|
|
Stephen Cox
takes on the anti-war "movement"! Gulf War II The Costs of Victory Over Saddam by R.W. Bradford By the time this
issue reaches its readers, the United States will have invaded
Iraq.
The U.S. will be at war by the time this magazine
reaches you. President Bush has promised us war by March 19, unless Saddam
Hussein resigns or is booted out of office by his own military, and neither seems
likely. Like it or not, Saddam appears to remain in firm control of the military
and shows little inclination to resign and face an American firing squad.
| | R.W.
Bradford is editor and publisher of Liberty.
|
|
Normally, I don't put a lot of confidence in the promises of politicians, but
George W. seems bound and determined to invade Iraq, no matter what the
consequences.
America's invasion of Iraq will have enormous impact on our lives. Already, it
has cost us billions of dollars in increased defense spending: the cost of
sending troops to the area and returning them, without including the cost of the
war itself, is already $23 billion. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
estimates the cost of fighting the war at $14 billion the first month and $8
billion per month after that. Occupying Iraq will run at least $12 billion a
year, and may run many times that figure. No one knows how long the occupation
will last.
All this occurs in the context of an exploding budget deficit, which the CBO
estimates will add $1.8 trillion to the national debt in the next ten years,
providing that we do not invade Iraq, all the 2001 tax cuts are allowed to
expire, no further tax cuts are enacted, spending increases merely keep pace with
inflation, and Bush's Medicare expansion is not enacted. (If this last measure is
enacted, in ten years, the annual cost of that program will be about $1.7
trillion per year, or about $6,000 for every man, woman, and child in the
country.) Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson has admitted that
the Bush proposal will "hasten the program's slide toward insolvency," reports
the Washington Post.
But the president plans to expand spending even more. If his defense spending
bills are enacted — and they are going to have to be, if we are going to
invade the other members of the "Axis of Evil" — we will soon be spending
more than we did at the peak of Ronald Reagan's Cold War defense buildup.
To keep the national debt from growing to absurd levels, Bush must either
increase taxes or crank up the printing presses at the Bureau of Engraving and
Printing. Inflation is the dirtiest and sneakiest tax of all, robbing the elderly
of their savings, turning generation against generation, and increasing the cost
of capital (thereby, hurting productivity). Either way, you and I will pay.
|
| The war on Iraq is a new
government program, and as with most new government programs, its advocates have
misrepresented its costs. |
|
Of course, it is far from certain that the war will go as planned.
There is a word for what you're doing when you invade another country and
maintain control indefinitely by force of arms, even if you say you're doing it
to "build democracy." That word is imperialism. And if there's one lesson that we
should learn from the 20th century, it is that imperialism doesn't work.
Consider how the century began. Over half the world's territory was controlled
by three great European empires: Britain, France, and Russia. Europe also had
another great power, Germany, which aspired to become a genuinely imperial
power.
In 1914 World War I began, with Germany and a few pitiful allies pitted
against the three great empires and their allies. Within three years, the three
great empires were at the point of losing the war. It was only the intervention
of the United States, still a free republic, despite its tiny overseas empire
(Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and a few flyspeck islands), that saved
the allies. The war destroyed one of the huge empires, Russia, replacing it with
a brutal communist dictatorship, and left Britain and France scarred forever.
Germany rose again against the same empires, and again, it was the
intervention of the United States that saved them. Even so, long before the
century ended, Britain and France had lost their empires and become minor powers,
while Germany and the U.S. — the same two powers that had never put together
an empire — were the world's economic powerhouses.
Of course, the 20th century's experience isn't unique. Other conquerors have
had the same problem: just look at what happened to the empires of Napoleon,
Alexander the Great, and just about every great empire ever assembled. (Okay,
I'll admit that the Roman Empire lasted a lot longer. It's the proverbial
exception that proves the rule.) If you want to understand why empires virtually
never last, read "The God of the Machine," Isabel Paterson's idiosyncratic but
brilliant 1943 book on war and empire.
How will the war go? I don't think anyone really knows. Many people believe
our technological advantage is so great that we will simply invade and slaughter,
in the manner of the Battle of Omdurman in 1896, where a technologically superior
British army killed 10,000 Muslims while suffering only 48 casualties. They may
very well be right.
But the problem the U.S. faces is not the cost or casualties of the war. It is
the cost and casualties of the peace. The invasion and conquest of Iraq may very
well lead to a protracted occupation that will make the U.S. occupation of South
Vietnam seem like a Sunday school picnic.
| To keep the national debt
from growing to absurd levels, Bush must either increase taxes or crank up the
printing presses at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.
|
|
Please don't misunderstand what I'm saying here. I think Saddam is a terrible
dictator, and it would be a wonderful thing if he were replaced and democracy
blossomed in the desert of Iraq. The question is: just how much are we willing to
pay to get rid of him? Is it worth the lives of thousands of American men and
women? Is it worth severe damage to the economy and to our way of life? Is it
worth the surrender of our civil liberties and property rights?
There's another important question: can we build a liberal democratic society
in Afghanistan or Iraq? In the other members of Bush's hallucinated "Axis of
Evil," North Korea and Iran? In all the other dictatorships of the world? In any
of them? And, if it is possible to build democracy, can it be built on the
foundation of invasion, conquest and slaughter?
These are questions for the American people to answer, through their elected
representatives. Right now, most Americans don't seem to be very worried about
the costs. The war on Iraq is a new government program, and as with most new
government programs, its advocates have misrepresented its costs.
Back when I was in high school, the Democrats ran television ads showing a man
putting a dime in a pay phone to make a telephone call, while the announcer
explained that that dime was what Medicare will cost each American per month.
That was what we were told in 1965. Now, as soon as Bush's new expansion of
Medicare is implemented, every American — every man, woman, child, and babe
in arms — will pay an average of $500 per month for Medicare and allied
programs.
I remember that dime and that commercial when I hear White House budget chief
Mitchell E. Daniels Jr. say that he is not worried about "today's deficits, and
tomorrow's for that matter."
Maybe invasion is the only way to deal with Saddam. Maybe it's worth
impoverishing ourselves and losing our freedom to get rid of him. But let's not
underestimate the costs of the war, or of Bush's other huge expansions of
government power.
|
| | |
|
