The UK Guardian Unlimited has reported that according the 2001 Nobel prize winner for economics, the U.S. has greatly underestimated the cost of the Iraq war. Columbia University professor, Joseph Stiglitz, estimates that the cost of the war is likely somewhere between $1 trillion and $2 trillion dollars taking into account costs such as disability and healthcare for troops, and economic impact:
The paper on the real cost of the war, written by Joseph Stiglitz, a Columbia University professor who won the Nobel prize for economics in 2001, and Linda Bilmes, a Harvard budget expert, is likely to add to the pressure on the White House on the war. It also followed the revelation this week that the White House had scaled back ambitions to rebuild Iraq and did not intend to seek funds for reconstruction.
I find this interesting for two reasons, the first being that this is simply further evidence that the current US administration either didn’t know or didn’t care what the true cost of this war was going to be. Mr. Stiglitz’s report isn’t so bold as to outright condemn Bush and his administration, but his take is quite damaging either way:
Mr Stiglitz, a former World Bank chief economist, said the paper, which will be available on josephstiglitz.com, did not attempt to explain whether Americans were deliberately misled or whether the underestimate was due to incompetence.
So not only is this administration incompetent/ill-informed, but Mr. Stiglitz also questions whether war was the appropriate vehicle for accomplishing change in the Middle East:
“there may have been alternative ways of spending a fraction of that amount that would have enhanced America’s security more, and done a better job in winning the hearts and minds of those in the Middle East and promoting democracy”
So, that second reason I find this story interesting? Well, it is far more involving and has to do with society’s perception of war and the associated costs/benefits. If this war will cost America $2 trillion, or more, is that too high a cost to do the right thing (assuming that it is the right thing to do)? With a $2 trillion bill in hand, will Americans look at this experience and decide that it wasn’t worth it?
I’m curious as to how America and Americans perceive the costs and benefits of this war, and in particular how perceptions differ across the political spectrum from right to left. If it’s believed that overthrowing Saddam Hussein and forcefully liberating Iraq constitutes “doing the right thing”, then what cost is acceptable to conservatives and liberals? I suppose it all comes down to what one’s moral judgement on the situation is.
What I fear is that society at large may come to view the cost of truly doing the right thing when it might be required simply because the cost is too great. In the instance of the war in Iraq, I really believe there were better and safer options to consider to “[win] the hearts and minds of those in the Middle East”, but that does not preclude the possibility that great sacrifices may need to be made. I sincerely hope that Americans balking at the idea of loss of life or a large bill in Iraq would not do so in the case where such sacrifices are not just asked for, but should be made for the sake of humanity.
