I was thinking about the number of changes that have been implemented as a direct result of 9/11. Assuming for the moment that Osama bin Laden was the sole mastermind of this plot, he along with 19 suicide flyers, changed the course of American and to some extent world history forever.
Has anyone ever estimated the cost in dollars that 9/11 has cost the US thus far and will ultimately cost this nation? I assume someone or some group has crunched the numbers, but the direct impact is amazing to run through. Off the top of my head:
Creation of the Department of Homeland Security, which ultimately took over the newly created Transportation Security Administration (TSA), originally created under the US Dept. of Transportation.
The above-mentioned TSA, which is in every airport in the US. Equipment, personnel, etc to start a security department from scratch and build the bureaucracy around it to sustain it.
The immediate cost of the property loss in NYC, the Pentagon, and Pennsylvania. From the buildings to the planes to everything (not including life) destroyed on that day, and the cost to replace everything.
The lives lost are impossible to define in terms of dollars, but we can take into account insurance policies, death benefits, etc. paid out as required.
The relocation of businesses that could no longer work out of lower manhattan.
The loss of productivity with the nation shut down for about a week.
The build up and deployment of men and machinery for war, which is still being cranked out at the end of 2010 with no real end in sight.
On and on and on. I could keep going, but I think I’ve made the point I was going for.
So, is this it? the most significant loss of national treasure (and the continuing decline of that nation - the US)? Has there been more cost and loss caused by so few and directly affecting so many?
I toss out the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie by 19 year old Gavrilo Princip as another example of the damage (in this case one person) can do. This single action can be argued kicked off WWI, which led directly to WWII and a host of other events which may or may not be the result of Princip’s action.
This bears repeating.
President Bush chose an extremely expensive response to bin Laden’s attack.
He didn’t have to dump all that treasure down the drain hole just because bin Laden wrecked a few buildings and killed a few citzens.
If we are talking rough ballpark numbers, this group puts the number just south of $2 trillion. The ongoing costs of the TSA really aren’t that much in terms of big dollars – I think the TSA budget is around $7 billion a year, which, if we’re talking trillions of dollars, isn’t an extortionate amount.
The direct cost of World War II on the United States – just for supporting military operations – adjusted for inflation is about $4 trillion. That’s not even beginning to count the impact on the economy, etc.
So it is clear that the Axis powers cost the world a very, very, very great sum of money. It isn’t quite clear to the extent that one could personally attribute those wars to individuals, such as Hitler. I guess that’s one of those “for want of a nail, the kingdom was lost” sort of questions, though Hitler et al were unquestionably more responsible for WW2 than was the assassin you mention.
But there’s no doubt that a very few people cost the world a very large amount of money.
Are we adjusting for inflation? I’d say Jefferson Davis and his ilk impoverished a part of the US that is still disproportionately poor and backwards in most statistics.
Yeah… but that “ilk” extends for a couple of centuries before good ole Jeff Davis and in spirit for a century after. There are literally millions of guilty parties, which I think eliminates them from consideration. I believe the spirit of the OP is to ask who as an individual or small group did the most damage.
Actually, I think John Calhoun, by his aggressive rhetoric in favor of slavery and “states’ rights,” could arguably be the man who willed the country apart. If not for him, the country might have been less polarized and more capable of finding a peaceful end to slavery. So I vote for Calhoun, and lay the Civil War at his feet.
It’s really impossible to say, because I don’t think OBL was the sole driving force behind Al-Qaeda, and he wasn’t the 9/11 mastermind. Really OBL was just the philosophical father at that point.
I also would say that using this same kind of logic Adolf Hitler cost the United States far more than 9/11 could have cost us. Obviously you can’t compare direct dollar for dollar amounts because of differences in the value of a dollar in the 1930s/1940s versus today. Even in 1930s/1940s dollars the vast costs the United States incurred during WWII are higher than the most liberal estimate of 9/11 costs. That’s without adjusting for inflation, when you actually adjust those 1930/1940 dollars into 2001 dollars and also compare the cost to the size of the country’s GDP–it isn’t even close. In that context comparing 9/11 to WWII’s costs is akin to comparing the flame of a candle to the sun at high noon.
I would say that if possible, we can adjust for inflation for comparison numbers.
As for comparing OBL to Hitler, I don’t think it can be done. For US treasure, anyway. If OBL wasn’t the mastermind, he is at least the symbolic head of aQ, and I’m guessing he had final say on whether to go forward with the plot or not. The US theoretically could have stayed out of the european theater if the allies were better prepared and stopped the German war machine in its tracks.
I would agree that Bush’s response has cost this country countless money. But he had to do something. And that was forced on him because of the actions of a-Q and OBL. I don’t want to get too crazy with this logic. If so, we could say that since Clinton knew where OBL was and chose to do nothing about him during his time in Africa, Clinton (and his administration) ultimately lead to 9/11 and bear the responsibility for the costs.
I don’t mind taking snipes at Bush or Clinton (or whoever), but I want to try to focus this on a direct action (9/11 attacks) and the reaction (all of the fall-out based on dealing with that one action).
Considering that the US was still pretty firmly in the grip of the great depression when it entered the war, and emerged into an era of unprecedented economic growth afterward, there is a strong case that the impact on the economy mitigated rather than exacerbated the direct costs. It is not a huge stretch to argue that the war spending was a net positive. This is especially true when the US economy for a couple decades after the war is compared to world’s other economies in that era. Yes, the rest of the world was pretty much wrecked, but our WW-II spending can still be viewed as an investment that paid off handsomely…at least in the short to medium term.
In terms of inflation-adjusted dollars there is not a doubt whatsoever the answer is Adolf Hitler.
While it’s common to say the war jump started the economy, (a) the economy was emerging from the Depression in 1939, and (b) it’s simply a version of the broken windows fallacy. The economic boom wasn’t so fantastic for the 400,000 Americans who didn’t come back.
The cost of World War II is almost incomprehensible.