|
Note: The
President’s Supplemental on the War in Iraq is an estimate for just 6 months. Following, commentary by JK
Galbraith. Spending Request Envisions Long
War @ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24606-2003Mar25.html 2… The senior
administration official who briefed reporters last night said it costs $30 billion to deploy troops to the
region and $5 billion per month to sustain them. Therefore, the $53 billion for
the troops would allow a full force to remain for nearly five months. The official said the administration
pictures "at least the beginnings of withdrawal" within six months. 3… The new proposal, because it deals only with
funds in the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30, is likely not the last funding related to the Iraq conflict and its aftermath.
Most of the $74.7 billion will be added to a deficit for the current fiscal
year that is already forecast at $316 billion. 4… Rep. David R. Obey
(Wis.), the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said the
administration is not giving a full accounting of the war's costs in its
emergency request. "I know
people think this will pay for the war," he said. "It most definitely
will not. This is, in my view, the first installment." Taxpayers for Common Sense, a budget watchdog organization,
contended yesterday that the costs of war with Iraq would exceed $110 billion in 2003, assuming the war ends before May, and $550 billion over 10 years. The group calculated that the military has already
spent $1 billion on cruise missiles, $380 million on chemical protective suits
and more than $100 million on air combat missions. The senior
administration official said the war would cost less than the 1991 Gulf War,
which cost more than $80 billion in today's dollars. However, all but $9
billion of that came from allies, and it appears so far that the United States
will pay almost all of the cost of the current conflict. (end of excerpts) What Economic Price This War? By James K.
Galbraith, published on Monday, March 24, 2003 by the Boston Globe Recently as we debated
the war now underway in Iraq, seven Nobel laureates joined 150 other US
economists (including myself) to call for careful consideration of the costs of
war in Iraq. When economists talk about costs, what do we mean? First, we mean budget costs -- for
gasoline, equipment, and explosives -- that begin at about $100 billion. This
figure is based on an assumption that the war goes well. It the assumption is
wrong, the numbers will go up fast. The history of warfare -- from Europe in
1914 to Vietnam in the 1960s -- is littered with gross underestimates of budget
costs. We also mean the material costs, which are sometimes
overstated in war -- bombs may fall on empty fields or on rubble and damage can
look worse than it is. In Iraq, though, the civilian population is already
stressed. Even modest material damage -- to the water, to the electric grids
and the health system -- could bring on humanitarian disaster. There are risks
of sabotage, not least to the oil fields. And there will be some damage,
inevitably, to the archeological heritage of Iraq and especially Baghdad. The
human costs
are beyond accounting. No matter the number of casualities, every dead soldier,
on either side, every dead civilian, is a human being who could have lived a
productive and perhaps happy life. Every injured person will carry a burden of
pain. We need not demean the grief ahead by trying to give it money value. The uncertainty costs are more prosaic but just
as hard to calculate. How much business investment, how much production, how
much trade have we already lost -- not only in the United States but in the
world economy -- because of the fear and uncertainty surrounding this war? What
effect will war have on global economic decision-making, consumer and market
confidence, global energy prices? How much more lies ahead? The
reconstruction costs
are imponderable. One estimate for the cost of rebuilding Iraq runs to $2
trillion. But will the US actually do the job? What if it takes two years and a
100,000 troops? Five years and 200,000 troops? What if the oil fields are shut
down in the meantime? The follow-on costs arise from the military
situation we may face after the war ends. Will peace and democracy break out in
Iraq? Will the war lead to peace, democracy, and demilitarization across the
Middle East, as some believe? Or will there be rebellions, revenge killings,
and proxy wars across Iraq, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and even Egypt? Not to
mention in Israel and Palestine. The diplomatic costs lie in the damage already
done, and more may lie ahead -- to relationships with Europe, Russia and other
countries. One may count also the cost of disillusion, of much of the world's
population, with the American ideal. The
opportunity costs
are those that arise every time we make a decision to do one thing rather than
another. By choosing to go to war, we are choosing to do less to solve our
problems at home. We face a crisis in every state and local budget in this
country -- in every school, every welfare program, and every part of public
health care. We face a crisis of trust in our corporations, and a crisis of
confidence in the profitability of future business investment. American
households are facing in slow motion a crisis of household debts. Little will
be done about any of this, so long as we are preoccupied with war. Finally, the apocalyptic costs should be considered.
There is the risk, already unfolding, that North Korea will produce atomic
bombs. There is also the risk that Iran will buy a few of them or make some of
its own. There is the risk that we will shortly face one, two, or perhaps more
nuclear powers who regard us -- and not entirely without reason -- as a mortal
threat to their existence. There is the risk that we may make a catastrophic
mistake in our response. Once the real costs
have been considered, the economic conclusion is not controversial. It is that
collective security -- the kind provided by strong alliances, the rule of law,
and the United Nations Security Council -- is the only real security. It is
certainly the only kind that we, or any other country, can afford. Perhaps war
is sometimes necessary. But it is never really cheap enough. James K. Galbraith is chair of Economists Allied for Arms
Reduction, which spearheaded the US Economists' Statement on
Iraq. He teaches at the University of Texas at Austin. http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0324-02.htm Outgoing mail scanned by NAV 2002 |
