Peter Wilson of the Australian is really hard on those in the Bush Administration who forecasted a modest price tag for that stupid decision on March 19, 2003. Time out a second – why pick on them when you have Bill Kristol who said in 2002 that the cost of this war would be a mere 0.2% of GDP translating into a predicted price tag near $20 billion. But let’s give Peter the microphone:
The former World Bank vice-president yesterday said the war had, so far, cost the US something like $US3trillion ($3.3 trillion) compared with the $US50-$US60-billion predicted in 2003 … Professor Stiglitz told the Chatham House think tank in London that the Bush White House was currently estimating the cost of the war at about $US500 billion, but that figure massively understated things such as the medical and welfare costs of US military servicemen. The war was now the second-most expensive in US history after World War II and the second-longest after Vietnam, he said. The spending on Iraq was a hidden cause of the current credit crunch because the US central bank responded to the massive financial drain of the war by flooding the American economy with cheap credit. “The regulators were looking the other way and money was being lent to anybody this side of a life-support system,” he said. That led to a housing bubble and a consumption boom, and the fallout was plunging the US economy into recession and saddling the next US president with the biggest budget deficit in history, he said. Professor Stiglitz, an academic at the Columbia Business School and a former economic adviser to president Bill Clinton, said a further $US500 billion was going to be spent on the fighting in the next two years and that could have been used more effectively to improve the security and quality of life of Americans and the rest of the world. The money being spent on the war each week would be enough to wipe out illiteracy around the world, he said. Just a few days’ funding would be enough to provide health insurance for US children who were not covered, he said. The public had been encouraged by the White House to ignore the costs of the war because of the belief that the war would somehow pay for itself or be paid for by Iraqi oil or US allies. “When the Bush administration went to war in Iraq it obviously didn’t focus very much on the cost. Larry Lindsey, the chief economic adviser, said the cost was going to be between $US100billion and $US200 billion – and for that slight moment of quasi-honesty he was fired. “(Then defence secretary Donald) Rumsfeld responded and said ‘baloney’, and the number the administration came up with was $US50 to $US60 billion. We have calculated that the cost was more like $US3 trillion. “Three trillion is a very conservative number, the true costs are likely to be much larger than that.” Five years after the war, the US was still spending about $US50billion every three months on direct military costs, he said.
As an economist, however, I would think we should look at the benefits as well as the costs. After all, this war had revived Al Qaeda, made Iran the king of the hill in the Middle East, and made our own allies suspicious of our motives. Oh wait a second – these may not be benefits after all.