In dollars and cents, what is the cost/benefit and ROI on the Iraq war?
By various accounts, the cost of the war will be between 200 and 300 billion. To say nothing of the cost in human lives (on both sides).
Some analyst say that the benefits far outweigh the financial cost but I’ve not heard one elaborate clearly what those benefits may be. Are the benefits so self explanatory and tangeable that they don’t warrant a mention? Oh they wax poetic about how the Kurds no longer living in fear of gassing and systematic attack by Saddam’s Sunni dominated forces. But similar genocides are going on in the Sudan and nobody talks about the benefits of ending that tragedy any time soon. Of course there is the alleged threat of Saddam’s WMD and ties to various infamous terrorist groups but those allegations have been pretty much discredited and yet the analysts are still talking about the “benefits” of this action.
So what’s the pay off for the US?
Note: I don’t want to rehash the subject of whether it was right or wrong to start this invasion. What’s done is done. What are these benefits beyond the speculative pre-emptive nature of the invasion and questionable strategy of introducing democracy to a region which seems to actively resist this political model?
Perhaps you’re right but I am resisting being that cynical. I’m seriously trying to understand the big picture here.
I have a pet theory about why this war was less about fighting terrorism / introducing democracy into the middle east and more about the EU emerging economic strength and associated oil exraction/processing contracts. But I must be careful here in GD because I have precious little more than my own speculation on the subject (read: no cite, so don’t ask).
It may sound like I’m asking leading questions here. I’m trying not to. It’s just that the available answers in the media to date are vague and unsatifying.
If the situation achieves the results that are hoped for, there will be real monetary benefits. However, they’ll be hard to discern because they’ll most likely be the savings of money that didn’t have to be spent.
Essentially, if the occupation of Iraq results in the creation of more stability in the Middle East (or in less grand sense, just results in regional powers deciding not to take a chance on angering the United States) than it will reduce the probability that at some time in the future the United States will have to recover from terrorist attacks, fight a larger war, or deal with an economic crisis involving oil.
I hear that, but ever since the US shut Quadaffi’s yap, well over a decade ago, few regimes in the area have made obvious threats against the US. Sure hard line clerical and fundamentalist group leaders have but not “elected” officials - certainly not to the same degree anyway.
No. It seems to me that the financial rewards were already reaped during the initial days of the invasion when the country (Iraq) was completely destabilized and the oil contracts between Iraq, France and Germany became worthless. The US downplays it’s reliance on Iraqi oil but it would be foolish to dismiss that huge supply altogether. Having the EU (primarily France and Germany) feeling it’s oats and becoming an econimic threat to the US economic dominance around the world would also be a bad thing.
I’m not suggesting that the threat of terrorism and pursuit of democracy in this region was of no importance to this administration. I would not be so presumptuous as to call these causes a red hearing. I just don’t think they were the only motivations.
Again, no cite for these allegations… perhaps this is more an IMHO than a GD.
You seem to be saying that the US gets its oil from Iraq. Do you have a cite for this because I was under the impression that in fact we DON’T get oil from Iraq…at least not in any meaningful amounts.
You also seem to be implying that the US went to war in Iraq to put the Europeans in their place. Could you elaborate on this interesting hypothisis?
I think providing stablility to the region that is a vital national (and international) resource would be enough. I think you are right about the other, but the bottom line is: The US (and the entire industrial world) NEEDS the ME and the oil there and its in our best interest to make the region as stable as possible. Bush et al think forced democracy is the way to go. I’m unsure if this is or is not the case (jury is still out), but this does seem to be their plan, despite rjungs hot air. Will it work? Gods know. I give it less than a 50/50 chance at this point, and this is after the seemingly recent successes. Was it worth it? I don’t think so, but again I may be proved wrong here as well.
The benifits of a stable ME region would certainly outweigh both the cost in money and lives…the key is IF spending that money and those lives has the effect predicted by Bush and his merry men (and women). Inserting a seed democracy in the region to act as a model MIGHT have the desired effect of calming down the whole region, or at least making it more stable. Its still way to early to see if this will or won’t be the case. The question I ask myself though is: wasn’t there another way to do this that didn’t entail invading Iraq? Could we have done it ‘cheaper’ in terms of money, lives and national prestige? Was there any other way or was this really the most optimal?
As to the rest of the paragraph, WMD, genocides, etc…those were clearly excuses used, as was Iraq’s stuborness with the UN. Iraq was picked because Saddam was a moron and helped set up the conditions that allowed the US to invade using a fig leaf of excuses. You are ranting here away from your own OP though…you asked what the BENIFITS were, not the excuses for invasion. The theoretical benifits have been layed out to you…whether or not you choose to believe them is another matter. Whether or not they will become REAL benifits is yet a third matter.
lol, and this after the proceeding paragraph where you rant about the why’s of the invasion. Well, I don’t know if your own irony detector is set for self analaysis, but my own pegged out.
Nothing like the purity of argument from a point of absolute ignorance on the subject, eh?!
Well, okay then, here I go… in for a penny and all.
No cite. BUT, I think Europe is (or was planning) to receive major oil supplies from Iraq. Now that US seem be taking control of most extraction and processing of the oil (not the ownership of the actual oil resources), they seem to have a bit more control over that flow and pricing to some extent. Also just because the US hasn’t been buying any significant amounts from Iraq, doesn’t mean it won’t or can’t. It’s not like the US demand for oil is decreasing.
I know myself well enough not to rely too heavily on initial observations. I’m considering my options.
Depends on who you mean by “the US.” For ordinary Americans, the payoff is nothing in terms of greater freedom, safety from terrorism, lower gasoline prices, or anything else of value. For the Admin’s business friends, the payoff is lucrative reconstruction contracts in what has effectively become a “fraud-free” zone. For Bush and the neocon policymakers, there’s a lot of payoff – e.g., effective control of Iraq’s share of the world oil supply; getting our troops in position to invade Syria or Iran at a moment’s notice; and cementing America’s status as the world’s hegemonic superpower. (Like we need that!)
It must be satisfying to you to see your political rivals as such cartoonish clowns with such comic book villan motives. I’m sure every time you see Bush et al you think ‘Muahahahaha!’.
The kind of motives I attribute to the Bush Admin are not limited to “comic book villains.” I wish! In historical perspective, it’s actually rather ordinary behavior for political leaders. Which does not, of course, mean that we should put up with it.
I fail to see the point where any of these goals are comic bookish nor villainous:
Get control of a resource that plays an important part in our economy
Establish a military presence in an area we might need it in the future
Reinforce a belief in American ability to deal with real and perceived threats
I’m not saying that I necessarily think GWB actually put any thought into it beyond, “Well I can’t find the Ayrab who blew up New York, but hey an Ayrab is an Ayrab and if I can get some other ones that should be good enough to make everyone happy”, but I don’t think the rest of the government nor military leaders would have gone along with it if it couldn’t have benefits.
You might not think that those goals were worth it (and I might agree), but I do fail to see where you can view these as villainous and comic-bookish goals.
Personally I view the beneficial aspect of the Iraq war as the possibility to have improved the future of the Iraqi people, not any of the above three nor any possible economic benefits for ourselves *
Nothing like the purity of argument from a point of absolute ignorance on the subject, eh?!
The kind of motives I attribute to the Bush Admin are not limited to “comic book villains.” I wish! In historical perspective, it’s actually rather ordinary behavior for political leaders. Which does not, of course, mean that we should put up with it.