WHAT ABOUT THE COSTS?

COSTS OF A WAR WITH IRAQ
Babs - There have been a number of articles in the NY Times, etc. I just keyed into their search engine "Cost of War with Iraq." A number of articles came up for the past 30 days. You could probably find quite a few more on Google; I didn't try that. Here are the first two paragraphs from the NY Times article and the URL.

***********************************************

Panel Faults Bush on War Costs and Risks

March 12, 2003
By PATRICK E. TYLER

The cost of postwar reconstruction of Iraq will be at least
$20 billion a year and will require the long-term
deployment of 75,000 to 200,000 troops to prevent
widespread instability and violence against former members
of Saddam Hussein's government, a panel of national
security experts say in a new study.

The panel, consisting of senior American officials from
Republican and Democratic administrations, was organized by
the Council on Foreign Relations. It concludes that
President Bush has failed "to fully describe to Congress
and the American people the magnitude of the resources that
will be required to meet the post-conflict needs" of Iraq.

************************************************

Oops! I'll get back with the URL - lost it. The date is March 12, 2003.
[/color]

NY TIMES URL
Here is the URL ... I hope! I'll test it after it's posted.


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/12/international/middleeast/12COST.html?ex=1048560800&ei=1&en=eef812e3b01fd0f1

While there may be many reasons why no one wants to talk about the costs, I have to agree with the position that it is just not knowable at this point in time.

This week's leader in The New Statesman really sums it up!

Money is not the real cost in this war.

The costs of war: democracy in danger

The temptation for those who have always opposed war in Iraq is to hope that when the bombing starts - as it must very soon - it all goes badly wrong. The sweetest thing in human affairs is to say "I told you so", and tens of thousands of civilian deaths, mass disease and starvation, floods of refugees, heavy losses of US and British troops, violent uprisings throughout the Islamic world, collapse on the financial markets and the eventual resignation of a chastened Tony Blair would seem a triumphant vindication of all the warnings issued in recent weeks. But those outcomes are in no way to be desired, nor are most of them very likely. The happiest result for humanity in general, and the Iraqi people in par- ticular, is a speedy and complete American-British victory and the swift departure of Saddam Hussein. A very large and decisive full stop needs to be placed after that statement.

But no war at all would have been a happier result, and not just for the sake of avoiding all the terrible risks listed above. The costs of war, we should have learnt by now, are to be accounted over years, even decades, not days. The upshot of the First World War - fascism in Europe - could not possibly have been foreseen on Armistice Day, 1918. The first Gulf war, which seemed so comprehensive a victory and so justifiable a cause at the time, seems to have sown the seeds of Osama Bin Laden's anti-US hatred. Israel is only now discovering the costs of routing its Arab enemies in 1967 and 1973: that the security it so craved is more elusive than ever.

There is also the more mundane consideration (mundane, that is, to those who support wars from lofty geopolitical and "humanitarian" standpoints) that all modern conflicts leave behind serious environmental damage and lethal weapons. An Iraqi mother may need some persuading to rejoice over Saddam's overthrow if her child then gets blown up by a cluster bomb. And this, remember, is the optimistic scenario: Iraqis will need even more persuading of the merits of being liberated if Saddam actually responds with chemical and biological attacks and the US then carries out Condoleezza Rice's promise of "national destruction".

These are the imponderables. Four other long-term results of war can be stated with greater confidence. First, the threat to world security. The stated intention of President Bush's policy is to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. He has already achieved the precise opposite: the inescapable message sent out by his threat to Iraq is that any country likely to come into conflict with the US or its allies had best acquire nuclear weapons quickly. Once in the nuclear club, you're pretty well inviolable. This is the lesson drawn by North Korea, which already has conventional capacities far superior to Iraq's. President Bush's threats have failed to deter Iran from continuing to build nuclear reactors or Russia from helping her. The US can hope to achieve "regime change" in Iraq, it is increasingly clear, only because Saddam is weak, not because he is strong.

Second, the damage to the United Nations. Whether or not it delivers a second resolution is now almost irrelevant, and that so many Labour MPs set so much store by it suggests a certain moral myopia. A body that carried at least a smidgen of authority is exposed as a forum for bribery and intimidation, where the strong seek to buy legitimacy for what they propose to do anyway. Far from strengthening the UN by persuading President Bush to go through the motions of following its procedures, Mr Blair has irreparably weakened it; better for all concerned if it had stayed above the conflict, denouncing the US as it would any other rogue state.

Third, the prospect of American hegemony. Under the Monroe Doctrine of the 19th century, as elaborated by the Roosevelt Corollary of 1904, the US reserved the right to intervene against anything on or near the American continent that it perceived as a threat. The Bush regime has extended the doctrine to the entire planet, and perhaps logically so given the range of US corporations and banks and its voracious consumption of resources. Such dominance will be exercised in nobody's interests but America's, a point readily grasped by the French, who are always being criticised for acting in French interests. US interests may sometimes coincide with liberal internationalist aims, but those who think that humanitarianism can piggy-back on US realpolitik are simply deluding themselves. True, the US no longer wants "strong men" to resist communist insurgency; it prefers softer power which will open up markets to US business. But, where necessary, it happily tolerates corruption and tyranny.

Fourth, the blow to democracy. Empire - a term we can safely use now that the New York Times Magazine has given its imprimatur - is not readily compatible with democratic procedure. With their boundaries set wide, and potential enemies numerous, imperial powers cannot delay action while elected representatives troop through lobbies or focus groups deliberate; their leaders are compelled to take a larger view, unavailable to mere mortals, and to some degree rightly so since their decisions will affect millions who have no vote in the imperial heartland. Equally, they must often restrict civil liberties for the sake of security: the paradox of power, for both individuals and nations, is that it makes them more vulnerable, not less so. All this also applies to imperial allies, so that Mr Blair can be at odds with his party and his country (to an extent quite unprecedented in British history), and yet still believe in the legitimacy of his actions.

But the course, it seems, is set. Those who oppose war must hope for a quick end and a painless liberation for Iraq. The goal now is to stop anything like it happening again.

I must say Thank You to Charli for handily
coming up with the links. I must begin
to keep those things at hand - to put into
my long winded discussions. At times, I get
so moved emotionally that I do not think
about the little concrete things like exactly
where and when I read the article. But
those ARE important things, and it would
be good of me to develop the good habit
of footnoting my longwinded goings on.

Frolic, for someone with such a misnomer as
a nickname; you have certainly covered alot
of material here, and very concisely as well.
Thank you for your input one and all. It IS
TOO TRUE that the financial costs are only a
small part of the TOTAL cost....kind of like
a VIRTUAL COST vs a MONEY COST. I do
believe that all of us here on A2K, ( or most)
are old enough to remember the days of
Vietnam, Korea - all the wars that there
never was even a prospect of winning. It was
just pure war for the sake of war. If you can't
follow your enemy past a certain imaginary line,
then how can you ever hope to achieve any
victory at all?
I can not believe that as stupid, arrogant, illbred
and ridiculous Bush, Inc looks - this travesty goes
on. Oh How I wish for all Americans to travel
to Wash DC - descend on them like a wicked band
of locusts; then there could be NO inane imaginary
"polls" of the American people being in agreement
with Bush,Inc. The proof would be right there in
our nations capitol.
Do you think THIS would have any effect?

We haven't even gone to war yet, and I can't imagine what it is costing us to be at the "ready"!

Let's look at all the jobs that have been lost in the recent past, and also the jobs that have to be filled beause of the men/women who have been called up to be at the "ready" for war ... is there a correlation here?

THERE ARE OTHER "COSTS" ...
"Other costs" being the number of bodybags sent "home" containing loved ones. Almost no one is talking about the numbers of "our" servicemen and women who will die or come home maimed. Based on the Vietnam War, the mortality rate given by the US Dept. of Defense was 1625 per 250,000 personnel. O.K., there were fewer than 300 (293) deaths in Operation Desert Storm. Not many ... unless one of those happened to be your loved one. The columnist Arianna Huffington wrote a few weeks ago that there is a computer program in the Pentagon which gives the probabilities based on various scenarios. Also, recently, there was mentioned somewhere that 177,000 bodybags have been ordered. Undoubtedly, not possible to verify that.

Hate to end on a depressing down note. Is there some "good news" in this morass? Until there is, I wish all of you and yours the best. -- Charli

This war wont even be a war. Because to fight a war you need, at least, two armies. The Iraqi troops are a lame excuse for an army.

Unless they manage to make it an urban guerillia war where street after street have to be taken. Sarajevo showed us the lethalness of snipers and Mogodishu the weakness of the US army in city areas

Frolic:

That's what I'm afraid of and I think that will happen.

Also, I think there's a good chance that the UN will stick the US, GBR and any other countries who participate in this with the bill for reconstruction.

If the "Anti-War" movement is willing to stay together after this ends, and tries to use this as ammo in '04. We may be able to do our own "Regime Change".

If not I fear we'll be one step closer to a future like this http://www.geocities.com/eradicate_98/New_Patriot/Index.htm

LOOKING BEYOND SADDAM
I don't know if this article is complete or not. The marvelous Graphic that is with the article, "THE COST OF WAR," is not on line. Maybe you can get hold of the magazine. See page 28. Sorry I couldn't give a link; this is a "premium-pay" article. Tsk! Tsk!

LOOKING BEYOND SADDAM - Time Magazine

March 10, 2003

Looking Beyond Saddam

If invading troops topple Iraq's dictator, Washington will inherit responsibility for a bitter, factious country. Here's TIME's look at the blueprint for remaking the nation?and the Middle East

BY JOHANNA MCGEARY

I posted the article, then decided it was too long to put here. I have it in my email, if you think I should post it or send it "PM." TOTAL FIVE-YEAR COST: $132 billion!!!

I am embarrassed for America.

I was disturbed when I realized George Bush had been selected to be our president -- but now that my worst fears about his incompetence are being realized, the operative word is "embarrassed."

I actually hope the Iraq campaign and rebuilding occupy us thoroughly for the next year and three quarters -- so the American public can reconsider what they have done to our republic.

If things go the way I think they will -- the next president will have to preside over a monumental image reconstruction for us. It can be done -- but only if we can limit this moron's misadventures.

Damn the costs. Let it drive us into national bankruptcy if it leads to the expulsion of this mistake -- this accidental president.

The world will be the better with Saddam out of power. It will be even better off when George Bush is pushed aside.