Iraq: Worth the Price?

[Puppycow]

Christopher Hitchens says yes
Linda J. Bilmes and Joseph E. Stiglitz say no

BTW, I'm in the middle of reading Hitch's book God is not Great, and I think I agree with almost everything he writes therein. On the Iraq war however, I have been convinced for a long time that it has not been worth the price. Maybe because I agree with him so much in his book, this article propted me to redo my calculations, which I fully admit cannot begin to hope to really know the true costs of everything. I still think that it probably was not worth it, but maybe I'm a little less certain than I used to be. I do think that Hitchens makes as good an argument as can be made for his proposition. Nonetheless, knowing what I know now, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be for it if transported back to 2002 or early 2003. Then again, maybe in another 5 or 10 years things will look still different. God only knows the true answer.

 

[latent aaaack]

This is a weak point. If war is bad for the economy it's not because the US has some Nepalese workers on the payroll in Iraq. This segment implies that while war is good for the economny there are other things that are even better, which makes unclear what the author is basing his opinion on that this war is bad for the economy while the the only other US war more expensive was good for the economy.

Economists used to think that wars were good for the economy, a notion born out of memories of how the massive spending of World War II helped bring the United States and the world out of the Great Depression. But we now know far better ways to stimulate an economy -- ways that quickly improve citizens' well-being and lay the foundations for future growth. But money spent paying Nepalese workers in Iraq (or even Iraqi ones) doesn't stimulate the U.S. economy the way that money spent at home would -- and it certainly doesn't provide the basis for long-term growth the way investments in research, education or infrastructure would.

And yes, it wasn't worth it. It would've been a better idea to spend a trillion dollars on eliminating the threat of domestic terrorists making biological weapons, which is the number one threat, epsecially food supply attacks and mad-made super biological weapons.

The administration's ad hoc fake reasoning for invading once WMDs weren't found is the most pathetic thing any administration has ever done.

 

[Steve H]

...The administration's ad hoc fake reasoning for invading once WMDs weren't found is the most pathetic thing any administration has ever done.

Agreed. I still think the WMD thing was a red herring and this Bush wanted to settle the score for the alleged Iraqi assassination attempt on his father back in 1992 or 1993.

Was the war worth it? Based on what has happened up until this point the answer is a resounding no. Despite the positive spin coming from the administration, Iraq is fractured, the killings continue daily, and the vacuum created by the toppling of the Hussein regime has emboldened Iran. Then there's the post 'military-phase' fiasco where the administration apparently forgot to plan beyond the defeat of Saddam's military and his toppling. Think about it - it's been about 5 years now since we invaded and what passes for the Iraqi government still can't function, let alone establish order on it's own. I feel for the friends and families of those killed, whether US military personnel, those of our allies, or the Iraqi noncombatants that would likely still be alive or at the very least not maimed if we had an administration that 'used it's head' post-9/11.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Worth it?

What was the aim?

What criterion for value are you assigning?

A great deal of defense spending, and foreign aid spending, is spent at home in terms of the payees of the government checks. That a small portion of the expense is paid to foreign workers rather misses where the bulk of the money is spent.

Gas. Bombs. Spare parts. Food. A significant portion of this is purchased from American companies.

However, I agree with Hitchens that war is not "good for the economy" in the mid to long term, in particular when it is debt financed.

See Louis the XVI for a fine example.

 

[GStan]

Agreed. I still think the WMD thing was a red herring and this Bush wanted to settle the score for the alleged Iraqi assassination attempt on his father back in 1992 or 1993.

Was the war worth it? Based on what has happened up until this point the answer is a resounding no. Despite the positive spin coming from the administration, Iraq is fractured, the killings continue daily, and the vacuum created by the toppling of the Hussein regime has emboldened Iran. Then there's the post 'military-phase' fiasco where the administration apparently forgot to plan beyond the defeat of Saddam's military and his toppling. Think about it - it's been about 5 years now since we invaded and what passes for the Iraqi government still can't function, let alone establish order on it's own. I feel for the friends and families of those killed, whether US military personnel, those of our allies, or the Iraqi noncombatants that would likely still be alive or at the very least not maimed if we had an administration that 'used it's head' post-9/11.

I'm curious to know how long it should take for a government that did not exist five years ago to become 'functional'?

 

[Puppycow]

Worth it?

What was the aim?

What criterion for value are you assigning?

Well, I guess from the perspective of humanity as a whole. From a utilitarian standpoint. Including effects on future generations. But I realize that we can only guess at answer.

 

[Steve H]

I'm curious to know how long it should take for a government that did not exist five years ago to become 'functional'?

If you think 5 years is not enough time to see more progress than what we're seeing then you tell me GStan. When I said "can't function" I was being generous and I'd be pleasantly surprised if next year at this time I can't make the same claim.

 

[skeptical]

I'm curious to know how long it should take for a government that did not exist five years ago to become 'functional'?

For a government with broad popular support and the financial and military backing of the most powerful nation in the world? I would think no more than a few years at most.

For the current government in Iraq given the current sectarian composition of the populace? Much more than 5, perhaps never without extremely repressive measures.

The real question is, how long is the US willing to wait for them to be "functional", and what are the criteria for determining when they have achieved it.

ETA: One other point. A huge mistake made during reconstruction was the complete "debaathafication" of the govt structures. Essentially, no one who knew how the govt operated was able to hold any positions in the new govt. This of course set back any reconstruction efforts by years, among other negative effects.

 

[GStan]

If you think 5 years is not enough time to see more progress than what we're seeing then you tell me GStan. When I said "can't function" I was being generous and I'd be pleasantly surprised if next year at this time I can't make the same claim.

You were the one that made the implied claim that five years was long enough. I just did not know what you were basing that on. My own personal opinion, (unsupported by any relevant data), is that it could take as long as a generation before the Iraq government could truly be stable enough to be independently functional. We have destroyed their established dictatorship and assisted them in creating something new, yet it is something new that is wholly run by Iraqi people who have no experience with government other than Saddam's government. Perhaps when the Iraqi children of today, who will hopefully only experience a lifetime of democracy, mature and take over the reigns 20 or 30 years from now, then Iraq will truly be able to stand on its own. IMHO. Will it really take that long? Will we be there for the duration to see that through? I can't answer those.

 

[GStan]

For a government with broad popular support and the financial and military backing of the most powerful nation in the world? I would think no more than a few years at most.

For the current government in Iraq given the current sectarian composition of the populace? Much more than 5, perhaps never without extremely repressive measures.

I'm not arguing that either of your estimates above are incorrect. I am geniuinely curious to know what you are basing the estimate on, particularly the first one above. Not trying to be contentious, just interested in the information.

The real question is, how long is the US willing to wait for them to be "functional", and what are the criteria for determining when they have achieved it.

Agreed.

ETA: One other point. A huge mistake made during reconstruction was the complete "debaathafication" of the govt structures. Essentially, no one who knew how the govt operated was able to hold any positions in the new govt. This of course set back any reconstruction efforts by years, among other negative effects.

On the assumption that Saddam's government was not a model to be followed, could there not be some positive effects of this as well?

 

[Beerina]

ETA: One other point. A huge mistake made during reconstruction was the complete "debaathafication" of the govt structures. Essentially, no one who knew how the govt operated was able to hold any positions in the new govt. This of course set back any reconstruction efforts by years, among other negative effects.

You know damned well if they didn't do that, you'd have reporters crawling all over, look at this guy, he killed x people, but he's still in charge of water! How horrible the Bush administration is for not getting rid of these people!

 

[skeptical]

You know damned well if they didn't do that, you'd have reporters crawling all over, look at this guy, he killed x people, but he's still in charge of water! How horrible the Bush administration is for not getting rid of these people!

Probably true, but so what? When you're in a war, your in it to win it, and get out as quickly as possible. (see the Powell Doctrine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_doctrine)

Its purely practical. The only way the rebuilding could have been "successful" is to get it done as quickly as possible with as little resistance as possible as cheaply as possible. Hack off the top tiers of the Baath party, keep the lower echelons and make them swear oaths of allegiance to the new govt and get on with it. Most of them never killed anyone, Baath party affiliation was required for _any_ position in the Iraqi government. Teachers, trash collectors, etc.

Keeping the lower echelons of the Baath party workers would have given the current govt the best chance of achieving functionality in the least possible time and allowed the US to get out that much quicker.

Besides, do you really want to make the argument that we traded the lives of soldiers for PR? I don't think you really want to go down that road.

I personally don't think that had anything to do with it. Bremer, like so many neocons, is a moral idealist. He had reasons for what he did, they just weren't necessarily good ones and I don't think it had anything to do with PR.

 

[skeptical]

I'm not arguing that either of your estimates above are incorrect. I am geniuinely curious to know what you are basing the estimate on, particularly the first one above. Not trying to be contentious, just interested in the information.

Just basing it on what I have seen in Iraq and other parts of the world. A popularly supported government with proper financial and military backing can do wonders in short amounts of time. It doesn't really take that long to build a government if you have popular support and resources. It can take a lifetime if you don't have the backing of your populace.

The other big problem is that there is no history of republican (small r) principles among the people in Iraq. Without broad consensus on freedoms and rights, it is extremely hard to see how any democratic government can possibly function.

On the assumption that Saddam's government was not a model to be followed, could there not be some positive effects of this as well?

Positive in the sense of moral correctness, perhaps. That was essentially why it was done and I am not primarily concerned with whether that argument is right or not. From a practical perspective, from the perspective of getting the US out of there as quickly as possible, it was a bad decision. Possibly one of the worst decisions that was made early on in the rebuilding process. That, and disbanding the Iraqi military. You don't suddenly tell hundreds of thousands of men, armed with weapons, that they are no longer employed without much hope of finding other jobs without experiencing blowback.

 

[WildCat]

The administration's ad hoc fake reasoning for invading once WMDs weren't found is the most pathetic thing any administration has ever done.

There were multiple reasons give for the war. Have you ever read the AUMF for Iraq?

Your claim that only one reason was given prior to the war is false, as is your claim that the other reasons were only given after the war began and no WMD's were found.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your politics!

 

[latent aaaack]

There were multiple reasons give for the war. Have you ever read the AUMF for Iraq?

Your claim that only one reason was given prior to the war is false, as is your claim that the other reasons were only given after the war began and no WMD's were found.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your politics!

There's a very good arguement to be made for attacking in response to WMD proliferation or WMD bluffing, don't get me wrong. But the country would'nt have willingly gone to war over anything but what the administration claimed about WMDs. In my opinion, and I'm guessing most Americans' opinion, that's the only valid reason for the war.

For the administration to then act like this is what the public wants, nothing went wrong with their claims of WMDs, and use invalid alternative reasons for being there is what's transparently pathetically dishonest and causes a perilously huge drop off in trust of the government.

You think a majority of Americans and congress would've been in favor of a war and indefinite occupation only to democratize the middle east, if it were known Iraq didn't have a WMD program?

What do you think "my politics" is, that I hate republicans, or all wars, or am just nasty and mean or what?

 

[mrbaracuda]

AUMF for Iraq

This one?

 

[GStan]

This one?

Twenty-three reasons are listed in the case for authorizing the use of force. Many of the reasons are overlapping. 10 of the 23 mention weapons of mass destruction. The WMDs, while of course the most aggressively sold and highly publicized reason, were not the only reason to go into Iraq, not by a long-shot.

 

[skeptical]

Twenty-three reasons are listed in the case for authorizing the use of force. Many of the reasons are overlapping. 10 of the 23 mention weapons of mass destruction. The WMDs, while of course the most aggressively sold and highly publicized reason, were not the only reason to go into Iraq, not by a long-shot.

But without a credible threat of WMD, particularly nuclear, it is improbable in the extreme that any invasion would have been supported by either Congress or the US populace.

I have seen Cheney say on numerous occasions, "knowing what we know now, I still think it [war with Iraq] was the right thing to do". Maybe he does. But imagine the state of the Union address and Powell's presentation to the UN with each of them saying "well, we know that Iraq does not have WMD and has no means for producing them in the next few years. However, Saddam still _wants_ them, and he _might_ get them sometime down the road".

It is hard to imagine a scenario where that information leads to an invasion of Iraq.

 

[GStan]

But without a credible threat of WMD, particularly nuclear, it is improbable in the extreme that any invasion would have been supported by either Congress or the US populace.

I have seen Cheney say on numerous occasions, "knowing what we know now, I still think it [war with Iraq] was the right thing to do". Maybe he does. But imagine the state of the Union address and Powell's presentation to the UN with each of them saying "well, we know that Iraq does not have WMD and has no means for producing them in the next few years. However, Saddam still _wants_ them, and he _might_ get them sometime down the road".

It is hard to imagine a scenario where that information leads to an invasion of Iraq.

Among all the reasons for going into Iraq, if any one of them were taken away, we would still have gone in, with the exception of WMDs. I think you are right that without the WMD threat, we could very well have not invaded.

 

[patrick767]

There were multiple reasons give for the war. Have you ever read the AUMF for Iraq?

Your claim that only one reason was given prior to the war is false, as is your claim that the other reasons were only given after the war began and no WMD's were found.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your politics!

Oh come on... fearmongering about WMDs was precisely how the Bush administration sold the Iraq War to the American people. The smoking gun could come in the form of the mushroom cloud. Oh no! PANIC!

Was there a laundry list of other reasons tossed out there at some point? Yeah, probably, but we all know the WMDs were the main reason given. Well, that and the administration continually implied that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, which of course was also utter bunk. They also claimed that Saddam had close ties with Al Qaeda. Bunk.

Iraq has been no where near worth the price in lives (both American and Iraqi) or treasure.