Iraq War Will Cost 2 trillion what could that money have done?

[Admiral Beez]

Consider that, according to sources like Columbia's Jeffrey Sachs, the Worldwatch Institute, and the United Nations, with that same money the world could:

Eliminate extreme poverty around the world (cost $135 billion in the first year, rising to $195 billion by 2015.)

Achieve universal literacy (cost $5 billion a year.)

Immunize every child in the world against deadly diseases (cost $1.3 billion a year.)

Ensure developing countries have enough money to fight the AIDS epidemic (cost $15 billion per year.)

In other words, for a cost of $156.3 billion this year alone – less than a tenth of the total Iraq war budget – we could lift entire countries out of poverty, teach every person in the world to read and write, significantly reduce child mortality, while making huge leaps in the battle against AIDS, saving millions of lives.

Since when is it the US's job to fight AIDS and poverty, promote literacy and vaccinations throughout the world? If the US hadn't spent the money in Iraq, it would have spent it elsewhere, or not spent it all all (most of this cash is borrowed). This is akin to saying that if I hadn't bought that big screen TV for $2,000 that some poor village in Africa could afford four cows and a new mud hut, when in fact, if I don't spend the $2,000 on the TV, I'll either spend it elsewhere or put it in the bank, and the African village still doesn't have its cows or hut.

 

[Whoaccio]

Since when is it the US's job to fight AIDS and poverty, promote literacy and vaccinations throughout the world?

And it is it's job to invade countries willy-nilly? I sort of agree with you're point, but the context you are using it in (justifying an invasion of all things) is brain-dead.

If the US hadn't spent the money in Iraq, it would have spent it elsewhere, or not spent it all all (most of this cash is borrowed). This is akin to saying that if I hadn't bought that big screen TV for $2,000 that some poor village in Africa could afford four cows and a new mud hut, when in fact, if I don't spend the $2,000 on the TV, I'll either spend it elsewhere or put it in the bank, and the African village still doesn't have its cows or hut.

A lot of people misinterpret the "could have done..." argument as if we didn't do x, we would have had y. Incidentally, this argument is used a lot in global warming debates where critics argue that, if the Kyoto protocol would cost 50b to implement that is 50b not directed towards AIDS vaccines or saving puppies. But, next time someone suggests spending billions to invade a country on humanitarian grounds, it would be nice to remember that a lot more can be done with similar effort elsewhere. That is the main lesson to take away. The only time R2P arguments really work are in cases of ongoing genocide or systematic economic mismanagement (Zimbabwe-scaled).

The argument that because the bulk of this war effort is being financed by deficits, there is nothing to worry about is dead wrong. If the a government is using deficits to finance wars, there is MORE to be worried about. If the costs are 2 trillion, or whatever, the real cost will be 2 trillion plus accumulated interest. Factoring possible impacts on currency and monetary policy the effects could be felt for decades. At least in previous wars, politicians had the good sense to raise taxes to pay for the war (the top marginal tax rate in the USA post-WW2 was 90%!).

 

[Admiral Beez]

And it is it's job to invade countries willy-nilly?

It's the US's job to act in the US's self interest. If that includes invading Iraq, contravening NATFA on softwood lumber, ordering a hit on Quadafi's house in Libya, supporting insurgency and independence in Kosovo while protesting it in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, then that's the US's job.

In the history of the world, the most powerful nations have rarely lived peacefully amongst those that are weaker and smaller. We should be thankful (but not grateful) while we sit in a weakly defended, sparsely population country with massive resources that our hugely powerful and resource hungry neighbour is a friendly giant. In the not so distant past of the world, such a disparity of those with power and those with resources would not exist.

The US' job is to do whatever the US wants to do in its interest. If that includes invading Canada, it will do so.

 

[Whoaccio]

It's the US's job to act in the US's self interest. If that includes invading Iraq, contravening NATFA on softwood lumber, ordering a hit on Quadafi's house in Libya, supporting insurgency and independence in Kosovo while protesting it in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, then that's the US's job.

Well, to begin with the USA specifically justified it's instigation of war in Iraq on humanitarian grounds, arguing that Sadam Hussein posed an unacceptable threat to the Iraqi people. Like or not, they tried to justify this in humanitarian.

As for "acting in the US's self interest", that is the most malleable logic ever. It can be used to justify anything and everything if the person judging self interest is stupid enough. At the most absurd end, you could justify liquidating the USA's population to zero, on the grounds that 300m deaths is preferable to the billions which will occur over the next few century's from natural causes.

More on topic, was it in the USA's interest to invade Iraq? Most current evidence would suggest that no, it was not. Saddam Hussein posed no threat, evidenced by the lack of any WMDs, a competent military, or any significant lack of cooperation with international arms inspectors. In order to neutralize the non-threat, the US has expended trillions of dollars with questionable efficacy, increased anti-american sentiment throughout the region to all-time highs and dislocated millions of innocent civilians. The real-politik in you might entice you to say that the tens of thousands of Iraqi's left dead and millions wounded and dislocated is not the USA's concern, but how does the USA benefit from being solely responsible for ruining the lives of millions of people? Where do you think terrorists come from?

US self interest could also be used to justify the programs you casually dismissed as "not the US's job". If the US had, say, cured AIDS, millions of people would be in better economic standing. Naturally, this would lead to millions of more customers to purchase US goods and services.

Self interest is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Hydrogen]

It's the US's job to act in the US's self interest. If that includes invading Iraq...

Even when that "self-interest" is based on falsehoods over weapons of mass destruction?

In the history of the world, the most powerful nations have rarely lived peacefully amongst those that are weaker and smaller.

One would hope that a contemporary government of a country defined by the rule of law and equipped with a vast quantity of information, institutions with a capacity to reason effectively, with the capacity to sustain itself in so many different ways, not requiring land for its population, and with the capacity to defend itself without question, would not require a pretext of assumed weakness as a rationale for invasion. The United States is hardly a chieftain state of the past that should be acting on the whims of dictatorial absolute rulers. It's a shame when people think it has the right to act like one.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Well, to begin with the USA specifically justified it's instigation of war in Iraq on humanitarian grounds, arguing that Sadam Hussein posed an unacceptable threat to the Iraqi people. Like or not, they tried to justify this in humanitarian.

But that doesn't matter. So the US lied and misled their own people and the world. So what? If the US people do not like this, they can vote for someone else as their leader.

It was in the US government's percieved interest to stretch the truth and manufacture the circumstances to acheive their objective. That's what global powers do.

More on topic, was it in the USA's interest to invade Iraq?

That's for the US electorate to decide.

 

[Dichotomy]

Not that I would defend Bush's fabrications (if, indeed, they were his fabrications and not those of the CIA or some othe group), but one of the challenges of a democracy, in particular ones that are not so homogenous in make up, is rallying the public around a central theme.
We can argue (especially with 20-20 hindsight) whether or not the US should have invaded Iraq, but if Bush's advisors believed Iraq was a threat, how does a government go about motivating people to die in some faraway land?
Look at Roosevelt: he ached to help Britain and France in WWII, but the isolationist Congress wouldn't 'let' him. Lucky the Japanese gave him an easy excuse, or Truman may have had to manufacture his own WMD scheme.

 

[Whoaccio]

But that doesn't matter. So the US lied and misled their own people and the world. So what? If the US people do not like this, they can vote for someone else as their leader.

It was in the US government's percieved interest to stretch the truth and manufacture the circumstances to acheive their objective. That's what global powers do.

That's the point, they perceived wrong. That has been the entire topic of this thread, that the USA made the wrong choice. Of course it was their prerogative to make a choice, but that does not immunize them from being wrong. You can't justify a choice because it is a choice.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Agreed.

Where this topic, IMO, started off wrong was by listing off all the things the money spent on Iraq could have been spent on instead, and none of those listed things included domestic spending in the US. That is the crux of the matter.

If I was American, I'd be saying that those trillion dollars could have been used to improve infrastructure, education, health care, etc. within the USA.

 

[Whoaccio]

They could have made one giant pile out of the 2 trillion and set it on fire, that probably would have been more productive than the Iraq war. Spending money on virtually anything that would yield a return (infrastructure, education, foreign development, R&D, tax cuts, ect..) would have been vastly more productive.

 

[Dichotomy]

Well, I would agree that a lot of the money is purely wasted, there are some positive outcomes. The first thing to go in a major action are old stockpiles of weapons, which makes room for newer, better ones.
I've been told that every generation of officers, grunts, etc. need a real war to upgrade tactics and strategies. Westpoint can give the latest theories, but Desert Storm, Iraq and Afghanistan can prove or disprove those theories. I'm not saying this is a good expenditure, but I certainly understand the logic.
Also, I am sure there are spin-off benefits in the areas of aerospace, mechanics, etc. as field experience improves those technologies. Admittedly, I think I'd rather see the U.S. spend the $2 trillion on a permanent moon base, but that's just me.

 

[ganjavih]

It's the US's job to act in the US's self interest. If that includes invading Iraq, contravening NATFA on softwood lumber, ordering a hit on Quadafi's house in Libya, supporting insurgency and independence in Kosovo while protesting it in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, then that's the US's job.

Then the US should be prepared to sacrifice a skyscraper or two every few years... 'cause that's what happens.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Then the US should be prepared to sacrifice a skyscraper or two every few years... 'cause that's what happens.

Indeed. Very true.