Global Opportunity Cost of Iraq War

By: teacherken
Published On: 1/21/2008 3:03:43 PM

originally posted at Daily Kos

Opportunity Cost is the highest value good or service you can no longer afford because of a decision you have made.  If you have 5 dollars and spend 2 dollars on candy, you can no longer afford a 4 dollar sandwich.   Forgive this simplified (and somewhat inaccurate) explanation (I am neither an economist nor do I play one in the classroom), but hopefully it will enable to grasp the import of what Iraq has cost the world:

Consider that, according to sources like Columbia's Jeffrey Sachs, the Worldwatch Institute, and the United Nations, with that same money the world could:

Eliminate extreme poverty around the world (cost $135 billion in the first year, rising to $195 billion by 2015.)

Achieve universal literacy (cost $5 billion a year.)

Immunize every child in the world against deadly diseases (cost $1.3 billion a year.)

Ensure developing countries have enough money to fight the AIDS epidemic (cost $15 billion per year.)

 


The statistics are quoted from How the Iraq war's $2 trillion cost to U.S. could have been spent, an op-ed in today's Toronto Star by Craig and Marc Kielburger, who are described as "children's rights activists and co-founded Free The Children, which is active in the developing world" and who write in the Star on global issues every Monday.  The link for the piece arrived in my inbox as part of the daily email from Veterans for Common Sense.  

The idea of comparing the costs of war with other needs, social and moral, that are unmet, is hardly a new one.   On this day when we commemorate Martin Luther King, it is worth, as several here have already noted today, to remark on the words he offered at Riverside Church against the war in Vietnam, entitled A Time to Break Silence, from which I offer the following two brief selections:

There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I, and others, have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor -- both black and white -- through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program broken and eviscerated, as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So, I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.


A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.


Or perhaps the words of a man who knew the cost of war as did few Americans, President and former General Dwight D. Eisenhower, from his farewell address to the nation in 1961:
Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.


Thus we need to be cautious in asserting the "if only" statements of what we could accomplish were we not embroiled in an illegal war that is bankrupting our nation's future, economically, morally, and in the eyes of much of the rest of the world.

That said, let us return to the op ed.  First, a reminder of the possible true costs of the war:
Calculations by Harvard's Linda Bilmes and Nobel-prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz remain most prominent. They determined that, once you factor in things like medical costs for injured troops, higher oil prices and replenishing the military, the war will cost America upwards of $2 trillion. That doesn't include any of the costs incurred by Iraq, or America's coalition partners.



Then, after the itemized list which I quoted above we read
In other words, for a cost of $156.3 billion this year alone – less than a tenth of the total Iraq war budget – we could lift entire countries out of poverty, teach every person in the world to read and write, significantly reduce child mortality, while making huge leaps in the battle against AIDS, saving millions of lives.

Then the remaining money could be put toward the $40 billion to $60 billion annually that the World Bank says is needed to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, established by world leaders in 2000, to tackle everything from gender inequality to environmental sustainability.



The writers offer this because they believe it is an issue that we should be addressing in our current presidential campaign.   While hoping that Republican candidates would seriously address this is hilarious as well as ridiculous, and acknowledging that our candidates have touched on it at least in passing, is it too farfetched to believe that a candidate who would speak courageously and honestly about the opportunity costs, what we must forego, as a result of our ongoing entanglement in Iraq, might be the politically smart thing to do, given where the American people are in their attitudes towards the war? It certainly would be the moral and honest thing to do, although I acknowledge that any candidate(s) taking such an approach had better be prepared to engage with the talking heads in the media who seem to have been bamboozled enough to say that the surge is working.  And as the penultimate paragraph of the op ed notes
If America and other nations were to spend as much on peace as they do on war, that would help root out the poverty, hopelessness and anti-Western sentiment that can fuel terrorism – exactly what the Iraq war was supposed to do.


Once despite our arrogance America was viewed positively in much of the world.  What we did with the Marshall Plan after the 2nd World War is a clarion example of how this can be done.  The Peace Corps was another example, programs in health, in building schools and economies yet another, and even if such programs were always inextricably intertwined with Americans seeing an opportunity for profit, somehow we were able to see that peaceful means of influencing other nations were more beneficial to both sides, more effective in in gaining influence for US interests, and a hell of lot less expensive than having to assert military force or the credible threat thereof as the primary means of working for our perceived national interests.  

What could we accomplish, both at home and abroad, were we not spending so much, in time, lives, and treasure, in an effort in Iraq that in so many ways has been a debacle?

I wrote this with a title including the term "opportunity cost."   There is yet a greater cost than the economics implied in that term.   And King, in his speech on Vietnam, expressed it well, so on this the day in which we commemorate his life and work, let me offer three more excerpts from that magnificent speech:

Perhaps the more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem. And so we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. And so we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would hardly live on the same block in Chicago. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.


Now, it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read: Vietnam. It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over. So it is that those of us who are yet determined that America will be are led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land.


And finally, words, that clearly speak to our own times, and to the subject of this diary, noting especially the last paragraph in this snip: 
A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life's roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.

A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing except a tragic death wish to prevent us from reordering our priorities so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood.


Life consists of choices.   Opportunity cost is that which we forgo by the choices we have made.  The lost opportunities can be expressed in economic terms.  They can also demonstrate the chances lost for moral leadership, for healing of wounded souls, for uplifting those who are downtrodden, and for inspiring people to think beyond themselves to our common humanity.

How much longer will we pay all of these opportunity costs for Iraq?  What will those who propose to lead this nation do to address this?  Do not we deserve clear answers?

Peace.

Comments



...Cost of Iraq War (redladyleoness - 1/21/2008 8:59:49 PM)
The war costs would not be near as it is if there wasn't "pork" added to each bill re the war.  The last bill Bush passed (after vetoed once...) had 12,000 earmarks.  That is not the actual cost of the war... that is greed at our expense.  

That's right 12,000.  I wish each earmark was listed so the public knew who and what is added to a bill.



And I Wish (oldsoldier - 1/23/2008 11:51:32 AM)
Someone, anyone would bring the war contractors and contracting officers before a Jim Webb proposed "Truman War Profiteer Commission" with subpoena power to compel testimony and the production of documents.

I fault the leadership of my own party for withholding subpoena power and not having started the hearings at least a month ago.

When I was in the Army, if you lost your helmet, you paid for it.  How in HECK can the money "for the troops" be paid out without requiring receipts and other accountability?