The price of the war in Iraq and the ‘stuff of nightmares’

The NYT’s Bob Herbert had an important column today on a recent congressional hearing that barely generated any attention at all. The focus was on the cost of the war in Iraq, which is likely to reach $2 trillion, if not more.

On Thursday, the Joint Economic Committee, chaired by Senator Chuck Schumer, conducted a public examination of the costs of the war. The witnesses included the Nobel Prize-winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz (who believes the overall costs of the war — not just the cost to taxpayers — will reach $3 trillion), and Robert Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International.

Both men talked about large opportunities lost because of the money poured into the war. “For a fraction of the cost of this war,” said Mr. Stiglitz, “we could have put Social Security on a sound footing for the next half-century or more.”

Mr. Hormats mentioned Social Security and Medicare, saying that both could have been put “on a more sustainable basis.” And he cited the committee’s own calculations from last fall that showed that the money spent on the war each day is enough to enroll an additional 58,000 children in Head Start for a year, or make a year of college affordable for 160,000 low-income students through Pell Grants, or pay the annual salaries of nearly 11,000 additional border patrol agents or 14,000 more police officers.

What we’re getting instead is the stuff of nightmares.

Noting this, Matt Yglesias added, “Few people seem to appreciate it, but it’s quite literally true that al-Qaeda’s strategy is to cripple the U.S. economy by dragging us into quagmires abroad. Osama bin Laden himself has said this, and it’s the only strategy that makes sense. A smallish number of people with no base of resources can’t possibly defeat us unless we shoot ourselves in the foot repeatedly as Bush and McCain propose.”

Stiglitz, in particular, has become an important voice on the issue.

The Iraq war has contributed to the U.S. economic slowdown and is impeding an economic recovery, Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says.

Meanwhile, the U.S. government is severely underestimating the cost of the war, Stiglitz and co-author Linda Bilmes write in their book, “The Three Trillion Dollar War” (W.W. Norton), due to be published on Monday. […]

The direct costs exclude interest on the debt raised to fund the war, health care costs for veterans coming home, and replacing the destroyed hardware and degraded operational capacity caused by the war. In addition, there are costs not accounted for in the budget such as rising oil prices and social and macroeconomic costs, which the book details. […]

Asked if the war has contributed to the U.S. slowdown, Stiglitz said, “Very much so.”

“To offset that depressing effect, the Fed has flooded the economy with liquidity and the regulators looked the other way when very imprudent lending was going up,” Stiglitz said. “We were living on borrowed money and borrowed time and eventually a day of reckoning had to come, and it has now come.”

The war has also altered how the United States has reacted to its current economic troubles, he said.

“When America’s financial institutions had a problem, they had to turn to the sovereign wealth funds in the Middle East for recapitalization, for the bailout,” he said.

“The reason was obvious. The war had led to high oil prices. The war had meant that America had to borrow more money. There weren’t sources of liquid funds in the United States. The sources of the liquid funds were in the Middle East,” he said.

And John McCain has not only been a cheerleader for these policies, he wants to keep them going for years to come.

Something to keep in mind.

Very readable excerpt from Stiglitz’s book in April Vanity Fair:

The $3 Trillion War

After wildly lowballing the cost of the Iraq conflict at a mere $50 to $60 billion, the Bush administration has been concealing the full economic toll. The spending on military operations is merely the tip of a vast fiscal iceberg. In an excerpt from their new book, the authors calculate the grim bottom line….

  • This just adds veracity to the reality that the War in Iraq has squandered much more than lives and treasure. It has robbed our nation of its potential. The war will be regarded as one of the most dismal failures in the history of democracy. The “we the people” were virtually powerless to stop this insanity will the miserable legacy of our age, much as nobly stopping Hitler is the legacy of the Greatest Generation.

  • Thanks for including this quote from Matt Yglesias” “Few people seem to appreciate it, but it’s quite literally true that al-Qaeda’s strategy is to cripple the U.S. economy by dragging us into quagmires abroad. Osama bin Laden himself has said this, and it’s the only strategy that makes sense. A smallish number of people with no base of resources can’t possibly defeat us unless we shoot ourselves in the foot repeatedly as Bush and McCain propose.”

    I wish it would fit on a bumper sticker – in lieu of that, how can we help to broadcast this idea as far as it can go?

  • Not to mention all the things we are destroying that will have to be rebuilt and resources replenished. All based ultimately on the fear that Islam is going to take over our country and convert Chrisitians to their religion.

  • Bush/McCain: “Pimpin’ for the Terrorists.”

    I think we could make that fit on a bumper sticker….

  • Another idea for the bumper sticker:

    John McCain wants to spend your children’s future in Iraq.

  • The bell tolls out the nightmare, yet, the Bushies have only visions of sugarplums dancing…Wolfowitz’s prancing, Bremers roasting on an open fire. Well that last part’s not bad.

  • Not only was dragging us into foreign adventures/quagmires in order to bankrupt us on multiple levels Osama bin Laden’s primary objective, it was tested. He knew it could work because he had been involved in playing the same game with a different super power not 20 years ago.

    And if you pick up a book of late Soviet history, you’ll find the similarities and parallels harrowing. Why do you think V.V. Putin always has that shit-eating grin on his face?

  • “Few people seem to appreciate it, but it’s quite literally true that al-Qaeda’s strategy is to cripple the U.S. economy by dragging us into quagmires abroad. Osama bin Laden himself has said this, and it’s the only strategy that makes sense. A smallish number of people with no base of resources can’t possibly defeat us unless we shoot ourselves in the foot repeatedly as Bush and McCain propose.”

    Wasn’t this their stated goal when fighting the Soviet Union when they were in Afghanistan? I seem to recall everyone (reThugs especially) cheering about that when it was happening. You’d think they’d be able to see that’s the same strategery being used here.

  • according to MSNBC, ohio voters’ biggest issue (64%) is the economy. possible piece of the puzzle to win this swing state? mccain + war = $100++ a barrel

  • And it seems like only yesterday that John Kerry was accused of overstating the cost of the war. I think his number (2004) was $200 Billion.

  • entheo, @10

    “$100++ a barrel” is for the wonks; how many ordinary people know that, before we invaded I-wreck, it was only $36? I think “$5 per gallon” is more likely to be easily understood.

  • The 10 Trillion Dollar Smirking Chimp
    I do not blame Rove/Luntz/Matalin for destroying the country. I blame those of you who voted for dumbya, when you knew he was an idiot and a crook. You were fooled by Rove/Luntz/Matalin. Now you deserve the consequences of a broken economy, Dumbya’s $10 trillion debt to china ($2 trillion Iraq war nightmare – a cancer inside the American economy) as well as the looming 2nd Great Depression you help create. As a 21st Century Hoover, Dumbya tried his best to conceal the horrendous blood and dollar costs of this war. Dumbya’s foolhardiness of waging war at the same time cutting taxes and sharply increasing non-war-related expenditures is wreck getting ready happen. China will take over the country without firing a bullet, just by calling the debt that dumbya created during this seven disaster. America, an impending third world country, will be in a famine next year as predicted. Get real people, Rove is gearing up to fool you again with his rethuglican win at all cost strategy. Remember –“you can’t solve a problem with the same thinking that created the problem.”

  • “Few people seem to appreciate it, but it’s quite literally true that al-Qaeda’s strategy is to cripple the U.S. economy by dragging us into quagmires abroad.”

    well, duh!!!! who among us didn’t figure this out a long time ago?

    how in hell are we ever going to recover from the last eight years?

  • The $3 Trillion War And it cost about $7 trillion to pay for just Social Security, Medicare, and the federal portion Medicaid in the same time frame (with Medicare and Medicaid taking up half of that; but we don’t have socialized medicine in this country, right?)

    At least the Iraq war will end. These other three are endless. And I know I’ll never see any of the “benefits” of Social Security or Medicare, even though I’ve been paying into them for nearly three decades. And “liberals” think privatizing is a bad thing? It’s about time this country finally privatizes this stuff. One of these days, “liberals” will get it; Stalinism is a failure.

  • Just because al-Qaeda intends to enable our economic demise, what makes you think they don’t have help? The Shrub voodoo economics machine is equally hell bent on bankrupting this country in an attempt to “starve the beast” removing any capacity to conduct oversight or fund social programs.

  • Dave Davies interviewed Joseph Stiglitz yesterday on Fresh Air.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87801279

    As the interview with Mr. Stiglitz was winding down, Dave Davies opined that the situation seemed extremely bleak and asked if that was Mr. Stiglitz’s opinion also. Mr. Stiglitz said that our economy was huge and could absorb this blow but that the worst, (as noted in the post), was the lost potential. The strengthening of social security, the reinvestment in infrastructure, the bolstering and rebuilding of America’s schools, the general investment in moving America into a competitive and fast changing 21st century.

    Two things struck me as he spoke. First was that all the missed opportunities that Mr. Stiglitz talked about were things that RepubCo thinks should be privatized. Second was the always easy to remember quote from Grover Norquist about shrinking gov’t until it’s so small it can be drowned in a bathtub.

    The surplus we had going into the ShrubCo years was dangerous because of the potential it offered to create and support public works and improvements. That money and the sound foundation that it put the country on was going to allow stuff to happen that would perpetuate the very things that RepubCo hates. New Deal style progressivism comes much easier when theres cash to work with. And there was quite a bit.

    But there’s not any more. Billions upon billions of dollars of taxpayer dollars have been flushed down the crapper for nothing. Nothing was accomplished. Nothing gained. Nothing built. Pallet loads of packaged cash were hauled to Iraq, dumped and forgotten. There’s so much waste that it’s impossible to believe that it was just thievery and incompetence. The more money that has been flushed from the U.S. reserves and the more debt that has been acquired has allowed RepubCo to rightfully claim that there is no money to do anything for the public good. They’ve demonized taxes so that replenishing the coffers is like pulling teeth with pliers and no pain killer. Or waterboarding

    Excuse me for taking off on this. I’m no economist. But the coincidence between tons of money disappearing and the world looking more and more like RepubCo wants it to all the time just seems a little too sweet. There is sick method to this madness.

  • We are spending 300 million dollars a day on the conflict and there are 130,000 troops over there. There is minimal air support as this is a ground war so the money is not being spent on expensive aircraft. Do the math and then ponder what happens to the 298 million dollars a day after the troops are paid.

  • “Few people seem to appreciate it, but it’s quite literally true that al-Qaeda’s strategy is to cripple the U.S. economy by dragging us into quagmires abroad. Osama bin Laden himself has said this, and it’s the only strategy that makes sense. A smallish number of people with no base of resources can’t possibly defeat us unless we shoot ourselves in the foot repeatedly as Bush and McCain propose.” Clinton got into office by lying about the economy, and it got worse for a couple of years before there was a recovery. Just about seven years later, a year before Clinton would be out, the economy started tanking. By the time Bush took office, the recession was on. But Clinton wasn’t fighting any war with anybody, let alone Al Qaeda. Bush came into office, the economy got worse, especially after 9/11, then it recovered. Huge recovery. The claim from Yglesias is that Al Qaeda is turning the U.S. economy into a “quagmire” is really kind of pointless. After all, Yglesias has to explain how it took so long for the economy to tank due to the wars the U.S. is in, and how the economy tanked in the last year of the Clinton administration without any war.

    Asked if the war has contributed to the U.S. slowdown, Stiglitz said, “Very much so.” Again, why isn’t there an explanation for the slowdown eight years ago when there was no war on. Maybe this is just a talking point, and that the war isn’t that much of a factor.

    Yeah, yeah, one can talk about how much is being borrowed for the war. Yet, there is never any discussion about borrowing to pay Social Security in the future, since the number of workers going into it is getting lower and lower. Taxes could be raised, but that’s counter-productive. The salary max could be raised, but that is just another tax increase and counter-productive. The age of retirement could go higher; that’s the best of a bad situation.

    I’ve been paying into Social Security for 30 years, and have another 20 or so to go. I don’t expect to see any of it, since there won’t be enough workers to cover it, even with increases in taxes. But nobody really wants to do anything about it.

    At least the Iraq war will end. The quagmire of Social Security will linger on and on and on and on and on…

  • SteveIL, do you ever post anything that has to do with the subject? If you really think anyone is interested in all that blather, please start your own blog somewhere far away from us.

    Also I would suggest that if you read and follow bin Laden’s screed, Bush could not have been more accommodating to al Qaida. Yes, they are trying to bankrupt us, and your president has given them a $3 trillion start, now your candidate has suggested continuing the pattern for 100 years and beyond. This makes me wonder if bin Laden is writing the Republican policy and talking points that you lap up and then regurgitate for us.

  • A smallish number of people with no base of resources can’t possibly defeat us unless we shoot ourselves in the foot repeatedly as Bush and McCain propose.”

    And Clinton, if she means what she says.

    As canny as she is, can she not realize the folly of sharing the blame for Iraq with Dubya?
    To be forever linked with that man as partners in his decision to invade?

    Dubya is there because the single bid contracts (Blackwater/KGR/Halibruton/etc.) provide kickback money to his allies.
    The Democrats get jack. Fix the logistics angle and support for “Hilary’s war” vanishes; keep the corruption in place and you strengthen the opposition.

    Clinton got out of Somalia, Reagan cut and run (though it was never called that) from Lebanon, Nixon (after a brutal “surge” of his own) cut and run from Vietnam. Are any of these presidents condemned for these retreats? No. Not even Clinton.

    I really hope she’s lying about staying in Iraq for any reason.
    If she stays for any longer than necessary, Iraq may be labeled a bipartisan war.
    The Democrats will be partially to blame for 2 trillion down the crapper.

  • Capt Kirk said: “SteveIL, do you ever post anything that has to do with the subject? If you really think anyone is interested in all that blather, please start your own blog somewhere far away from us.”

    Captain. SteveIL, (aka: Scipio the Metalcon, “Metal Steve – Heavy Metal Conservative with Issues”), has a blog.

    http://scipio62.livejournal.com/

  • SteveIL says: “And “liberals” think privatizing is a bad thing? It’s about time this country finally privatizes this stuff.”

    Yeah, man. Look at how well the privatization of the war effort has gone. Several enormous corporations are profiting off the $3-trillion. Do you honestly believe that conservatives would possibly privatize something like Social Security for any other reason than to make a few wealthy private corporations incredibly rich? One of the key reasons pensions have been such a drain on American corporations is because they insisted on running pensions themselves rather than letting the government create a universal pension program as many European nations have done successfully.

    There was no reason to go to war. Haliburton’s money is never coming back. And it could have done so much for this country. Why conservatives aren’t pissed at this ludicrous waste of tax-payer money is beyond me! I mean, that’s your whole deal, isn’t? You bark about how “Freedom Isn’t Free!” And then you bitch about paying taxes. Where’s the conservatism in supporting a quagmire?

  • Comments are closed.