“What Would You Rather Have: The War in Iraq, or $1,075?”
That’s the question asked by CATO’s Justin Logan in a post linking to a UPI report that the war’s expenses have totaled that amount per citizen. Ezra Klein seconds the question. ...
Had the question been posed as “What would you rather have: Saddam in power or tens of thousands of dead Iraqis?” it would have been much more difficult to answer. With the outcome as uncertain as it is, I’d have to say the former. But, weighed only against a few day’s take-home pay, I’d have to say the cost has been worth the potential payoff.
First of all, I'd dispute the cost estimate--recapitalization of the military after all the latest ventures will probably cost this much alone, if not more. Even conceding the figure for now, this is merely a lame attempt to convince people the burdens of empire really aren't all that great. The writer alludes to the idea of opportunity cost by pointing out supposedly frivolous things people might have purchased had we not invaded Iraq (assuming Uncle Sam would graciously have let them KEEP such savings...ahem...). But he fails to fully grasp the intangible costs of this choice: the thousands of dead on both sides (worth only a passing mention), those maimed for life (not mentioned at all), the sacrifices of those spending years away from loved ones, and the utter degradation of American credibility around the globe. These intangibles, combined, are far more valuable than any $1000.
I find this economic-centric assessment of the utility of war to be amoral and repugnant. But if we're going to use it, at least stop to assess the return on investment. To date, it hasn't amounted to much. Like a failing mutual fund, the managers keep promising a rich payoff, but it never seems to materialize. At some point in such situations, the prudent money goes elsewhere.


No comments:
Post a Comment