…and this is a 
How much was that war?
Category: Politics
Posted on: March 3, 2008 11:57 PM, by PZ Myers
We now have an estimate of the cost of the Iraq war. Remember when our administration was blithely proposing that it would require a few billion dollars?
The authors present a damning "Nightline" transcript in which one official, Andrew Natsios, blandly told Ted Koppel that Iraq could be completely reconstructed for only $1.7 billion. (With the war now costing $12.5 billion a month, Natsios' estimate would have been accurate if he had stipulated that it would pay for four days' worth of reconstruction. Which, considering the delusional nature of most of the Bush administration's pre-invasion estimates, may have been how long it thought it would take to rebuild the country.) Other officials settled on a figure of $50 billion to $60 billion. Larry Lindsey, Bush's economic advisor, went way out on a limb, suggesting that the war might cost $200 billion -- a figure derided by then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as "baloney."
So how much has it cost? $3 trillion. That's a bit of money.
In 2005, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the war had so far cost about $500 billion. That figure was obviously far higher than initial Bush administration estimates, but Stiglitz and Bilmes suspected it was still much too low. After researching the issue, they published a paper in January 2006 that conservatively estimated that the true cost of the war would be between $1 trillion and $2 trillion. Even at the time, they regarded that estimate as excessively conservative, but didn't want to appear extreme. Stiglitz and Bilmes' book, which is based on that paper, doubles their earlier estimates to $3 trillion, making Iraq the second most expensive war in U.S. history, trailing only World War II, which cost an adjusted $5 trillion (and in which 16.3 million Americans served in the armed forces, with 400,000 dying). But the authors regard even their new figure as conservative: Their estimates range from $2 trillion, in the best-case scenario in which the U.S. withdraws all combat troops by 2012 and fewer veterans need medical and disability pay, to more than $5 trillion. Add in the cost to the rest of the world, and the price tag could exceed $6 trillion.
Bush was the evil incompetent who got this wasted effort started, but I can't blame him alone: anyone remember that immense principled effort the Democratic party made to oppose the ramp-up to war? Nah, neither do I.
Comments
anyone remember that immense principled effort the Democratic party made to oppose the ramp-up to war? Nah, neither do I.
Nope, but I remember about 8500-10,000 of us marching up Hennepin in something like 3-degree weather, while millions of others marched worldwide, to say, "fuck no!"
Didn't do much good, but....
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 4, 2008 12:06 AM
Using my fancy calculator that's $10,000 for everyone in the U.S. including infants. I don't think that's really worth it. But the real question is whether that "missing money" in Iraq is being used to fund covert actions like the Iran-Contra scandal. I think it's a possibility that the DoD is financing something like that.
Posted by: Eric | March 4, 2008 12:17 AM
Get ready to feel more of the kneel. It appears the Dems will bow to Bush on retroactive telecomm immunity.
Lucky us.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | March 4, 2008 12:23 AM
And as folks in Massachusetts probably know, Natsios was once in charge of...
...wait for it...
The Big Dig.
Posted by: J | March 4, 2008 12:28 AM
And don't think all of that money actually made it into the reconstruction Iraqi infrastructure. Huge amounts of cash have been siphoned off into the off-shore pockets of private contracting firms like Blackwater and Halliburton. It's flat out robbery of the American taxpayer, merely using the war as cover.
Posted by: H. Humbert | March 4, 2008 12:30 AM
That's one expensive cakewalk.
Posted by: jeh | March 4, 2008 12:40 AM
Fiscal responsibility? Thousands killed and much more maimed. The infrastructure of a nation ruined. A nation is made a haven for terrorists.
And yes, I am really fucking tired of dems who claimed that the intelligence at hand suggested the course of action dictated by the Bush administration was the way to go.
Posted by: Janine | March 4, 2008 12:41 AM
In my organizational behavior class we just covered group think, and the GW administration's decision to invade Iraq made an excellent case. How can such a monumental blunder be allowed to happen? Isn't there some sort of devils advocate involved in the big government think-tank, or, at least, some controls on evaluating foreign policy decisions and their consequences? I know our government thinks its the best, but its about as delusional as those religious fundies.
Posted by: Space monster | March 4, 2008 12:41 AM
I am reminded of a joke (unredeemingly sexist by modern standards) illustrating the difference between a million and a billion: There was a rich man who gave his wife a millon dollars, told her to spend a thousand dollars a day, and to come back when it was gone. Three years later she showed up and said there's no money left, now what? So the man gave her a billion dollars. And his wife went away, and didn't come back for three thousand years.
For $3 trillion, she wouldn't have come back for 8.22 million years.
Posted by: talapus | March 4, 2008 12:44 AM
So the man gave her a billion dollars. And his wife went away, and didn't come back for three thousand years.
she came back?
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 4, 2008 12:50 AM
Like GWB, for more.
Posted by: talapus | March 4, 2008 1:01 AM
Anybody wondering why the US economy is in a.. an... errrr... 'downturn'?
Posted by: djlactin | March 4, 2008 1:22 AM
I agree with Janine. Anyone who paid just a little bit of attention knew that Saddam, while a bad dude, was hated by bin Laden. We could have fixed up Afghanistan. We could have trapped them at Tora Bora or even earlier. Instead we've created a place for them to practice and improve tactics against us.
And the worst thing was being accused of being unpatriotic because I disagreed with Bush.
Posted by: Don Smith, FCD | March 4, 2008 1:23 AM
We kid ourselves that we live in a democracy. It should be clear to everyone by now that all we get every 4 years is a chance to vote for the spokesman for the oligarchy. The dems are as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike.
Posted by: Tom | March 4, 2008 1:51 AM
anyone remember that immense principled effort the Democratic party made to oppose the ramp-up to war? Nah, neither do I.
The problem with your 2-(corporate)-party system. There were plenty of voices raised in opposition. But when it comes down to it again, you'll all rush out and vote for the same not-Bush as the last time, forgetting how spineless and pathetic the Dems are. What do the dems give you that the Repugs don't? They're not quite as awful? Do people make any other decisions like that? "Well, this car is not quite as crap as that one, so I'll spend all my money on it?"
Instead we've created a place for them to practice and improve tactics against us.
So, mission accomplished then? What better way to rustle up the fear you need to cover your tracks while you rob the treasury than a BIG SCARY BOGEY MAN. So, one doesn't exist, well lets create one.
Posted by: AlanWCan | March 4, 2008 1:53 AM
What worries me the most is that GWB doesn't have some sort of special ability to hyp-mo-tize Republicans in to lockstep and Democrats into bending over- to the contrary, Iraq and GWOT reveal 'the incredible shrinking congress' (as my undergrad Government teacher called it).
Congress has been happy to cede power to the executive for a long time. It never got so bad in the past because other presidents showed a little restraint (no doubt less out of principle as out of a failure to imagine just how servile and lickspittle the congress could be).
Now the genie is out. I expect that the next president, irrespective of gender, race, or party, will play the 'unitary executive' card every bit as much as GWB. I am expecting to hate the next president for abuse of power, and the next congress for bending over. The flaw is going to take a major fistfight to correct. Congress handed off power over the years to avoid actually having to make hard decisions like declaring war, so my instinct is that the Republic is dead, and America will live out her life under a succession of ever crazier Caesars. I hope not. But that's what I expect.
Posted by: Dave Eaton | March 4, 2008 1:54 AM
Not only did we get to blow a huge wad of cash, but we also created a government that now is playing buddy-buddy with our "worst enemy" the relatively powerless, diminutive Ahmadinejad.
Posted by: natural cynic | March 4, 2008 2:01 AM
And let's not forget the theocracy that is the US ally, Saudi Arabia. Most of the hijackers were Saudis. The organization they were part of was and is mostly Saudis. While Osama bin Laden maybe disowned by the Saudi government, he has his backers in the Saudi royal family.
Going into Iraq in the aftermath of the terrorist is akin to invading China in the aftermath of the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
Posted by: Janine | March 4, 2008 2:16 AM
The missing Democratic Party. Yep, you said it.
What bothered me most of all was my senator Dianne Feinstein's vote in favor of the war. Why? Because she is old enough to remember the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and the Pentagon Papers. Presidents sometimes do lie when they want to go to war.
But, to be fair to Feinstein, most of the adults of her age were also missing in action on this one.
It amazes me how people continue to make the same mistakes over and over again. (After all, and forgive the political comment, here we are again planning to vote for somebody on the basis of character - remember Bush 43 - rather than accomplishment.)
lc
Posted by: LC | March 4, 2008 2:35 AM
I'm a wee bit confused, the 3 trillion dollar story was over here in the UK about a week ago. Have you guys only just found out?
Posted by: Peter Ashby | March 4, 2008 2:37 AM
These wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have done what I hadn't thought possible; it has brought the end of American superpower so close that I am confident I will see it in my lifetime. Within the next thirty years I expect the centre of politcal gravity to shift away from the North American continent.
This is not necessarily a bad thing. It is good that great powers atrophy and it is often a consequence of their own sins. But it will create more crises. America is set to become an increasingly impotent power like the Ottoman Turks, too puissant to ignore but too weak to have its way. When Americans realize this I expect them to lash out.
My crystal ball is imperfect, but I believe you Yanks should anticipate some rough times ahead. I grew up in the '60s and '70s amongst English men and women who could remember when Britain was still Great. There was enormous bitterness and sadness at the loss of national influence. That led to demagogues such as Enoch Powell, who never achieved power, and Margaret Thatcher, who did. Like the British, when your commercial and political empire dissipates, you will have to ride a backlash of illiberal thought.
I fear for your nation.
That said, even this cannot last forever. Having exhausted themselves it seems likely future Americans will turn inward again. The nation will eventually disengage from the rest of the world, safe behind its oceans, and focus on its own poverty and structural failings.
Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | March 4, 2008 2:39 AM
About a year ago I re-read Orwell's 1984, the first time since I was a teenager growing up in Europe in the 1980's cold war atmosphere. It was rather shocking, to say the least, to realize how much of it was coming to pass in this day and age. If anyone has the book lying on the shelf, unread for years, do yourself a favor and open it again.
Posted by: Sigmund | March 4, 2008 2:45 AM
#18:
Not really, the Japanese were actually in China at the time of Pearl Harbour. It would be more like invading West Africa in search of a Japanese army.
Posted by: laserboy | March 4, 2008 2:46 AM
Peter Ashby, it is not the case that we just found out, most people who are paying attention know that the amount sent and to be spent is an obscene amount. But it is hard to know exactly how much is spent. There are black accounts for the defense department where not even members of the house and the senate are not allowed to access. Let us just say we know it is bad, we are kept in the dark about how bad it is.
So we have this strange situation where government spending has increased while tax cuts keep being passed. Remember the collapse of the bridge in Minneapolis last year. There are many who place part of the blame on the lack of funds for upkeep of this nation's infrastructure. If there is any truth to these charges, the future here is truly dire.
Combine that with the appearance that the US dances to Al Qaeda's tune and it would appear that collectively, our near future is not very rosy.
Posted by: Janine | March 4, 2008 3:01 AM
Don't forget to give due credit to all the professional Chickenhawks in the Bush Junta and its fawning "free" press.
You have to look long and hard to find someone who wasn't a draft-avoider or in Dumbya's case a deserter. Neocons are among the most noteworthy.
Don't forget what even Dick Cheney said after the First Gulf War, which I also opposed. "Dick Cheney on invading Iraq"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT7Ik_X1HU0
C-Span interview with Dick Cheney, "It's a quagmire."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w75ctsv2oPU
Posted by: bernarda | March 4, 2008 3:02 AM
But I do remember one critic pegging it at $1 trillion within the first year or so. And I think within another year someone was saying $2 tril, the second being the indirect military costs.
Posted by: Bobby | March 4, 2008 3:05 AM
If anyone [1984] lying on the shelf, unread for years, do yourself a favor and open it again.
Amen. I read it a couple of months ago myself, to be fair, I had never actually read it from cover-to-cover before, but I thought I sort-of had gotten the gist of it, from school, popular culture etc, but boy was I wrong. Its an absolutely DEFINING book, its just so damn spot-on everything.
I also Highly recommend reading/re-reading "Animal Farm" its so ridiculously appropriate to the election this year (hint:CHANGE,CHANGE,CHANGE !)
Posted by: BicycleRepairMan | March 4, 2008 3:07 AM
#23
The Japanese occupied Manchuria. There was plenty of China left to invade. Like all invaders of The Middle Kingdom, the Japanese could not conquer all of China. But I can understand what you mean. Most of Al Qaeda were in the caves of Tora Bora yet Iraq. The reason being that so there would be no mushroom cloud. Call it Dunkirk.
Perhaps I should stop using analogies.
Posted by: Janine | March 4, 2008 3:10 AM
Posted by: Bobby | March 4, 2008 3:15 AM
Hmmm, "the reason being so there would be no mushroom cloud". So making the Iranians so shit scared of a US Invasion (along with worries about nuclear armed Israel) that they, quite rationally conclude that they need a credible deterrent has reduced the chance of nuclear war has it? As a policy that one had the opposite effect, didn't it? Oh and pace the North Koreans on that one. After one member of the club you didn't ask to join is taken out, the message is easy to spot.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | March 4, 2008 3:28 AM
The problem will be aggravated when our half-century bubble based on shipping our treasure to foreign lands as fast as we can in order to Have Nice Stuff Cheap Now comes home to roost, and more trouble when climate change starts switching the haves and have-nots around when it comes to water resources and farmland.
People aren't going to be happy when The Great Bubble bursts.
Actually, underfunded infrastructure maintenance is a problem we've known about for decades. I think it must have been 20 years ago when I first read the ghastly total for what it would cost to bring all the country's bridges up to date.
(Ghastly by the standards of the day, at any rate. I don't recall seeing a "tr" in front of whatever illions it was.)
Posted by: Bobby | March 4, 2008 3:33 AM
Peter, I should have explained the context of the quote about the mushroom cloud. It was the rational Condoleezza Rice gave for the invasion of Iraq. She argued that if Iraq was not invaded, the next terror attack on the US might be have a mushroom cloud and we cannot afford to take the chance. This despite the fact there was no Iraqi connection. And yes, are fine administration still tries to connect Iraq and Al Qaeda by pointing at "Al Qaeda In Iraq". But Al Qaeda In Iraq is not Al Qaeda and did not exist before the invasion.
Posted by: Janine | March 4, 2008 3:44 AM
"she came back?"
Of course. She knew a good thing when she saw one!
My best buddy and I have a pair of Nerf dart guns. Whenever G-Dub-the-Shrub's smirking face shows up on TV, it's open season.
Not that it does any real good, but it does take out some of the frustration. And we don't have to worry about stuff like those pesky lethal injections.
Posted by: themadlolscientist | March 4, 2008 3:59 AM
Given that the population of Iraq is approximately 28 million, that figure of $3 trillion could be seen thus. That's over $100,000 per Iraqi. Imagine if that money were used to bribe them?
What a bloody waste.
Posted by: Atanu Dey | March 4, 2008 5:15 AM
Let's not forget the balance score card of this $3 trillion war ;
1. improve geopolitical stability in the middle east : FAIL
2. reduce influence of terrorist networks : FAIL
3. build a modern democratic Iraq : FAIL
4. save lives : FAIL
(>4000 American soldiers dead, >100,000 Iraqis dead)
5. stimulate Amercian economy : FAIL
6. reduce American debt : FAIL
But I could think of one achievement :
1. make a few shareholders of a few American corporations much richer : PASS
And as the article mentions, if the USA had used only a small fraction of that amount for a Marshall Plan for the Middle East, that "might actually have succeeded in winning the hearts and minds of the people there", I could imagine that this would have been more efficient in passing the above 6 criterias...
Oh but I know, I'm French, so obviously, that makes me Anti-American.
Posted by: negentropyeater | March 4, 2008 5:46 AM
Bobby said:
Just to depress you even further another major factor was the fact that despite the theoretical democracy of the Late Roman Republic power in reality was the exclusive property of a few rich families who were the only ones with the money to run the political campaigns to ensure that their candidates gained office.
This led to a complete breakdown of respect for the political process which allowed unelected military men to take power by force under the guise of helping "the man on the street" against the elitist establishment.
Hail to the Chief.
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | March 4, 2008 5:50 AM
Having close-up Vietnam War experience and 1st hand experience with the lies lies lies and even bigger lies our elected officials and their suck-up Generals could get the American sheeple to buy in the name of "our" patriotic duty to "fight the enemy there" and "support the troops" this current mess should not surprise me even a wee bit. But it does (a bit) because I thought enough of us grey hairs would have the nightmare of Vietnam urging us to reason to have just said NO! and made it stick. Guess that was naive wishful thinking.
Without an artful transition except in my mind let me say I think that god belief and institutions that feed on and in turn self-servingly market and promote it are major factors in this in the USA.
In a broad sense "religion" makes people somewhat immune to the dictates of their own good sense and critical fact-based reason, their spirit of independence, and their inclination to have healthy disrespect for authority that a good democracy requires, and it sanctions lazy thinking. It also glorifies martyrdom - a major factor in motivating warriors when no immediate threat is present!
In narrower but extremely significant sense it gives the 30% of hard-wired right-wing-authoritians a sanctioned "atta boy" and undue leverage points for collective influence over the political landscape that far exceed what their actual specific number would otherwise allow.
Again without giving you all anything but a brain fart of a thought, I say for a country to really fuck itself up and others that it touches it needs religion tightly woven in its fabric or a madman that came to power via the road religion of some sort paved. Secular free-thinking countries without orthodoxy as a goal do bad things and have bad people, but never on the grand scale of "religiously" charged countries.
BTW I say dogmatic institutional communism, Fascism, the premise of the Rising Sun of Japan, etc. -- all religions in essence. God belief per se not required; dogmatic hierarchical operating systems are.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | March 4, 2008 5:59 AM
Bobby said:
Yes, we must've been the first invasion force in history that not only blithely assumed that the people being invaded would be delighted to be subjected to air raids on a nightly basis and then occupied but then would happily pay for the priviledge.
Don Smith said:
Agreed, in fact given the monumental nature of the blunder and the fact that it was so easy to spot it coming I'm amazed that no conspiracy theorist has (as far as I know) yet come out with the idea that Dubya was in fact a paid Al Quaeda aagent all along. he's certainly done more to advance their case than it's leadership could possibly have managed on their own.
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | March 4, 2008 6:01 AM
Sorry! Spelling error, I meant advance their cause.
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | March 4, 2008 6:04 AM
Lilly,
there is no need for a conspiracy theory to understand that a US government (or any government) whose complete strategy is based on a so called war-on-terror has absolutely no interest in making sure that the threat of terrorism is reduced.
The fun part is that despite this evident conflict of interest, McCain is going to continue the wonderful tradition that he has inhereted from his predecessors. One just needs to listen to the usual FauxNews commentators (hey Rove is one of them now) to see what is going to happen in the next 8 months. It's all going to be a repeat of the last two elections, creating the illusion that McCain is best to defend America from terrorism.
How many Americans will have learned the lesson ? We'll see, but I wouldn't be too optimistic...
Posted by: negentropyeater | March 4, 2008 6:29 AM
Is it just me, or why is the Iraq war so incredibly expensive? Compare the figures with WWII: 16.3 million people serving across the globe. How can the 150,000 in Iraq be so expensive? Is it merely rising salaries and more expensive gadgetry?
Posted by: Torben | March 4, 2008 6:36 AM
I think you left out the savage corporatism that currently masquerades as benign free market capitalism. Of all the stupid fundamentalist dogmas I can't think of any that are stupider and more destructive long term than the mantra of never ending economic growth.
Posted by: Fernando Magyar | March 4, 2008 6:40 AM
Negentropyeater said:
I think you might be be giving the Bush administration too much credit here.
Given their current form I doubt they would be able to reason as far as you can here. It looks to me like they are genuinely trying to win "the war on terror", the only problem is they haven't a clue how to do it and refuse to listen to people who might be able to help them, so keep on making things worse.
Generally, if there is a choice between cock up and conspiracy, the smart money is on cock up (and in the case of the current administration this is even better advice than usual).
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | March 4, 2008 6:40 AM
Lilly,
It looks to me like they are genuinely trying to win "the war on terror"
Of course not. So many governements throughout history have taken advantage of this. The architects of this whole war-on-terror strategy (Rove, Rumsfeld and Co) are far from stupid. The threat of terror, wherever in the world gives governments a blank check to pursue their war-mongering, people-controlling strategies. It works or has worked in the USA, Pakistan, Russia, Indonesia, Philippines, Britain, etc...
There is nothing new, no new recipie, just some not-so-stupid-but-ill-minded politicians who count on the fact that citizens in their great majority have never learned history, nor have any clue of how the real world outside of their neighbourhoods looks like.
Posted by: negentropyeater | March 4, 2008 7:00 AM
Iraq: A Hopeless Cause
It has been far to long and I am sick and tired of our country fighting a war we don't need. With all the problems in our country, why are we concerning ourselves more with others. It has been 4 1/2 years too long and we need to take action NOW!!!! The Bush Administration needs to take a closer look at their Bible, "remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye." (Matthew 7:5) While America has been paying attention to every other country, the U.S. has been experiencing economic problems, unemployment, a stalled housing market, and a growing deficit. Every day we fight this war all of those problems listed worsen, and as they worsen our country fails it's citizens more and more. If we don't end this war now it will never end. The world is moving to fast for us to waste time on meaningless conflicts.
Posted by: creditos | March 4, 2008 7:08 AM
Negentropyeater said:
Then how come they managed to botch things quite so badly that it cost Rumsfeld his job? Not to mention the damage this whole escapade had done to the US's economy and international standing. This is certainly not the "new American Century" the neocons had in mind.
If this exercise was one in nefarious thought control it just seems to be so badly implemented that I can't believe the people behind it are as intelligent as you seem to think, which is why I tend to go with cock up. I just find it hard to believe that a group of otherwise intelligent people could have simultaneously suffered so disastrous a drop in IQ.
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | March 4, 2008 7:11 AM
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | March 4, 2008 7:11 AM
Posted by: Fernando Magyar | March 4, 2008 7:14 AM
I keep, pinned to my office door, a cartoon in which these lines are spoken:
"I've declared a war on terror. And I'm going to win. I know I am, because I know a secret, and it's simply this.
"No matter what your government tells you- don't be afraid."
If there's a war on terror, you've already won it if you're not terrified. If on the other hand you're so scared of evil brown people that your Constitution is running down your leg- you might be a Republican.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | March 4, 2008 7:21 AM
I really am disappointed at the effects that BSD (Bush Derangement Syndrome) continues to exert on otherwise smart people. By today's pricing, Iraq has $30 trillion dollars of proven oil reserves. Hmmmm...$3 trillion for $30 trillion...still a workable deal, if we ignore the deaths and suffering, some of which would have happened anyway, but still...
EVERYTHING the US does in the Middle East is about the oil. The picture linked-to below is not an insignificant portrayal of our "way of life":
http://www.civicactions.com/sites/home2.civicactions.net/files/map01_1024.jpg
Look at human history. Humans only go to war over economic interests, usually gussied up in excuses about other more honorable sounding motivations. The real tragedy is that "we" didn't get to have a real national discussion about whether or not it would have been a better investment to put that $3 trillion into alternative energy sources. But either way, we have to invest in -something- to keep the lights on.
Posted by: TW | March 4, 2008 7:22 AM
Iraq: A Hopeless Cause
It has been far to long and I am sick and tired of our country fighting a war we don't need. With all the problems in our country, why are we concerning ourselves more with others. It has been 4 1/2 years too long and we need to take action NOW!!!! The Bush Administration needs to take a closer look at their Bible, "remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye." (Matthew 7:5) While America has been paying attention to every other country, the U.S. has been experiencing economic problems, unemployment, a stalled housing market, and a growing deficit. Every day we fight this war all of those problems listed worsen, and as they worsen our country fails it's citizens more and more. If we don't end this war now it will never end. The world is moving to fast for us to waste time on meaningless conflicts.
Posted by: creditos | March 4, 2008 7:27 AM
Lilly,
of course it is a losing strategy, I know that, you know that. But ask all those who are going to vote for McCain under the illusion that he is best suited to defend America and hunt down the terrorists, if they also know that.
And again, you don't know what their personal objectives were. Keeping power for 8 years, and maybe another 8, and in the meantime ensuring that a small group of large shareholders of military/oil corporations increase their combined market value by a few trillion dollars is not a bad result per say (for them).
Posted by: negentropyeater | March 4, 2008 7:33 AM
"War profiteering is treason." -Harry Truman
Posted by: Azkyroth | March 4, 2008 7:42 AM
Corporate welfare/unregulated market capitalism has nothing to do with never-ending economic growth; the system has repeatedly shown itself to be finitely resilient in terms of recovering readily from being abjectly pillaged.
Posted by: Azkyroth | March 4, 2008 7:45 AM
At the price of a ruined US economy that will take their share price down with it if, as seems likely, it hurtles towards recession?
Also, eight years in power (particularly considering the fact that oth houses are Democrat controlled so that power is somewhat limited anyway) ain't that much compared with the many years out of power they're going to suffer now the disastrous consequences of their policies have become apparent (yes, I know that John McCain is also Republican but he's hardly likely to have people from the Bush regime at his side is he - during the whole campaign he's been acting like he's allergic to the guy)?
I'm sorry if I seem to be an apologist for the Bush regime, I'm really not and I have no illusions that the oil in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East was not a factor in the decision to invade Iraq. I just think that it was considered more in the line of a tasty little bonus, rather than the main reason for doing it.
Certainly from the UK perspective it looked like both Bush and Blair had managed to genuinely convince themselves that invading Iraq was the way to go and remain determinedly deaf and blind to all evidence that contradicted their views. That I think is the real crime behind the invasion of Iraq, that they went to war based on what they wanted to believe, rather than on what the evidence they had access to entitled them to believe.
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | March 4, 2008 7:47 AM
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
Don't be too cavalier about tossing around the epithet "evil". There's a big difference between "evil" and "dumb", even if it's frequently hard to tell.
Posted by: Reader 37 | March 4, 2008 8:25 AM
"Is it just me, or why is the Iraq war so incredibly expensive? Compare the figures with WWII: 16.3 million people serving across the globe. How can the 150,000 in Iraq be so expensive? Is it merely rising salaries and more expensive gadgetry?"
Given that a draft wold be political suicide, the US has been going to absurd lengths to try to substitute technology for troop numbers.
They've also, more commendably, gone to enormous lengths to minimise American casualties. But that has meant, for example, enormous amounts of resupply being done by air at massive cost.
Posted by: Ian Gould | March 4, 2008 8:36 AM
We could have saved some lives if we just cut Halliburton, Blackwater, the oil companies, and Bush's friends a check for 3 trillion.
Posted by: Ric | March 4, 2008 8:44 AM
I'm about to go to the polls today here in Texas. The choice is rather bleak:
1) Socialist
2) The wife of Monica's boyfriend
3) RINO
4) Theocrat
The one candidate who is seriously interested in restoring the US to a constitutional republic doesn't stand a chance, but I'm going to vote for Ron Paul anyway. Any other choice is a wasted vote.
Posted by: TX CHL Instructor | March 4, 2008 8:51 AM
Judging by your claim to believe the Ron paul wants to restore the US as a constitutional republic, I gather the main appeal for you is his support for decriminalizing drugs including crack?
Posted by: Azkyroth | March 4, 2008 8:54 AM
Rob Paul supporters are delusional.
He doesn't even have the support the Perot had.
Funny.
Posted by: Steve_C | March 4, 2008 9:07 AM
From #59
"2) The wife of Monica's boyfriend"
See, I just don't get that sort of thing. I didn't vote for Hillary, but not because her husband got a couple blowjobs from some girl. Who gives a shit about that? Why would that even come into your mind when trying to decide whether or not someone should be president?
Posted by: Dahan | March 4, 2008 9:09 AM
It is incredible how right was Orwell describing totalitarianisms. Despite the fact that he was mocking Stalin and the USSR, you think he depicts accurately the current situation of the US. At the same time, I, here in Venezuela, about to go to a stupid war based on ideological reasons and surrounded by an authoritarian government that claims to be on People's side while it takes away every bit of liberty and rights for fighting Jones, I mean, the Empire, also feel that Animal Farm is a super metaphor for the hell that is going on here.
How ironic. I guess tyrants of every ideology and color act pretty much the same, besides minor details.
Posted by: Guido | March 4, 2008 9:12 AM
Thanks for bringing this up PZ.
I had written something last year on the cost of the war in terms of NIH funding. PZ's post inspired me to revive and update it. Sorry for the shameless plug, but for those interested, it is at http://yacketyyakia.blogspot.com/2008/03/cost-of-war-in-terms-of-nih-funding.html
Posted by: Anonymoustache | March 4, 2008 9:31 AM
etc.
When one takes into account the monetary costs of all of those failures, it would not be surprising if the total net loss from the Iraq war rises to $100 trillion dollars.
Posted by: xebecs | March 4, 2008 9:31 AM
Since a couple people upthread recommended 1984, I'd like to recommend that anyone interested in understanding the intersection of terrorism, conservative agendas, and abject stupidity read The Secret Agent, by Joseph Conrad, published way back in 1907. One of the most prescient books I've ever read.
And look, it's public domain!
(Oh, and confidential to commenter #59: You've been watching TV again, haven't you?)
Posted by: HP | March 4, 2008 9:32 AM
Lilly, minor point perhaps, but the GOP controlled both the Senate and the House for the first six years of Dubya's administration. His power was not limited in any meaningful way, not even (apparently) by that "goddamn piece of paper" our founders coughed up about 220 years ago. Now, after giving the Democrats the finger for six years, he's crying about partisanship and urging cooperation so that things can "get done" - as if the loyal opposition is simply in the way. Which, from his perspective, it is and always will be.
I agree completely with your assessment of "the real crime" behind the war.
However, I believe you are mistaken about the oil, if only to the degree that the phrase "tasty little bonus" understates the reality. The oil provided the primary motivation for the invasion of Iraq and, indeed, virtually everything that goes on between the US and any oil-rich nation, notably Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran. I realize this is arguable, but I want you to understand that I'm not part of the Lefty chorus which has spent six years shrieking about the US attempt to "steal" the oil from Iraq.
The Neocons agenda is driven primarily by the perceived need to defend and promote US interests abroad, by use of military force if necessary. "US interests" in Iraq (and Iran) can be summarized by these two goals:
1. To ensure access to oil.
2. To eliminate dangerously hostile regimes.
The two goals are inextricably intertwined, but the primary goal is to have US-friendly regimes in these oil-producing countries by any means necessary, be it diplomacy, economic pressure, military threat, or by US-assisted regime change. Oil is power, in both senses of the word, and political situations that negatively impact our access to oil conflict with American "interests". This is a truth that transcends partisanship, indeed transcends politics completely, but which the Neocons are more than happy to address by way of the application of US Military Might, much to the chagrin of half the population of the US (more like three-quarters, now) and virtually all of the rest of the world.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 4, 2008 9:40 AM
Remember, boys and girls:
* $35B to send sick kids to the doctor: zOMFG that's SOCIALISM why do you hate America you traitor!
* Unlimited funds to blow shit up in Iraq: HELL YEAH go git them feelthy Ay-raybs MR DUBYA! YEEEEEEE-HAAAW! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!
Posted by: Ray C. | March 4, 2008 9:41 AM
Rove, Rumsfeld, Cheney, these are not stupid people. Rumsfield's poor handling of the Iraq war itself I'm willing to write off as incompetence (different than stupidity). But you'd have a tough time convincing me that the agenda behind the war is anything but planned. It was a power grab, pure and simple.
Anyone remember before 9/11, when Bush tried to open up Alaskan wild land for drilling. He was soundly defeated. What was one of the first things he did after 9/11, Congress promised bipartisan support of the President? He opened up Alaskan parklands for drilling, making his cronies richer.
I'm not claiming conspiracy. I think these folks saw an opportunity to cow the populace, allowing them to seize greater control and they took it. These folks knew the power J Edgar Hoover wielded because of his domestic spying operations when they instituted their wiretapping policy. They know the fear torture inspires. Their policies are well thought out, well researched, and wholly calculated to benefit them, without regard for we the people.
I'll end my little rant with this:
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 4, 2008 10:02 AM
Kseniya said:
Agreed, but my point was that his power has been limited for the last two years however little he likes it and in the event of McCain being elected president the GOP's power will remain strictly limited whilst the Democrats hold both houses. Whilst I don't doubt Dubya would dearly love this not to be the case and tries to weasel his way past it any time he thinks he can get away with it, the point remains that it is very much the situation he and his neocon allies are in, however many tantrums they care to throw.
I'd agree that "little" was an unwarranted understatement on my part to describe the political effect the oil in the Middle East has on politics (if there was any doubt about that the nauseating spectacle that is the West's relationship with Saudi Arabia would be enough), of course it is a consideration. I'm just not sure it was enough of one for the Bush administration to utterly concoct the whole sorry charade that was the excuse to go to war.
I think it was a mixture of self-delusion (this is the right thing to do, therefore we must do it and we'll ignore each and every scrap of information that tells us otherwise because it's clearly tainted, otherwise it would agree with us), a sense of unfinished business from the last time we went into Iraq ("Saddam tried to kill my Daddy" e.t.c.) and a desire to make a mark on history (Tony Blair appeared to believe that he was the second Winston Churchill throughout). Oil no doubt played it's part as well, but I'm not convinced it was the overriding consideration.
It's been said before but (particularly in any enterprise that involves George W Bush) incompetence is probably a better bet here than conspiracy.
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | March 4, 2008 10:09 AM
#68 sums up beautifully the totality of current American intelligence vis a vis politics. So simple. So pathetic. So tragic.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | March 4, 2008 10:20 AM
War on Terrorism is like the War on Poverty, the No-Child-Left-Behind fallacy, the Build-Cities-Below-Sea-Level planning, the Buy-Everything-On-Credit bubble.
The California Solution? When in debt, replace your governor with one who will get you into 3 times the debt.
Posted by: June | March 4, 2008 10:27 AM
#68
What is really sad is that your post will actually be the conversation held by a few of my coworkers today at lunch. "If those stupid Dems get elected its all over for us!! They'll force health care on everyone and the tax payers will suffer!"
"Well what about eh 3 trillion dollars pumped into a war that no one is getting any benefit from?"
"WE HAVE TO DO THAT!! FIGHT THEM OVER THERE NOT OVER HERE!! CAN'T CRITICIZE OUR PRESIDENT IN A WAR!!"
Its honestly become a routine.
Posted by: HumanisticJones | March 4, 2008 10:33 AM
Lilly,
1. the US could very well tumble into recession whilst the Military/Oil conglomerates continue to see a rise in profits. Nothing magical about that.
2. the neocons will only suffer being out of power if American voters keep them out. With the average level of education that most voters have on all matters from history to science, and the average exposure on any foreign culture and understanding of the world outside of the USA, I sincerely doubt that the neocons will find it that difficult to gain back power, if not this election, or within the next few elections. Keeping a majority of Americans focussed on a healthy mix of religious nutteries, american idol and superbowl is just the perfect way to keep them in business for a long, long time.
3. Am I the only one who seems to have observed a clear shift in McCain's rethoric since he has secured his party's nomination ? Suddenly, he is now a "true conservative", defending the war-on-terror, and for sure, accepting a lot of advice from the usual suspects / Neocon thinkers and, and a lot of money from the usual interest groups /lobbyists. Do you have any reasons to believe that if McCain were to be elected, the neocons and the interest groups they represented and have made phenomenally rich during the last eight years would loose any of their influence ?
4. The war-on-terror made sure that military spending goes up, and the price of oil goes up. A nice combination which ensured that a few dozen companies increased their market value by a few trillion dollars during that period; that's the cake. Securing Iraqi oil was indeed just the little cherry, on the cake. Even if that cherry is still not secured, the cake is very well and very fat indeed.
5. I'm always amazed at all these people who have bought the myth that Bush was just a little bit dumb and honestly always thought that this strategy would help to keep America safe and fight terrorism. You can't be that dumb if you manage to get elected twice. And you still believe that they remained deaf and blind in front of the evidence, but on another hand history has never provided numerous examples of governments that manufactured evidence to suit their needs. And as if this administration and the obvious interest groups it protects have no history of producing fake evidence for anything from Global Warming deniers, Toxic waste exports, Wateboarding techniques and so on. They don't seem to me to be THAT naïve and innocent.
Posted by: negentropyeater | March 4, 2008 10:33 AM
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to compreh