[DEBATE] : The Three Trillion-Dollar War

[Patrick Bond]

Riaz K Tayob wrote:
> The Three Trillion-Dollar War
> By Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes
> The Times of London UK

On another list, Juriaan Bendian had a good rebuttal:

Prof. Stiglitz argues: "The Bush Administration was wrong about the 
benefits of the war and it was wrong about the costs of the war. The 
president and his advisers expected a quick, inexpensive conflict. 
Instead, we have a war that is costing more than anyone could have 
imagined." 
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3419840.ece

But that is a straightout falsification of the facts by Prof. Stiglitz.

The US leaders never expected a "quick inexpensive conflict", at most 
they had hoped, that Iraqis would be more enthusiastic about the 
military overthrow of Hussein's Baathist regime, and therefore 
co-operate more in rebuilding the country. Their own Manichean politics 
distorted their political vision.

Given the strategic importance of Iraq, then, as Bush, Wolfowitz, Powell 
and many other leaders explicitly put it, the US would do "whatever it 
takes" and stay in Iraq "as long as necessary". Mr Bush indeed touted 
the vague perspective of a "permanent war", or what Barack Obama calls 
"open-ended conflict", a conflict without end, a global war of position 
with a constantly shifting terrain, which shades off in an eternal 
battle of good and evil.

Once the occupation began, there was no turning back, not in the least 
because leaving Iraq would strengthen the position of Iran and other 
neighbouring countries who are rivals for American power in the Middle 
East. That was known by all leaders in advance. The option of invading 
Iraq with an occupation force had moreover been in the Pentagon "policy 
cupboard" ever since the first Gulf War.

Why build a huge military infrastructure and airbases for the US armed 
forces in Iraq, if the real purpose is to leave as soon as possible? In 
reality, the dispute has only ever been about what would be the "minimum 
level of military effort" required to maintain order and control.

Like the other liberal democrats. Stiglitz talks about the "costs of the 
war", as if this in itself is radical and progressive. But although he 
is an economist, he forgets all the while that for every cost, there is 
an income, $3 trillion of income. A lot of liberals grew very rich from 
the war.

The war has been a bonanza for US, European and Asian corporations, 
contractors, individuals and bible bashers. How you draw the balance 
sheet of costs and benefits just depends on your own position in the world.

The ideological problem is just that US workers who are killed and 
maimed in the war, have no real stake in fighting it anyhow, apart from 
earning a living. They are just pawns in the geostrategic chessgame of 
the elites, fighting a war the very meaning of which is in dispute.

But most of all, Stiglitz does not really explain what is wrong with the 
war on principle. He does not explain why you cannot create liberal 
democracy by military invasion. He implies that, if the Bush 
administration had won in Iraq, that it would have been right about the 
costs and benefits of the war, and therefore, that such wars are 
justifiable.

In other words, Stiglitz implies that the problem with the war is not 
that it is wrong to fight it, but that, seen as the US is not winning 
it, it is too expensive (compared to, say, Clinton's war against 
Yugoslavia).

In reality, the ideological function of Stiglitz's apologia is just to 
provide the next US president with arguments for why austerity is 
necessary and inevitable, why workers need to tighten their belts, and 
why the reason for that is "not the fault" of the new administration - 
its hands being tied (among other things) by a war that it did not 
initiate, and the wasteful spending of the previous administration.

For this purpose, Barack Obama is the ideal figurehead, precisely 
because he is not tainted with the decision to go to war in Iraq. The 
war is not his fault, and the budget blowouts are not his fault either. 
If, therefore, it turns out that he cannot deliver on his campaign 
promises, because the money isn't there, that is not his fault either.

In the Stiglitz vision, "By the time George W. Bush was sworn in... It 
was a moment ripe for Keynesian economics, a time to prime the pump by 
spending more money on education, technology, and infrastructure—all of 
which America desperately needed, and still does, but which the Clinton 
administration had postponed in its relentless drive to eliminate the 
deficit. Bill Clinton had left President Bush in an ideal position to 
pursue such policies." 
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/12/bush200712

Yeah, nice story. But in truth there was never any real intention by the 
US political elite to "spend significantly more public money on 
education, technology, and infrastructure" at any time, before or after 
the change in government.

Now Stiglitz envisages that "The most immediate challenge [of the next 
US government] will be simply to get the economy’s metabolism back into 
the normal range. That will mean moving from a savings rate of zero (or 
less) to a more typical savings rate of, say, 4 percent. While such an 
increase would be good for the long-term health of America’s economy, 
the short-term consequences would be painful." 
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/12/bush200712?currentPage=4

That is, because "there’s a momentum here that will require a generation 
to reverse", workers should patiently accept "economic pain" dished out 
by liberal economic surgery.

All the bad things are caused by the past.

All the good things are in a future which however cannot yet be reached.

Therefore, US workers should suffer pain now, but be fulfilled by "Hope" 
for a better world.

There you have a recipe for Obamarama, with Stiglitz as its economic 
apologist and the Left as cheerleaders.

Jurriaan