What does $400 billion in opportunity cost look like?
August 13, 2007 11:34 PM Subscribe
Thought experiment: what would Iraq and the middle east look like today if the USA had given the current $400 billion cost directly to Iraqis?
The current estimates for the cost of the Iraq war hover around $400 billion ($400,000,000,000). The population of Iraq is somewhere around 27 million.
If, instead of going to war, the USA had somehow distributed the money to Iraq, its government, or perhaps directly to the people (close to US$15,000 per head), what would Iraq look like today?
What about a balanced distribution of cash between the middle-east hotpots?
The current estimates for the cost of the Iraq war hover around $400 billion ($400,000,000,000). The population of Iraq is somewhere around 27 million.
If, instead of going to war, the USA had somehow distributed the money to Iraq, its government, or perhaps directly to the people (close to US$15,000 per head), what would Iraq look like today?
What about a balanced distribution of cash between the middle-east hotpots?
This post was deleted for the following reason: this is a. hypothetical whatifffilter b. not going well
It wouldn't have gone to the Iraqis. It would have gone to Saddam, who would have used it to develop an atomic bomb.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 11:54 PM on August 13, 2007
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 11:54 PM on August 13, 2007
Steven is right. I can think of no plausible scenario where this would not be the case, either by direct taking or some sort of fee-paying or economic scheme that -- while potentially beneficial to the Iraqi national economy -- would ultimately end up building more palaces for more lookalikes. The atomic bomb, I'm not as certain about, but the cash definitely all goes to Saddam.
Regardless of what one thinks about Bush and the war, Saddam was a bad dude who wouldn't hesitate to kill lots of people for that kind of money. If we're creating an alternate reality where we don't spend $400B on Iraq, why don't we just give that money back to Americans? (And maybe reserve a chunk to promote spending the windfall on micro-loans...)
posted by SuperNova at 12:14 AM on August 14, 2007
Regardless of what one thinks about Bush and the war, Saddam was a bad dude who wouldn't hesitate to kill lots of people for that kind of money. If we're creating an alternate reality where we don't spend $400B on Iraq, why don't we just give that money back to Americans? (And maybe reserve a chunk to promote spending the windfall on micro-loans...)
posted by SuperNova at 12:14 AM on August 14, 2007
Well, what happened when we supplied Al Queda?
posted by Citizen Premier at 12:15 AM on August 14, 2007
posted by Citizen Premier at 12:15 AM on August 14, 2007
Agree w/ SCDB above. Thugs were running Iraq ~1980-2003.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 12:46 AM on August 14, 2007
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 12:46 AM on August 14, 2007
(disagree about the nuclear angle. Saddam wasn't lacking for monetary resources in putting together a bomb program, hell, the US built one for a piddly $3B . . .)
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 12:47 AM on August 14, 2007
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 12:47 AM on August 14, 2007
Best answer: We could've used a fraction of the money to finance a coup by democratic elements. With the remainder we could've intervened in Darfur. Who knows what that would look like, but I can't imagine it'd be any worse...
posted by mateuslee at 1:04 AM on August 14, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by mateuslee at 1:04 AM on August 14, 2007 [1 favorite]
The 400 billion figure is how much money the government has spent, not how much money has left the US economy, right? Or am I wrong? Is there a good estimate for the latter figure? It seems like that would be what you would need if you're going to talk about just handing out the money overseas.
posted by teleskiving at 3:11 AM on August 14, 2007
posted by teleskiving at 3:11 AM on August 14, 2007
We could've used a fraction of the money to finance a coup by democratic elements
Citizen Premier is correct, of course, in that we funded the mujahaddin in Afghanistan to the tune of at least $1.5 trillion over three years in the late 1980s.
We were then attacked by the same mujahaddin — now Al Qaeda — 12 years later, with massive, long-lasting damage to the US Constitution and associated civil liberties, as well as obvious infrastructural damage to New York City.
You can buy arms for a revolution, but the aftermath can come at great long-term cost.
As an aside, please note that the cost of the current conflict is much higher — your $400B figure is only for this fiscal year alone, and does not take into account costs accrued since 2001, when the war was first planned in back-room dealings led by Cheney and other neoconservatives.
We are fast approaching the $1 trillion mark for the cost of this conflict.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:14 AM on August 14, 2007
Citizen Premier is correct, of course, in that we funded the mujahaddin in Afghanistan to the tune of at least $1.5 trillion over three years in the late 1980s.
We were then attacked by the same mujahaddin — now Al Qaeda — 12 years later, with massive, long-lasting damage to the US Constitution and associated civil liberties, as well as obvious infrastructural damage to New York City.
You can buy arms for a revolution, but the aftermath can come at great long-term cost.
As an aside, please note that the cost of the current conflict is much higher — your $400B figure is only for this fiscal year alone, and does not take into account costs accrued since 2001, when the war was first planned in back-room dealings led by Cheney and other neoconservatives.
We are fast approaching the $1 trillion mark for the cost of this conflict.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:14 AM on August 14, 2007
Here is a citation for the true cost over the last five fiscal years.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:17 AM on August 14, 2007
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:17 AM on August 14, 2007
a coup by democratic elements
Well, a coup allowed democracy to take root in the US, so don't be too critical...
posted by mateuslee at 3:20 AM on August 14, 2007
Well, a coup allowed democracy to take root in the US, so don't be too critical...
posted by mateuslee at 3:20 AM on August 14, 2007
Citizen Premier is correct, of course, in that we funded the mujahaddin in Afghanistan to the tune of at least $1.5 trillion over three years in the late 1980s.
Al-Q has always wanted a non-democratic theocratic rule, they just happen to be anti-Soviet. Even so, I agree they should never have been supported - not because, as some seem to be arguing, that intervening in political affairs is wrong, but because their interests are adverse to basic human rights.
True, to say that funding Al-Q was a mistake is an understatement. However, this does not mean that no one should ever meddle in foreign affairs; only that democracies should do so more carefully. For one thing, there are more ways to finance a revolution than supplying weapons....
posted by mateuslee at 3:25 AM on August 14, 2007
Al-Q has always wanted a non-democratic theocratic rule, they just happen to be anti-Soviet. Even so, I agree they should never have been supported - not because, as some seem to be arguing, that intervening in political affairs is wrong, but because their interests are adverse to basic human rights.
True, to say that funding Al-Q was a mistake is an understatement. However, this does not mean that no one should ever meddle in foreign affairs; only that democracies should do so more carefully. For one thing, there are more ways to finance a revolution than supplying weapons....
posted by mateuslee at 3:25 AM on August 14, 2007
Citizen Premier is correct, of course, in that we funded the mujahaddin in Afghanistan to the tune of at least $1.5 trillion over three years in the late 1980s.
Billion maybe. Not trillion.
And look, defeat of the Russians in Afghanistan helped to collapse the Soviet Union freeing millions of people from the oppression of communist rule. So it wasn't all bad either.
posted by extrabox at 3:47 AM on August 14, 2007
Billion maybe. Not trillion.
And look, defeat of the Russians in Afghanistan helped to collapse the Soviet Union freeing millions of people from the oppression of communist rule. So it wasn't all bad either.
posted by extrabox at 3:47 AM on August 14, 2007
What! I can't believed how naive the person who asked this question is, or some of the responses thus far. I was ardently in favour of the Iraq invasion at the start. Blame it on whatever you want - the lies disseminated by the Blair government, a wreckless desire to see things blown up, whatever - I now concede that it was a bad idea; a futile exercise, not necessarily born out of a desire to secure oil or anything as evil as that, but one which was devoid of forethought and understanding of the complexities of Middle Eastern politics and exporting democracy as a whole.
However, to suggest that the money would have been better spent GIVING it to the Iraqis shows not only naivety but also a woeful understanding of economics, politics and human nature. Now, strictly speaking, it would have been better in so many ways, but the word 'better', in this context, wouldn't really mean much. It would have been better for thousands of our troops not to have died along with thousands upon thousands of Iraqis, but would life have improved for them? Or would we have an even greater problem on our hands?
Iraq was a country on its knees by the time we invaded. Over a decade of punitive sanctions had destroyed the country's infrastructure and left many people impoverished. It was an impossible situation. Saddam Hussein had to go before sanctions could be lifted, and Saddam showed no signs of giving up power. $400 billion dollars - an astronomical amount - would have solved all of Iraq's financial problems and brought us no closer to getting Saddam Hussein and the Baathist Party out of power. Saddam would have been free to rearm, would have won an incredible propaganda coup and the world would be a far more dangerous place. I don't even see how distributing the money between every Iraqi would help either. Asides from the fact that it would probably be appropriated by the state, beaten out of Iraqis by Saddam's goons, in the best case it would've caused widespread inflation and furthered the already abysmal economic situation there.
When are liberals going to learn that giving concessions - financial or otherwise - to rogue states just enboldens tyrants, plays us for fools and absolutely crushes the hopes of men and women who want nothing more than to be free.
posted by Zé Pequeno at 3:48 AM on August 14, 2007 [2 favorites]
However, to suggest that the money would have been better spent GIVING it to the Iraqis shows not only naivety but also a woeful understanding of economics, politics and human nature. Now, strictly speaking, it would have been better in so many ways, but the word 'better', in this context, wouldn't really mean much. It would have been better for thousands of our troops not to have died along with thousands upon thousands of Iraqis, but would life have improved for them? Or would we have an even greater problem on our hands?
Iraq was a country on its knees by the time we invaded. Over a decade of punitive sanctions had destroyed the country's infrastructure and left many people impoverished. It was an impossible situation. Saddam Hussein had to go before sanctions could be lifted, and Saddam showed no signs of giving up power. $400 billion dollars - an astronomical amount - would have solved all of Iraq's financial problems and brought us no closer to getting Saddam Hussein and the Baathist Party out of power. Saddam would have been free to rearm, would have won an incredible propaganda coup and the world would be a far more dangerous place. I don't even see how distributing the money between every Iraqi would help either. Asides from the fact that it would probably be appropriated by the state, beaten out of Iraqis by Saddam's goons, in the best case it would've caused widespread inflation and furthered the already abysmal economic situation there.
When are liberals going to learn that giving concessions - financial or otherwise - to rogue states just enboldens tyrants, plays us for fools and absolutely crushes the hopes of men and women who want nothing more than to be free.
posted by Zé Pequeno at 3:48 AM on August 14, 2007 [2 favorites]
Al-Q has always wanted a non-democratic theocratic rule, they just happen to be anti-Soviet.
I simply question the term "coup by democratic elements", where "democracy" takes on any meaning of convenience, determined by whomever is in charge at the time.
Where the Afghani mujahaddin were concerned, they were "democratic" and "freedom fighters" by simple virtue of their opposition to Soviet occupation — this term attached to them as part of the larger Truman Doctrine that dictated Reagan's foreign policy.
As another good example of funding "democratic" elements, America led the 1953 coup of Iran, working with Qashqai tribes and other American-funded "guerrillas and intelligence agents" to overthrow its democratically elected leader. This was done to prevent nationalization of Iranian oil reserves by the ruling democracy.
The end result was nearly three decades of the SAVAK secret police force, which harassed, detained, killed or disappeared political dissidents, after which we saw the Iranian Revolution, with the rise of a (justifiably) unfriendly Islamic state and its own persecution of dissidence.
It is difficult — perhaps impossible — to foretell the long-term effects of throwing money at the enemy of your enemy. The best you can do is look at history and try to learn from previous mistakes.
In any case, the United States and its economic interests gain by maintaining chaos in the Middle East. Giving money to Iraqi citizens to somehow stabilize their economy (and, by extension, their society) might benefit them, if it was hypothetically possible, but political stability would not benefit shareholders and power brokers in the West.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:01 AM on August 14, 2007
I simply question the term "coup by democratic elements", where "democracy" takes on any meaning of convenience, determined by whomever is in charge at the time.
Where the Afghani mujahaddin were concerned, they were "democratic" and "freedom fighters" by simple virtue of their opposition to Soviet occupation — this term attached to them as part of the larger Truman Doctrine that dictated Reagan's foreign policy.
As another good example of funding "democratic" elements, America led the 1953 coup of Iran, working with Qashqai tribes and other American-funded "guerrillas and intelligence agents" to overthrow its democratically elected leader. This was done to prevent nationalization of Iranian oil reserves by the ruling democracy.
The end result was nearly three decades of the SAVAK secret police force, which harassed, detained, killed or disappeared political dissidents, after which we saw the Iranian Revolution, with the rise of a (justifiably) unfriendly Islamic state and its own persecution of dissidence.
It is difficult — perhaps impossible — to foretell the long-term effects of throwing money at the enemy of your enemy. The best you can do is look at history and try to learn from previous mistakes.
In any case, the United States and its economic interests gain by maintaining chaos in the Middle East. Giving money to Iraqi citizens to somehow stabilize their economy (and, by extension, their society) might benefit them, if it was hypothetically possible, but political stability would not benefit shareholders and power brokers in the West.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:01 AM on August 14, 2007
Billion maybe. Not trillion.
"Bin Ladin's efforts in Afghanistan, along with the rest of the mujahaddin movement there, were supported by the United States through Pakistani Interservice Intelligence, most vigorously from 1986 to 1989. In this period, the United States partnered with Saudi Arabia in providing financial support for the resistance in Afghanistan totaling $500 million per year."
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:08 AM on August 14, 2007
"Bin Ladin's efforts in Afghanistan, along with the rest of the mujahaddin movement there, were supported by the United States through Pakistani Interservice Intelligence, most vigorously from 1986 to 1989. In this period, the United States partnered with Saudi Arabia in providing financial support for the resistance in Afghanistan totaling $500 million per year."
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:08 AM on August 14, 2007
Oh, whoops. My fault.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:18 AM on August 14, 2007
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:18 AM on August 14, 2007
But supporting democracy does not mean repeating the past. Yes, of course I agree that that the mujahaddin were not democratic; but this isn't the issue. This has to do with political word-games and relates, I believe, to a lack of independent and intelligent press. Indeed, the situation in Nicaragua during the popular uprising also relates to this; there are many such cases.
To be clear, I never suggested "throwing money at the enemy of your enemy" -- rather supporting democratic movements in calculating, intelligent ways. This does not mean funneling money to them, but it does mean giving them the support (covert or otherwise) necessary to do what they must.
Moreover, I agree with Zé's point: giving money to Iraqi citizens would've destroyed their economy permanently.
Lastly: I'm not sure just what hazy cabal those "shareholders in the West" represent, but the fact is political stability would benefit world economy. To suggest that Middle East turmoil somehow benefits the upper echelons sounds a bit paranoid...
posted by mateuslee at 4:21 AM on August 14, 2007
To be clear, I never suggested "throwing money at the enemy of your enemy" -- rather supporting democratic movements in calculating, intelligent ways. This does not mean funneling money to them, but it does mean giving them the support (covert or otherwise) necessary to do what they must.
Moreover, I agree with Zé's point: giving money to Iraqi citizens would've destroyed their economy permanently.
Lastly: I'm not sure just what hazy cabal those "shareholders in the West" represent, but the fact is political stability would benefit world economy. To suggest that Middle East turmoil somehow benefits the upper echelons sounds a bit paranoid...
posted by mateuslee at 4:21 AM on August 14, 2007
defeat of the Russians in Afghanistan helped to collapse the Soviet Union freeing millions of people from the oppression of communist rule
You still believe in Santa, too?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:28 AM on August 14, 2007
You still believe in Santa, too?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:28 AM on August 14, 2007
We could've used a fraction of the money to finance a coup by democratic elements.
Not after the last time we supported a coup in Iraq (1991) and then let the Shiites and Kurds trying to overthrow Sadam get slaughtered (while we had 500,000 troops in the area and did nothing to help them).
posted by probablysteve at 4:37 AM on August 14, 2007
Not after the last time we supported a coup in Iraq (1991) and then let the Shiites and Kurds trying to overthrow Sadam get slaughtered (while we had 500,000 troops in the area and did nothing to help them).
posted by probablysteve at 4:37 AM on August 14, 2007
then let the Shiites and Kurds trying to overthrow Sadam get slaughtered
This was shameful and corrupt. If we wanted to do this right, that was the time to do it. This is the sort of scenario I had in mind, except those groups would have had our support.
posted by mateuslee at 4:40 AM on August 14, 2007
This was shameful and corrupt. If we wanted to do this right, that was the time to do it. This is the sort of scenario I had in mind, except those groups would have had our support.
posted by mateuslee at 4:40 AM on August 14, 2007
You still believe in Santa, too?
Not sure what you find so hard to believe here:
1. The defeat of the Russians in A. helped foster the downfall of the SU
2. That the collapse of the SU freed millions from Communism...
I, for one, believe both of these. You can debate about whether the market economy was all it was cracked up to be in Russia - but don't forget the tyranny suffered by the Polish and how beneficial the rise of the iron curtain was for them. Not to mention Latvia, Lithuania, and many others who prospered under transparent government and capitalism....
posted by mateuslee at 4:51 AM on August 14, 2007 [1 favorite]
Not sure what you find so hard to believe here:
1. The defeat of the Russians in A. helped foster the downfall of the SU
2. That the collapse of the SU freed millions from Communism...
I, for one, believe both of these. You can debate about whether the market economy was all it was cracked up to be in Russia - but don't forget the tyranny suffered by the Polish and how beneficial the rise of the iron curtain was for them. Not to mention Latvia, Lithuania, and many others who prospered under transparent government and capitalism....
posted by mateuslee at 4:51 AM on August 14, 2007 [1 favorite]
1. No, the bankrupting of their economy caused the downfall of the SU. Imagine if the SU were still around and they banrolled Al-Qaida, and not only that, but the principal location of Al-Qaida just happened to be Mexico. But an impenetrable Mexico, not the happy-fun-flat Mexico. We'd probably go bankrupt, too. Notice how system of governance never enters the picture?
2. They substituted gangsterism with... well, gangsterism. Another great American success story.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:13 AM on August 14, 2007
2. They substituted gangsterism with... well, gangsterism. Another great American success story.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:13 AM on August 14, 2007
Why was it any of America's business who governed Iraq?
posted by A189Nut at 5:19 AM on August 14, 2007
posted by A189Nut at 5:19 AM on August 14, 2007
Civil_Disobedient:
mateuslee has explained to you sufficiently, hasn't he? So stop twisting things and getting yourself in a muddle. If bankrupting the Soviet economy caused the downfall of the regime, I'm absolutely positive that its adventures in Afghanistan were a significant contributing factor to this bankrupcy. And you've said so yourself.
What's the argument?
posted by Zé Pequeno at 5:20 AM on August 14, 2007
mateuslee has explained to you sufficiently, hasn't he? So stop twisting things and getting yourself in a muddle. If bankrupting the Soviet economy caused the downfall of the regime, I'm absolutely positive that its adventures in Afghanistan were a significant contributing factor to this bankrupcy. And you've said so yourself.
What's the argument?
posted by Zé Pequeno at 5:20 AM on August 14, 2007
This thread is closed to new comments.
If the Iraqi people had been given the money after Saddam had been ousted, then that's a slightly different story... except you've still got a country without a government or established military.
Perhaps if they'd spent $400 billion on educating the Western World on the Middle East and why its problems exist, we would stop thinking of them as "the other" and try a whole other way to solve their problems.
posted by crossoverman at 11:49 PM on August 13, 2007