Taking stock of the cost of Iraq.

For the few supporters of the Iraq War who kept the faith through the long years of carnage and despair, these are better days. Violence has declined sharply in Iraq and something vaguely resembling normal life is springing up in formerly desolate neighbourhoods. The armchair generals are even daring to talk once again of "victory."

Victor Davis Hanson certainly has the spring in his step back. Hanson -- the classicist whose odes to the West and the Bush administration have made him the neo-cons' Homer -- is already predicting that the debate about Iraq will soon shift. Gone will be the talk of quagmires and defeat. Instead, Hanson wrote recently, liberal critics will soon argue "that the war, while granted that it may be winnable, was not worth the commensurate cost ..."

I hope he's right because the most important question was never whether the United States would win. It was -- to use the cold language of policy analysis -- whether the benefits of winning outweigh the costs. Or, to put that in human terms: Was the whole bloody thing worth it?

So let's have a go at answering that question.

For the sake of argument, assume that the growing calm in Iraq is real and lasting and that -- this one's a giant leap -- the political will exists to forge a democratic government that is not hopelessly impotent, corrupt or brutal. Assume, as improbable as it may sound, that the worst is over and a relatively peaceful and stable Iraq is about to emerge.

If so, here's the positive side of the ledger:

* Saddam Hussein and his murderous regime are gone.

* Saddam no longer threatens the world with weapons of mass destruction. Um, no. Strike this one.
[Top]

* Iraq may one day become, as Charles Krauthammer put it in 2003, "a genuinely pluralistic, open and free society" whose example spurs change throughout the Middle East. The key word there is "may." Even the most neo-connish of neo-cons has toned down the rhetoric on this point, to such an extent that Victor Davis Hanson sounded almost embarrassed to admit he still hopes the Iraqi example will "encourage reform in the region." But if it happens, Hanson insisted, "it would be impossible to compute all the multifarious ways in which that would contribute to world stability and U.S. security."

OK, let's be charitable and put that on the positive side of the ledger.

Now let's have a look at the negative side. Space is limited so I'll keep this brief.

* The U.S. military is stretched perilously thin.

* Intelligence agencies report that the invasion and subsequent chaos gave a big boost to terrorist recruitment.

* In Muslim countries and throughout much of the world, positive feeling for the United States is at an all-time low while suspicion and hostility are at record highs. American influence is thus diminished. During the Cuban missile crisis, Charles de Gaulle famously refused an offer to see the spy photos of Soviet missiles on the grounds that the word of the president was all the proof he needed; today, he'd want the photos, an affidavit and a polygraph.

* According to the Pentagon's latest numbers, 3,872 American servicemen and women have died in Iraq; 12,764 have been seriously wounded.

* Estimates of Iraqi loss of life vary widely, but documented deaths alone number around 80,000. The real number of lives lost -- including losses due to disease, starvation and dislocation caused by the war -- is likely far higher. Around 3.4 million Iraqis have been forced from their homes by the war.

* Estimates of the total monetary cost of the war -- assuming it doesn't drag on -- range between $500 billion and an almost unfathomable $2 trillion.
[Top]

This brings us to the important sub-category economists call "opportunity costs." The money (and I'll keep it simple by sticking to money) poured into Iraq could have been spent on other priorities. Those foregone opportunities also have to be counted among the costs.

And what might those opportunities be? There's a long list. For one, that money could have provided health insurance for the 41 million Americans who lack it. In 2004, the Institute of Medicine -- one of the National Academies of Science -- issued a report that found the lack of health insurance "causes 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States" and inflicts economic costs between $60 billion and $130 billion annually.

Worldwide, measles kills almost 300,000 children a year even though the measles vaccine costs 16 cents a dose. A further 1.6 million are killed each year by easily treatable and preventable diarrhea. Even the money spent on the new American embassy would make a huge difference.

Then there's HIV/AIDS. According to the expert panel assembled by Danish political scientist Bjorn Lomborg, $27 billion could prevent 28 million cases of the disease by 2010.

And what about the United Nations' ambitious Millennium Development Goals? A 2005 report concluded that meeting the 2015 target date would require an additional $48 billion in 2006, rising to $74 billion by 2015. What would that money buy? By 2015, extreme poverty would be one-third lower than expected; the number of people living in slums would be cut in half; the number of undernourished people would be 229 million lower; and 3.5 million fewer children would die. Imagine all the multifarious ways in which that would contribute to world stability and U.S. security.

I will leave it to the reader to compare the two halves of the ledger and draw the appropriate conclusion.

You can contact Dan Gardner at the Ottawa Citizen.
E-mail: dgardner@thecitizen.canwest.com

Back to Columns

Home

Copyright © 2005  Dan Gardner
Website Design & Management by:  GRA Web Site Design Ottawa