This lengthy interview and article in today's Guardian by Aida Edemariam is worth reading in full to get the whole story. Here we can only give a few taster quotes.
Stiglitz and Bilmes dug deeper, and what they have discovered, after months of chasing often deliberately obscured accounts, is that in fact Bush's Iraqi adventure will cost America - just America - a conservatively estimated $3 trillion. The rest of the world, including Britain, will probably account for about the same amount again. And in doing so they have achieved something much greater than arriving at an unimaginable figure: by describing the process, by detailing individual costs, by soberly listing the consequences of short-sighted budget decisions, they have produced a picture of comprehensive obfuscation and bad faith whose power comes from its roots in bald fact. Some of their discoveries we have heard before, others we may have had a hunch about, but others are completely new - and together, placed in context, their impact is staggering. There will be few who do not think that whatever the reasons for going to war, its progression has been morally disquieting; following the money turns out to be a brilliant way of getting at exactly why that is.
...
Thus, any idea that war is good for the economy, Stiglitz and Bilmes argue, is a myth. A persuasive myth, of course, and in specific cases, such as world war two, one that has seemed to be true - but in 1939, America and Europe were in a depression; there was all sorts of possible supply in the market, but people didn't have the cash to buy anything. Making armaments meant jobs, more people with more disposable income, and so on - but peacetime western economies these days operate near full employment. As Stiglitz and Bilmes put it, "Money spent on armaments is money poured down the drain"; far better to invest in education, infrastructure, research, health, and reap the rewards in the long term. But any idea that war can be divorced from the economy is also naive. "A lot of people didn't expect the economy to take over the war as the major issue [in the American election]," says Stiglitz, "because people did not expect the economy to be as weak as it is. I sort of did. So one of the points of this book is that we don't have two issues in this campaign - we have one issue. Or at least, the two are very, very closely linked together."
...
So quite apart from the war, does he think a particular kind of unfettered market has had its day? "Yes. I think that anybody who believes that the banks know what they're doing has to have their head examined. Clearly, unfettered markets have led us to this economic downturn, and to enormous social problems." Combined with the war, whoever inherits the White House faces a crisis of epic proportions. Where do they go from here? "The way that shapes the debate," says Stiglitz, "is that Americans have to say, 'Even if we stay for another two years, just two years, and we're spending $12bn a month up front in Iraq, and it's costing us another 50% in healthcare, disability, bringing it up to $18bn a month in Iraq, and you look at that in another 24 months, we're talking about half a trillion dollars more for two years - forgetting about the economic cost, the ancillary costs, the social costs - just looking at the budgetary cost - not including the interest - you have to say, is this the way we want to spend a half a trillion dollars? Will it make America stronger? Will it make the Middle East safer? Is this the way we want to spend it?"
The Three Trillion Dollar War, by Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, is published by Allen Lane, price £20.
Iraqis say ...
"Bush speaks of victory but I say he has only achieved one thing for this country, destruction," said Abu Fares al-Daraji, in his tobacco shop on the once-bustling Saadun Street of downtown Baghdad.
"The United States achieved victory for itself by strengthening its control of the region, particularly that Iraq is a strategic country to contain the Iranian threat," said Daraji.
"They only secured their own interests, not those of the Iraqi people," Daraji said.
"The Americans are an extension of Saddam. Decision-making is in their hands and the (Iraqi) government has no sovereignty whatsover.
"There is no victory. The Americans brought our way things we never knew like terrorism and the killings we see on the streets," Daraji added.
Count this, then...
"February saw the lowest number of deaths among U.S. forces since the beginning of the war, with December 2007 being the second lowest, according to the Pentagon."
Resulting in this...
"According to the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism, just 3% of February's news stories focused on the wars, as compared to 15% in July 2007."
Iraq, East Timor, West Papua, Tibet...
An interesting post by Norman Geras on the Iraq War: "A rate of death by state violence of 29,000 per year over the life of a regime that has been in power for more than three decades might be considered a powerful reason for favouring its overthrow, in the hope of a less murderous sequel. (It also explains why, in changing my mind about the Iraq war, I continued - and still continue - to think that I could not have opposed it.) "
Saddam was in power for 35 years and his regime internally and externally was arguably responsible for about 1 million dead. Geras is responding to an article in The Guardian by Jonothan Steele and Suzanne Goldberg from which:
"The British polling firm Opinion Research Business (ORB) asked 1,720 Iraqi adults last summer if they had lost family members by violence since 2003; 16% had lost one, and 5% two. Using the 2005 census total of 4,050,597 households in Iraq, this suggests 1,220,580 deaths since the invasion. Accounting for a standard margin of error, ORB says, 'We believe the range is a minimum of 733,158 to a maximum of 1,446,063.'
..."The controversy will clearly run and run, probably long after the Iraq war eventually ends. One thing is certain, and it provides no comfort for Bush, Blair and other occupation supporters. They continue to claim that, whatever errors may have been committed since the invasion, the judgment of history will be that the toppling of a brutal dictatorship was an unmitigated benefit. That alone means the invasion was a blessing for the people of Iraq."
Geras (rightly) disputes that occupation supporters claim that "the toppling of a brutal dictatorship was an unmitigated benefit." The costs to date of Saddam's removal both in lives and real wealth have been huge, and way beyond expectations held by it supporters at the outset of the Iraq War. The human cost of removing Saddam turns out to be of the same order as his record to the point of invasion. Moreover, we cannot assume that over his next 10 + years in power (he was 69 years old when he died in 2006) he would not have continued killing at around 30,000 per year, meaning possibly 300,000 + more deaths.
In other words, leaving Saddam in power would likely have involved non-trivial costs in life and wealth.
There was intervention in Iraq, and lives have been lost and wealth trashed. The conclusion we are invited to draw is that if the intervention had not occurred, those lives and that wealth would have been saved. I do not think many would argue that if Saddam had been left alone, no lives would have been lost as a result, though that conclusion is left to be drawn at times. What is more often asserted in my experience is that less people would have died, and there is no way to verify that.
However, if we adopt the 'save lives by no intervention' strategy generally, there are further and real life-and-death implications.
Consider East Timor, West Papua and the current hot spot, Tibet. East Timor has successfully shed its colonial oppressor, and the indigenous populations of Tibet and West Papua would dearly love to. While no significant number of people outside those last two colonies are arguing for invasion to rescue their people from what is clearly ruthless oppression, invasion is not the only way to exacerbate death and suffering, and arguably, the surest way it can be minimised is for the subject population to accept its fate and make the best of it.
However, the history of colonised peoples is not like that. Indeed it is hard to think of a single member nation of the UN which, at some time in its past has not thrown out a colonialist oppressor, or fought off a would-be one, including the colonialist powers themselves. China, India, Britain, France, Russia, all of SE Asia, all of Africa, all of Latin America, Indonesia, the US... the list is huge. Yet those who for example, applaud the Tibetans who are presently fighting in whatever way for the goal of national independence, are almost certainly helping to add to the death toll in the short term, whatever the (uncertain) results in the long term.
The minimalist path is unspoken but clear: total acquiescence within and passivity without. Unless, of course, whatever is done has prior UN approval. Then, whatever it involves, it is alright.
Lies, Damned lies and ...
Statistics.
There's an ambiguity in the famous quote. It is almost universally read as a warning that, in their appearance of scientific objectivity, statistics can be the greatest lie of all. That is true, but I also have another image. The charlatan, accused, blustering: "lies!". The accusations grow: "damn lies!". Presented with the evidence: "statistics!". It all depends on how you use them. They can be a great lie, a great truth, or anywhere in between.
It is very easy to mislead with statistics, often without realising it, and misleading oneself along with the rest.
Take the estimated average of 30,000 killings per year by the Saddam regime. Absent changed circumstances or an evident trend in the data, and assuming no major anomalies in the data, then the best estimate is that killings would have continued at the same rate.
Ian MacDougall, those assumptions are false, so there are no particular grounds for assuming the killings would have continued at 30,000 pa. There are better grounds for a figure of under 12,000 pa. Still very nasty, but significantly less.
The 30,000 figure is very rough, and comes from the Guardian article:
The first thing to note is that the figures are very round, so, basically we are dealing with ballpark figures. Guesses.Next is that there are three anomalies: the Anfal; the war with Iran; and the Shia uprising post GW1. During the war with Iran, the USA was egging them on, with the basic hope that Iraq would destroy Iran, and exhaust itself in the process. Then there was the Shia uprising. Those are interesting, but irrelevant. What is not irrelevant is that these were all exceptional events, and more than a decade before the invasion.
To the extend there is a trend, it would appear to be down since 1991. But, given that the figures appear to be a guess at the undelying rate with three anomalies, there is no real evidence of a trend.
Circumstances changed after 1991, with the sanctions, no-fly zones and weapons inspectors, and the general level of scrutiny underlying them. These changed circumstances significantly reduced the likelihood of another anomalous incident, so we are left with the underlying level of brutality, which, on the figures in the article, is under 12,000 pa.
You can reasonably argue for Saddam's culpability for the incidents, and for his willingness to initiate more if the opportunity should arise, but you can't reasonably argue 30,000 a year into the future based on those figures.
"We don't do body counts."
Norman Geras points back to when he was changing his mind about the Iraq War (in October 2006):
Jack Robertson made the point in It’s the count, not the numbers, that counts, and I agree with Jack, that:
No leader -- not Bush, not Blair, not Howard -- faced up to the 'heavy lifting', the task of telling the people they'd been elected to represent about the real likelihood of the ugly bits that could/would be the result of their invasion plan. None of them have shown a genuine commitment to containing the effects on civilians; instead they've not even been counting the human cost.
"We don't do body counts."
The true cost of the Iraq war, how many civilians have died?
The true cost of the Iraq war will never be known, how many Iraqi civilians have died due to the lack of clean drinking water or adequate health care?
We should talk to Al-Qaeda
Now that's an idea. Forget "you're with us or you are against us". To end the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine we should talk to the extremists. It worked in Northern Ireland and it is the way these other conflicts will be ended.
It is only through finding just solutions that we will prevent the ongoing killing and destruction of nations. It's a hard road and it's certainly easier to bomb and shoot, but in the end we will have to talk.
We Should Talk To Al-Qaeda
John: "To end the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine we should talk to the extremists."
I agree. But you have to learn their language first.
Iraqi oil used to finance the insurgency.
This extract from a report in the New York Times shows that the dream of financing the Iraq war from the sale of oil was a joke.
Tell me again: what are we fighting for in Iraq?
Work Choices (on full pay) for some
"No, the blighter goes off to play golf."
The blighter is entitled to play golf but those he left behind are not entitled to act like a pack of bludgers, taking a pay packet at the tax payers expense while sleeping on the job, claiming lunching out is more important than work, or moonlighting in the Middle East and and and.
These are the guys who would have us believe they could lead this country through hell and high water. Nah, when the going gets tough they go to water and behave like a bunch of spoilt widdle brats.
Hey Alan, would you employ these lazy bludgers to work for your company?
The Art Of Knitting
Dear Alan, you are still weaving together disparate situations in an attempt to diminish the main argument – that a war in Iraq has cost trillions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives and produced nothing.
A few second hand car dealer Labor party types in Wollongong on the fiddle doesn't quite cut the grade on the scale of massive crimes against humanity.
Anyone know if they found those shredding machines in Iraq yet?
It occurred to me also what an utterly horrible little creep the last PM actually was as he cried crocodile tears over the abuse of Aboriginal children and then attempted to use it as an election stunt late last year.
Didn't work so what does he do – throw himself into relieving their plight anyway as any honourable person would? Say, like the decent Sir William Deane who could still be found in recent years dishing out food at the Mathew Talbot home in Woolloomooloo...
No, the blighter goes off to play golf.
On a weekly basis
Tom Engelhardt presents an article by William D. Hartung on breaking the cost of the wars down into comprehensible weekly segments. Here are some comparisons:
Glad you asked. If we consider the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan together - which we might as well do, since we and our children and grandchildren will be paying for them together into the distant future - a conservative single-week estimate comes to $3.5 billion. Remember, that's per week!
By contrast, the whole international community spends less than $400 million per year on the International Atomic Energy Agency, the primary institution for monitoring and preventing the spread of nuclear weapons; that's less than one day's worth of war costs. The U.S. government spends just $1 billion per year securing and destroying loose nuclear weapons and bomb-making materials, or less than two days' worth of war costs; and Washington spends a total of just $7 billion per year on combating global warming, or a whopping two weeks' worth of war costs.
Can't help wondering if they have their priorities wrong.
Gobsmacked.
G'day Craig, Here is an interview with Karl Rove in which he outdoes himself. He is responding to Obama's comments on how $12billion/month now being spent on the war could be better spent. Video and transcript.
Let's look at the start of the second paragraph of Rove's answer again:
Ground control to Mr Rove ...
Then the matter of giving up Iraq and its oil reserves. That would be the free and sovereign Iraq, would it?
Known knowns
When the invasion of Iraq began the then chief economic adviser to the Bush administration, Larry Lindsey, estimated a "known unknown" --the cost. He said it would cost between $US100 billion and $US200 billion.
For that piece of "quasi-honesty" he was fired. The then defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld said 'baloney'. He thought his own estimate of the "known unknown" was better. $US50 to $US60 billion he estimated.
So now it is a "known known" that the neocons' war (Iraq
theatrequagmire) has cost $3 trillion so far, it's gotta also be a "known known" that Rumy's call of 'baloney' was baloney.Known known
To the tune of $3 trillion
Alan, I'd have thought you can count.
$3,000,000,000,000.
That's like 2.97 million million times more than what you're whinging about.
And not even a word about the people responsible for the killing.
Spending your way out of depression.
US military spending is now over $1.1 trillion dollars per year. The US has the world's worst current account deficit ($811 billion in 2006). Is 2008 going to be the year that the world decides it can longer afford to support the US and its dreams of world domination?
Blowing in the wind...
And scattered who knows where, Craig. Not a lot of good for Iraq seems to have come from all the money thrown around. Now it is policy to pay insurgents - a reminder from an article previously linked on Lest we forget Iraq. And today.
Not forgetting that Afghanistan is part of the equation.
Not much of a return for all the money invested. But then that depends on what outcome was desired.
Yes, I remember.
G'day Craig, search "pallets" and the following was the first on the list:
The Irises
Submitted by Bob Wall on February 8, 2007 - 6:34am.
Which included :
Where did the money go?
Sort of pennies from Heaven after accounting for inflation.
Accounting for inflation
Thanks, Bob.
Some of that $US4 billion in greenbacks may have gone to insurgents, but I wonder how much would have ended up cycling through the international banking system, eventually spawning many more times worth of liquidity into the global financial system?
And how much of the $US8.8 billion dollars that went missing in 2004 after being entrusted to the CPA in Iraq?
And how much of the $US20 billion dollars in oil revenues and other Iraqi funds intended to rebuild the country that disappeared from banks administered by the CPA?
Most of it, I suspect, and all that credit creation along the way, probably accounts for a good deal of the 65% inflation rate experienced in Iraq in 2006.
Tonnes of cash
And again, this time with video.
DemocracyNow! devotes an entire program to Stiglitz and Bilmes. 45 min video, audio and transcript.
It begins with the interview with Bush I featured yesterday - Laura is not wearing a "I'm with stupid" T-shirt, but judge for yourselves her expression.
With thanks.
Dylan Kissane, thank you for reminding us of yet another crime the US had either complicity in or turned a blind eye to.
'Chemical Ali'
According to the BBC:
Background on the Al-Anfal campaign from Wiki here.
On the other hand ...
Someone might think that good has come from it. Here is one example - Tom Engelhardt and Frida Berrigan Traq 2003-2008 ,Two Recipes for Disaster.
Then on to the recipes - and who feasted. Yes, Richard, some very familiar names amongst those who stuffed themselves.
A long road and a big bill.
Karen Kwiatkowski on the cause and effect and what could be done.
A quote from the article to introduce the next item:
Zbigniew Brzezinski - Terrorized by 'War on Terror".
And what would all that cost?
McCain pessimistic on Iraq handover
A fun one, this. In the midst of nitpicking with Obama about Iraq ...
So, by implication, he thinks that the last five years have brought exactly zero progress in the process of handing over to a democratic Iraq and in defeating al Qaeda.
Someone Benefits From War
Always has.
I was just contrasting this obscene figure with the completely misleading and unjust headline in this morning's Australian about indigenous health "STRAIN: Aborigines big users of public health services"
Strain !. What an outrageous and misleading word to use that yet again re-enforces the myth that Aboriginal people somehow receive rivers of public funding handouts, "sit-down" money or as a friend of mine still insists,"2 pensions".
But a war costing trillions ,and one that has cost us billions ,that has produced nothing of value except death and destruction receives barely a mention.
Then again, as Rupert Murdoch put it in 2004-"The Iraq War is going gangbusters and the price of oil will be halved". Sure.
Embezzlement
I was starting to think along the lines of Cheney and co "monetising" before I reached this par:
This is what I consider to be the cleverness in war creation. It's a high-level form of embezzlement. History will one day record this as the true genius of the neocons.
Another version.
David, I had previously (25/2) linked this article from Timesonline on the the Lest we forget Iraq thread.
My comment was that I thought the money could have been be better spent. If we think about people who raise the high cost of dealing with climate change and then look at the (ongoing) costs of Bush's wars, well, questions are raised about priorities. Do people not see? Or not want to see?