"War costs and costs and costs" (Joseph Stiglitz)

[swag]

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/joseph_stiglitz/2008/03/war_costs_and_costs_and_costs.html

With March 20 marking the fifth anniversary of the United States-led invasion of Iraq, it's time to take stock of what has happened. In our new book The Three Trillion Dollar War, Harvard's Linda Bilmes and I conservatively estimate the economic cost of the war to the US to be $3 trillion, and the costs to the rest of the world to be another $3tn - far higher than the Bush administration's estimates before the war. The Bush team not only misled the world about the war's possible costs, but has also sought to obscure the costs as the war has gone on.

This is not surprising. After all, the Bush administration lied about everything else, from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction to his supposed link with al-Qaida. Indeed, only after the US-led invasion did Iraq become a breeding ground for terrorists.

The Bush administration said the war would cost $50bn. The US now spends that amount in Iraq every three months. To put that number in context: for one-sixth of the cost of the war, the US could put its social security system on a sound footing for more than a half-century, without cutting benefits or raising contributions.

Moreover, the Bush administration cut taxes for the rich as it went to war, despite running a budget deficit. As a result, it has had to use deficit spending - much of it financed from abroad - to pay for the war. This is the first war in American history that has not demanded some sacrifice from citizens through higher taxes; instead, the entire cost is being passed onto future generations. Unless things change, the US national debt - which was $5.7tn when Bush became president - will be $2tn higher because of the war (in addition to the $800bn increase under Bush before the war).

Was this incompetence or dishonesty? Almost surely both. Cash accounting meant that the Bush administration focused on today's costs, not future costs, including disability and health care for returning veterans. Only years after the war began did the administration order the specially armoured vehicles that would have saved the lives of many killed by roadside bombs. Not wanting to reintroduce a draft, and finding it difficult to recruit for an unpopular war, troops have been forced into two, three, or four stress-filled deployments.

. . . more at

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/joseph_stiglitz/2008/03/war_costs_and_costs_and_costs.html

[gratuitous]

1. Get out the million pound shithammer

And whale away on these numbers. What could all the money we pounded down in the sands of Afghanistan and Iraq have bought? One sixth of that waste would have ended the alleged Social Security "crisis." And Sen. Dumbass from Oklahoma (Coburn? The name escapes me right now) is putting holds on legislation left and right because we "can't afford" a hundred million dollars to protect wilderness, make sure the food supply is safe, or fix bridges and roads. But he sure as shit could vote for war, war, and endless war. Come on, Oklahoma. You're smarter than this, I know.

[swag]

2. Yeah, it's painful to even contemplate the waste, destruction,

and squandered opportunity, especially as we continue to waste, destroy, and squander.