive typo. I pasted most of your comment into mine and forgot to delete it.

[anne]

Brooks:

"Were my little town in Massachusetts an independent state, it would have to consider where its outside threats were. I guess there are some. It would have to consider whether it should fund a military to contain those threats. Now, I think I know enough about my neighbors to know that they might, if thrown into this position, fund a military. But the local cost of it, and the pervasive peace I think would convince them otherwise. There would, after all, be many neighboring towns that would not fund their own military. I think eventually my particular town would disband its military."

This is a clever and interesting argument which makes me think of the European union.

[Brooks]

anne,
Give any credit to baileyman. As noted above, I pasted his comment into mine (for reference as I wrote my response to it) and forgot to delete it.

[anne]

Ah, sorry, sorry, that was the clever interesting arugment of Baileyman.

[Oupoot]

Anne, I assume you are a researcher and thus comfortable with the advantage of hindsight. Indeed, the purpose of research is to obtain knowledge and insight of the past, present and likely future so we can apply it in the future. Your comments are thus valuable in trying to avoid in future the same mistakes that were made in the case of Iraq, such as the majority "believing" there were WMD, or that it poses a threat to US security, or that its people will embrace US style democracy, etc. However, your comments loose value in the case of trying to get out of Iraq. Brooks’ comments gain value in analysing the various options open to the US and its allies in Iraq, i.e. what is in the best interests of the US (and Iraq). I see three scenarios:

* stay put for the medium to long term,
* partial/phased withdrawal over medium to long term, or
* complete withdrawal in the short term

The specific areas of / criteria used in the analysis that Brooks suggests are:

• physical security
• economic security

Do you have other specific criteria you think should be added: Social development, Economic development, what else? I would suggest make a distinction between short term, medium term and long term impacts for both the US, Iraq and “Other affected countries”.

All the options available to the US and Iraq have both short and long term benefits and costs. In many cases, it may be opposite for short and long term. For example, complete US withdrawal may plunge Iraq into civil war in the short term, but may as well be resolved quickly and enable Iraq to recover more quickly. It may also bolster US security over the medium to long term, though it may affect short term economic security through higher oil prices. For Iraq and its neighbours it may mean higher refugees and humanitarian support needed for people fleeing the violence, but in the longer term, these costs may differ from one option to another. Then again, all this may not happen. A short term withdrawal may reduce future terrorist activity against the US originating from Iraq, while staying put may increase it. Again, it may not. Ideal will be to give these options probabilities of occurring, cost them, as well as cost the likely mitigating actions that would be needed to reduce the impact of these, and summarise it all.

I am certainly no expert on Iraq. It would be interesting from an economic point of view, which of these options are the best option to choose. I believe the costs estimates of this report (and in others) give a good indication of likely costs in future for the various options. And more particularly, identify and quantify the opportunity costs. Or maybe there are already these estimates out there? Then again, there are probably so many possibilities, that the actual costs and impacts are too difficult to estimate.

The comments and work from Brooks and Anne, and thousands of researchers, are valuable in assessing the options for the US (and other countries) when similar situation faces them. The question arises: can we really use economic rationalisation in the event of war? mmmm....

[anne]

Baileyman:

"I suppose you may think a military intrinsically brings only peace and no threats. A fair reading of history I think indicates that having a military invites its use.

"You may think that our threat against someone else reduces the threat to us, but not I."

This makes me think to Bertrand Russell, which I will do:

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/russell/whymenfight1-17.html

1917

Why Men Fight
A Method of Abolishing the International Duel
BY BERTRAND RUSSELL

[anne]

Oupoot:

"The question arises: can we really use economic rationalisation in the event [prospect or prevention] of war? mmmm...."

An essential question; after all, that costs were mentioned from the beginning may be considered hopeful for the future. I will think back to cost estimates by William Nordhaus and others, and ask myself what they meant and were they useful whether unrealistic or not.

Thank you for such a fine question.

[baileyman]

Brooks: "Do you believe that NO Defense spending (i.e., having a military) can increase our physical or economic security?"

Yes, and maybe.

I think it's quite possible to be in a situation of your own making. (And with our gang in charge, I think we are, and I think that's the way they want it.) Anyway, in such a situation, then "yes", going to zero would be an improvement.

An the other hand, it's possible to be in a situation where another is forcing your hand. I think this may have been the situation of the Soviet Union shortly after the war, containment, etc. Or the colonists near the native frontier. But it's hard to unwind the spiral of insurance protection. One guy insures himself with arms, so the next guy seems forced to. We've got more insurance than anybody right now, and the only thing it's prompting among others is sporadic motivation to acquire nuke deterrence. Maybe we're at the end of the spiral.

Now, there's another question here, and that is, Insurance for whom? Early colonists wanted insurance against the risk to their persons and property. (And they weren't blameless or undeserving of the risk, I know.) Today, in a time of national disintegration worldwide (USSR, UK, decolonization, several SE Asian places, probably Iraq and nearby others) it would seem that a federation of 50 may be at risk. This is not a risk to persons or property but to the entity known as the USA. It just may be that this is what our insurance purchases are about. Preserve the Union.

[anne]

We just celebrated Veterans Day which was supposed to be a remembrance of the cost of the first World War. But, I have no idea whether Veterans Day is a celebration or caution or even more than the slightest remembrance. I have no idea what Veterans Day represents. When Bertrand Russell protested against the first World War and wrote for pacificsm, Cambridge University took away Russell's teaching post. Why; I must find out?

I vaguely remember Russell writing that the call in Britain for war to preserve democracy came from those in Britain who had before the first World War supporte only aristocracy. What was the war about, anyway?

[anne]

Here are 17 pages:

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/russell/whymenfight1-17.html

1917

Why Men Fight
A Method of Abolishing the International Duel
BY BERTRAND RUSSELL

THE PRINCIPLE OF GROWTH

To all who are capable of new impressions and fresh thought, some modification of former beliefs and hopes has been brought by the war. What the modification has been has depended, in each case, upon character and circumstance; but in one form or another it has been almost universal. To me, the chief thing to be learnt through the war has been a certain view of the springs of human action, what they are, and what we may legitimately hope that they will become. This view, if it is true, seems to afford a basis for political philosophy more capable of standing erect in a time of crisis than the philosophy of traditional Liberalism has shown itself to be. The following lectures, though only one of them will deal with war, all are inspired by a view of the springs of action which has been suggested by the war. And all of them are informed by the hope of seeing such political institutions established in Europe as shall make men averse to war-a hope which I firmly believe to be realizable, though not with out a great and fundamental reconstruction of economic and social life.

To one who stands outside the cycle of beliefs and passions which make the war seem necessary, an isolation, an almost unbearable separation from the general activity, becomes unavoidable. At the very moment when the universal disaster raises compassion in the highest degree, compassion itself compels aloofness from the impulse to self-destruction which has swept over Europe. The helpless longing to save men from the ruin towards which they are hastening makes it necessary to oppose the stream, to incur hostility, to be thought unfeeling, to lose for the moment the power of winning belief. It is impossible to prevent others from feeling hostile, but it is possible to avoid any reciprocal hostility on one's own part, by imaginative understanding and the sympathy which grows out of it. And without understanding and sympathy it is impossible to find a cure for the evil from which the world is suffering.

There are two views of the war neither of which seems to me adequate. The usual view in this country is that it is due to the wickedness of the Germans; the view of most pacifists is that it is due to the diplomatic tangle and to the ambitions of Governments. I think both these views fail to realize the extent to which war grows out of ordinary human nature. Germans, and also the men who compose Governments, are on the whole average human beings, actuated by the same passions that actuate others, not differing much from the rest of the world except in their circumstances. War is accepted by men who are neither Germans nor diplomatists with a readiness, an acquiescence in untrue and inadequate reasons, which would not be possible if any deep repugnance to war were widespread in other nations or classes. The untrue things which men believe, and the true things which they disbelieve, are an index to their impulses -- not necessarily to individual impulses in each case (since beliefs are contagious), but to the general impulses of the community. We all believe many things which we have no good ground for believing, because, subconsciously, our nature craves certain kinds of action which these beliefs would render reasonable if they were true. Unfounded beliefs are the homage which impulse pays to reason; and thus it is with the beliefs which, opposite but similar, make men here and in Germany believe it their duty to prosecute the war.

The first thought which naturally occurs to one who accepts this view is that it would be well if men were more under the dominion of reason. War, to those who see that it must necessarily do untold harm to all the combatants, seems a mere madness, a collective insanity in which all that has been known in time of peace is forgotten. If impulses were more controlled, if thought were less dominated by passion, men would guard their minds against the approaches of war fever, and disputes would be adjusted amicably. This is true, but it is not by itself sufficient. It is only those in whom the desire to think truly is itself a passion who will find this desire adequate to control the passions of war. Only passion can control passion, and only a contrary impulse or desire can check impulse. Reason, as it is preached by traditional moralists, is too negative, too little living, to make a good life. It is not by reason alone that wars can be prevented, but by a positive life of impulses and passions antagonistic to those that lead to war. It is the life of impulse that needs to be changed, not only the life of conscious thought....

[reason]

Baileyman,
having somebody whose job description is commander in chief is a bit of a give away as well!

[anne]

Thank you all for this discussion-argument, since I realize much to my surprise that I have no coherent general argument against war; nor have I found such a general argument convincingly gained from Martin Luther King or Gandhi. The arguments I have against war are against specific wars. This means against almost all wars, but not necessarily all wars.

[anne]

These last 11 months, I have repeatedly called attention to the immoral insanity of America encouraging Ethiopia to invade what had finally become a fairly stable Somalia. Africans warned against war and pleaded for peace, but America went so far as to allow and support Ethiopia in buying weapons from North Korea for the sake of war in Somalia.

The United Nations is telling us now that some 100,000 Somalis have fled the violence of Mogadishu in this very month, 11 months after a war that was to have been a few days war.

Does anyone care? Who beyond Africa knows?

Ethiopia won the war in days, in deposing the Somali government much to America's contentment. Then began the occupation and began the resistance. Then what misery the invasion did not create, that misrery was created, and more and more, by the occupation.

[anne]

The war in and occupation of Somalia are America fostered, and the results are tragedy on tragedy, and if the tragedy of invading and occupying Iraq was for whatever reason beyond our understanding what then was Somalia? Were Iraq not insanity, because we could not perceive what war and occupation were about, then what of Somalia in December 2006 when we knew what Iraq had brought?

Imagine America supporting an invasion of one of the poorest nations of earth by one of the poorest nations on earth. Imagine.

[anne]

Mark Thoma presented us academics think tanking about the relative benefits of anarchy in Somalia, several months after the Ethiopian invasion had set Somalia to anarachy again. But, there was no mention by the academics of the tragedy of anarchic Somalia that was then occurring. As though a laboratory experiment in Somali lives had been set up through history with no meaning for present lives which were even then and are even now being destroyed.

[anne]

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/08/dani-rodrik-the.html

August 10, 2007

The Limits of Self-Enforcing Agreements
Edited by Mark Thoma

...Peter T. Leeson ... of ... George Mason University, explores what pirate “constitutions,” credit institutions among 19th century African bandit traders, and the well-being of Somalians after the collapse of the Somalian state have to tell us about the possibility of practical anarchy. Can organizations solve complex problems of coordination without government coercion? Can voluntary bands provide public goods? Are there conditions under which groups really are better off stateless? ...

And Peter Leeson argues that:

I have argued that anarchy works better than you think. In the face of obstacles that stand in the way of individuals’ ability to cooperate for mutual gain, individuals develop solutions to overcome these obstacles. This is as true in society ruled by government as one that exists without government. Where the state does not provide law, order, or the institutions required to produce these things, private institutions emerge to perform these roles instead.

[Brooks]

oupoot,

Great comment. I will find time soon to discuss further at greater length, but for now I'd like to point out/correct a couple of things regading the framework I was suggesting.

- I was not suggesting that physical and economic security be the ONLY criteria for decisions on war or other policies affecting physical and/or economic security. As I stated in my initial comment (11/13, 10:14 AM), physical and/or economic WELL-BEING (as opposed to just security) are also considerations. Of course, emotional well-being matters, too.

- My references to "costs" were not limited to financial costs, but to costs "financial and otherwise" and include the expenditure of other resources (including time and effort of people) and the making of other sacrifices (most notably, lives).

Again, great comment. Thoughtful and thought-provoking, and useful (I hope) in stimulating a rational, productive and interesting discussion.

I'll be back, but work awaits.

[Brooks]

baileyman,
Thanks for your reply. I will reply tonight or tomorrow.

[anne]

Please, then, explain how to begin to discuss even selective pacifism reasonably when almost 4 years after completely understanding what the invasion and occupation of Iraq had wrought, we could so readily foster an invasion and occupation of Somalia. And I am not for a moment thinking any of us insensitive to the tragedy in Somalia, for I am sure there has been almost no notice of Somalia by the press beyond the New York Times in this last year.

What is pacifism, even selectively, against the insane immoralism in wanting war on war? What matters the cost of war, even when we know and we know nothing of Somalia and wished to know almost nothing of cost before Iraq?

[anne]

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/russell/whymenfight1-17.html

1917

Why Men Fight
A Method of Abolishing the International Duel
BY BERTRAND RUSSELL

[Does anyone know if Bertrand Russell's book is available on the Internet? Surely 1917 is enough time for a copy protection to expire. Am I searching poorly? I can find no Internet text, though I will have a print copy later by tomorrow.]

[anne]

http://books.google.com/books?id=PmsAAAAAMAAJ&dq=why+men+fight+a+method+of+abolishing+the+international+duel+bertrand+russell+the+principle+of+growth&pg=PP1&ots=lPq2m3Ozk6&sig=BYzoIniAWlLFku0XFkc0YwA93_0&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fsourceid%3Dgmail%26q%3DWhy%2520Men%2520Fight%2520A%2520Method%2520of%2520Abolishing%2520the%2520International%2520Duel%2520BERTRAND%2520RUSSELL%2520THE%2520PRINCIPLE%2520OF%2520GROWTH&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPP2,M1

1917

Why Men Fight
A Method of Abolishing the International Duel
BY BERTRAND RUSSELL

[Here is the google.books copy of the text, which is fine for rererence but clumsy for reading, but will have to suffice.]

[Movie Guy]

Jim Killus - Nov 13 at 11:25 PM, Nov 13:

Let me say that I have no problem whatsoever with any young person who chooses to keep his/her head down and not to engage in "forceful public opposition" to a war that was initially supported by those who had much more opportunity to learn the lessons of war and who chose to learn the wrong lessons.

Evil governments rule through terror, through secrecy and through lies. When a government spends its resources trying to scare its citizens, keeping its own operations in secret, and telling blatant and obvious falsehoods, it is not unreasonable for people to fear retribution for stepping out of line.

I have no quarrel with any of the Vietnam generation who went to Canada, either. The north is looking mighty attractive again, and were I younger, I might be giving it serious thought.

Jim, I have lived in too many countries where keeping one's head has down led to various political and economic disasters or subpar performances. The examples are many... I've seen the outcomes on the ground.

Forceful public opposition doesn't have to involve violence. It could, but it certainly isn't necessary to achieve given political, social, or economic aims.

The notion that our younger adult and near adult citizens (those not in possession of full adult rights and freedom of choice, et al) should take the easy road and hide out while the wars rage on is a recipe for bigger problems in far too many cases, 1930s Germany being just one example among many. There is not much point in existing if one doesn't the courage to stand up to governmental abuses in whatever venues are available that do not risk serious physical or economic harm.

The mental lapse into the sound bite avoidance mentality that swept through the U.S. society a few decades ago set the convenient stage for avoiding any shared responsibility for anything that happens in the United States of America. The movement expansion has nearly muted an entire generation at this point - many of whom couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag. So many have never stood up, it is becoming a foreign behavior. "What, me stand up? No way." That's not the core essence of the United States. That's not what made this nation great. What you are describing and perhaps recommending is not the role and fabric of engaged citizenship in the United States of America.

I am not particularly concerned if one is or isn't supporting the war in Iraq or any of the other conflicts around the globe. It's clear that those who support the Iraq war or supported it early on have made their voices heard. The weight of their opinions is evident. Now, the opposition - as weak as it has been - has yet to demonstrate any ability to significantly influence events at the national level. It is possible that a few good street and campus level political push efforts might have helped bring about desired changes. But we will never know as there was little effort to mount that campaign.

While we're at it, let's take your "keep your head down" position and spread it around. Apply that thinking to the environment, economy, society's many ills, and whatever else. Yeah, let's just keep our heads down 24/7 on everything.

I don't believe that you want that. Not for a minute. If so, feel satisfied that we're on track to become that type of muted robotic oxygen-converting society.

[Movie Guy]

NLS - 11:36 PM, November 13:

Look at Movie Guy... blogging. Not tipping cars... but, blogging.

We're in the last stages of moving to a property in the middle of a national forest. It couldn't be more perfect for us.

Speaking of automobiles, I take delivery of a recent frame off restored 1967 Olds 442 on Saturday. It has W-30 heads and all the other bulletproof parts. Nice ride. Purchased it from a friend. It's sister, an original low mileage 1967 Cutlass Supreme in the same color arrived three weeks ago. A California ride, which still has the air pump on it.

I'll be selling some of my GMC Syclones and Typhoons next year. Painful enough, but I will keep a couple of the high dollar ones as well as the first one I purchased during the early 1990s. They are all screamer rides if you get in the throttle. More fun than blogging (normally)...

See you on the blogs when I have time.

[Movie Guy]

The Iraq war has created internal turmoil for many of my friends as well as me. I can argue the case for and against immediate withdrawal with similar merit. But that doesn't mean that the U.S. should have ever invaded Iraq the second time. There were other ways to handle Hussein.

So, yes, I'm a mixed bag on this conflict at this stage. And I give considerable credit to Dave Petraeus for turning the military situation around in Iraq - there is no question in my mind that he has a good handle on his operations. But, I have serious reservations about this Congress and its Members on both sides of the political spectrum. This is the worst performing Congress that I have observed - ever. Disgusting. Unfortunately, the pathetic turnover rate of the Congress implies that we will be stuck with most of those Members for a long time. That's going to be difficult to stomach.

My largest concern, though, rests with the college and university students who readily burn down their parents' credit cards and zip around in relatively new autos, yet have little to say about much of anything. A self-absorbed generation or part of a generation that can't take a stand is hardly a generation that will do well running a nation later on. That's my concern based on my observations at a number of college campuses. Granted, they will learn the lessons necessary to try to run things, but the level of effectiveness may be the question mark of this century. The current examples in corporate and government circles indicates that we're headed into a mental deficiency storm of magnitude.

Life goes on, but we're headed for big changes. Katrina may look like a pebble as events and inactions at various levels unfold. We shall see...

[ilsm]

"our physical or economic security"

Security is a strawman.

Security is how the fleecing of America begins.

Physical security is achieved by point defense, which we have none.

Overseas extensions do not achieve security.

They are money pits.

The security word is a strawman for profits and bankrupting American.

The worst part of losing our senses and wars is the creditors usually call the notes of the losers.

[ilsm]

Movie Guy,

Welcome back.

We should not debate whether the military situation turned around in Iraq, for good or ill.

We should debate whether there is any meaning to the US military situation given that the political situation is in the dumps.

Both in Iraq and here.

[Movie Guy]

Ilsm,

I do agree that the U.S. is in quite a mess, politically and otherwise.

All the same, I'll take a well armed military and one that demonstrates the ability to get the job done as determined by elected civilian leaders in the Congress and Administration.

On the local front, an unwelcome intruder won't be facing a BB gun at our residence whether the intruder is on two or four legs. I am a good shot as is Sherry. And we take no crap from anyone or any species. That's just the way it is. But we don't go looking for trouble, either.

Hey, I love the United States of America. All the same, it appears to me that our national and, in some cases, local leadership sucks. It's that bad.

I have it with this lightweight Congress. They're useless. A true embarrassment on the global stage in my opinion. As for Senator Clinton's future...we'll see if she has what it takes to lead the USA. I'm generally reserving judgment on her executive abilities. Some of her stump performances haven't been up to par in terms of what I expected.

[Brooks]

baileyman,

Sorry for the delay in responding.

Re: your answer of "Yes, and maybe" to my question of "Do you believe that NO Defense spending (i.e., having a military) can increase our physical or economic security?", not to nitpick, but inclusion of "maybe" really means "No (That is not my belief)" because "maybe" means that you believe that at least in some circumstances and to some extent, SOME Defense spending can increase our physical or economic security.

Re: "I think it's quite possible to be in a situation of your own making. (And with our gang in charge, I think we are, and I think that's the way they want it.) Anyway, in such a situation, then "yes", going to zero would be an improvement."

Perhaps, but I wasn't asking about a dichotomous choice between some PARTICULAR situation in which some PARTICULAR level of Defense spending vs. zero. I was asking about zero vs. SOME Defense spending.

Re: "An the other hand, it's possible to be in a situation where another is forcing your hand. I think this may have been the situation of the Soviet Union shortly after the war, containment, etc."

ok, so you agree it's POSSIBLE for some Defense spending to increase security. Whether it increases or decreases security depends on circumstances, on how much is spent and for what that spending is used.

Re: "But it's hard to unwind the spiral of insurance protection. One guy insures himself with arms, so the next guy seems forced to. We've got more insurance than anybody right now, and the only thing it's prompting among others is sporadic motivation to acquire nuke deterrence. Maybe we're at the end of the spiral."

Perhaps. There is indeed that dynamic, always has been and, "realists" contend, always will be (assuming an effective, universally-accepted world policing mechanism never emerges).

Re: "Now, there's another question here, and that is, Insurance for whom? Early colonists wanted insurance against the risk to their persons and property. (And they weren't blameless or undeserving of the risk, I know.) Today, in a time of national disintegration worldwide (USSR, UK, decolonization, several SE Asian places, probably Iraq and nearby others) it would seem that a federation of 50 may be at risk. This is not a risk to persons or property but to the entity known as the USA. It just may be that this is what our insurance purchases are about. Preserve the Union."

Not sure I get what you're saying. That we spend on Defense to prevent states from seceding?

[baileyman]

Brooks:

The spending does not seem to be for our protection. (For value transfers from most taxpayers to a few beneficiaries, for sure.) But it may be that if it's not for OUR protection, it's for the preservation of the state of the USA. Absent a reason for its existence, it may have a hard time justifying itself.