The language of priorities is the religion of socialism

[chickenfeet]

The debate over whether the invasion of Iraq was or was not morally justified flared up chez itchyfidget today. I wasn't happy about the terms of the debate because I don't believe that the policy options were restricted to invade Iraq or do nothing. Let's look at this on an opportunity cost basis.

The latest estimate that I have seen of the cost to the US taxpayer of the war in Iraq is $248 billion based on Congressional appropriations. If the impact of an inflated oil price on the US economy and the effect on the US government's ability to borrow were factored in the cost would surely be much higher. But let's stick with $248 billion.

If the object of the invasion of Iraq was to promote democracy in the region, or even just a desire to remove Saddam, was an invasion cost-effective? How much would it have cost to persuade Saddam to retire gracefully to Algeria or Paraguay? A lot less than a quarter of a trillion dollars I'll wager. Hell, for $248 billion dollars one could probably persuade the entire non Jewish population of Palestine to settle someplace else and bribe the recipient governments into accepting them thus removing the festering sore of the refugee camps.

I'm sure there area whole host of policy options I haven't even dreamed of. One can do a lot with $248 billion dollars.

Comments

[metalana.livejournal.com]

I agree with you that Saddam could have been bribed into exile for a few million's worth of wine, women and song (though he might have wanted a little island to have dictatorial power over).

But I expect that at least some of the population of Palestine would have stayed on principle. Or that the attempt at bribery would have gotten the whole population up in arms more than they already are.

Furthermore, a quick bribe would not have diverted the American public for very long, at least not in the positive ways that a war can keep hoi polloi's mind off of mundane economic matters.

[albionwood.livejournal.com]

I kind of doubt Saddam would have been bought off so easily. Money wasn't really his prime motivation; power was his thing. And he had access to money anyway. Maybe not 248 billion, but at some point the numbers get kind of meaningless. If money was all that mattered, he'd have long ago complied with the UN inspectors.

What you might have been able to do was get him killed or otherwise out of the picture. But then the whole country might have fallen into anarchy and sectarian violence... wouldn't want that.

Same thing with Palestinians. I don't think you could get the entire population to permanently abandon their homelands, AND persuade other countries to grant them new homelands, for $248 billion.

Nevertheless, your point is well taken: There certainly were other options. And we haven't even included those 100,000 lives (theirs and ours) in the calculations.

The Price of Everything

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

The Angles had a word for it, didn't they? Danegeld. And the more modern one still applies, apeasement.

It's probably worth suggesting that it's very hard to buy off an oil rich country,

And that there are some things that can't be bought or sold.

Re: The Price of Everything

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

Danegeld. And the more modern one still applies, apeasement.

That wasn't what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that for $250 billion one could have got rid of Saddam and left Iraq ib far better shape and maybe tackled a few other problems too.

Re: The Price of Everything

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

Hmm, and when Saddam's replacement asked for his pay off? Seems like this would stimulate the market for dictatorship, which has been quite flat recently. Norriega, if I remember, became too expensive to sponsor and was removed instead. Pinochet was relatively modest in his demands, and the Shah ultimately couldn't be propped up, despite heavy investment. Is this really a market we want to go back into?

Re: The Price of Everything

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

I hadn't realised that either the UK or the US had quit the market. Are the SAS vacationing in Oman? As for the Americans it seems that they'll support any dictator as long as his name is Stan.

Re: The Price of Everything

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

I didn't mean to say that we've quit it, just that it's been a little flat lately. Certainly pumping significant fractions of trillions might result in a little wage inflation.

Re: The Price of Everything

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

Certainly pumping significant fractions of trillions might result in a little wage inflation.

Not if we put them in the pension fund... maybe

Re: The Price of Everything

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

...cement overshoes have always come cheaper.

Re: The Price of Everything

[albionwood.livejournal.com]

Then why didn't we fit Saddam for a pair, and leave the rest of the country out of the deal? Surely one man - or even a handful, if you want to throw his sons and a few other stinkers into the deal - could be taken out for less than $248 billion and 100,000 lives (both numbers still increasing, final tally unknowable).

If the people who took us into the war are not idiots, then they must have had other reasons beyond simply toppling Saddam. Those reasons were, and still are, hidden behind a screen of propaganda focused on Saddam and 9/11.

Speaking of propaganda, nobody in this discussion suggested anything like "appeasement." That's a classic Rove trick; I'm disappointed to see it used here.

Re: The Price of Everything

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

Well, giving Sadaam a quarter of a trillion dollars to go away might seem like appeasement, you know, in a certain light, if you squint? Becaise if it's not appeasement then what the hell else is it?

And as for "Classic tricks":

"they must have had other reasons" (because you say so)
"hidden behind a screen of propoganda" (because you can't see them).

I mean, seen in a certain light, you know, if you squint real hard, that looks like classic conspiracy theory bullshit.

Luckily, I don't know you well enough to be diapointed.

Re: The Price of Everything

[albionwood.livejournal.com]

The distinction is that "appeasement" implies buying someone off and leaving him in place, in the hope that he will then leave you alone. (cf Danegeld, Chamberlain-Hitler.) Whereas I understood the suggestion made here was to pay Saddam to abandon his position and leave Iraq (which I doubt he could have been persuaded to do). I think that's quite different.

My suggestion of "other reasons" is offered as an alternative to the more widespread view: that the people who led us into war in Iraq are fools. That's a perfectly legitimate explanation with quite a lot of supporting evidence, but I also think there is reason to believe they are not quite that dumb; therefore, they must have had better reasons than the (easily discredited) ones publicly offered.

Re: The Price of Everything

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

That's a little bold of you. (Drat, you've corrected that HTML, and spoiled my pun!)

Paying people for being a threat still looks like appeasement to me, a lesson tha might not have been lost on any other dictator, but, potato, vice president.

I don't agree that the people voted into power in the Western democracies are dumb - I wouldn't have voted for Bush, but I don't think he's dumb. The reasons they give for their publicly offered reasons are easy to discredit (slinging mud will do that) or disagree with, but less easy to disprove.

Personally, again, I don't agree with these stated views - I think, and thought, that we had a moral duty to intervene in a country where 300,000 civilians had been killed, but that doesn't seem to be a popular view these days.

Re: The Price of Everything

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

I think, and thought, that we had a moral duty to intervene in a country where 300,000 civilians had been killed, but that doesn't seem to be a popular view these days.

So would you advocate invasion of the DRC, Uganda, North Korea and the People's Republic of China?

Re: The Price of Everything

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

Certainly, at various points in their history, yes - (with the exception of DRC, because I don't recognise the acronym) and surely the fact that there are countries where mass murder has gone unpunished is an argument for intervening more often, not less?

Re: The Price of Everything

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

Denocratic Republic of Congo

The killing is still going on, largely through starvation, in North Karea at a rate considerably in excess of 10,000/year.

At what point would you have invaded China?

Re: The Price of Everything

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

Personally I would have paid someone else to invade China, probably when they took British hostages and attacked the Treaty Ports. Oh, wait, we did.

Intervention is a bit different from invasion, but I think we acted shamefully in ignoring the millions killed by Mao, and should have done more. I don't believe it was possible, given the existing world climate, but I would have been campaigning uselessly for us to intervene, just as I was campaigning about Iraq in the early 80s.

Re: The Price of Everything

[albionwood.livejournal.com]

we had a moral duty to intervene in a country where 300,000 civilians had been killed,

I can agree with that - on a purely philosophical basis, there is a moral duty to intervene if, and only if, the intervention will cause less harm than any other potential option.

I don't think the Iraq war meets that standard. In fact our intervention has served to lower our own moral standards rather than increasing anyone else's.

Re: The Price of Everything

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

I think, in the long term, that hundreds of thousands of lives will have been saved by the intervention - actually, lets stay on safe grounds and call it an invasion: intervention is a bit euphemistic, I think.

There is a very good piece by Marcel Berlins in today's Guardian arguing that we (I think he meant the US, primarily) have brutalised our own countries with the actions taken in the name of The War On Terror - I agree, although I think he's pessimistic on the long term affect.

Re: The Price of Everything

[albionwood.livejournal.com]

As others have already noted, so far, the invasion has increased the rate of civilian deaths. Given that Saddam was not going to survive forever in any scenario, it looks unlikely to result in a net benefit over other possible actions.

Let me emphasize that last line - there were a number of other possible actions that might have been pursued; it was not a "war or nothing" situation. Many people tried to point that out at the time, but they were marginalized and ignored. To this day, people have difficulty understanding that there were more than two options to choose from.

I haven't read the piece you refer to but I do think that the so-called War on Terror (kind of like an Orgy against Sex, innit?) brutalizes the countries involved. The War mentality will do that.

Re: The Price of Everything

[rhythmaning.livejournal.com]

Why 300,000? Why not 1,000 - or just 1?

Re: The Price of Everything

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

Generally you don't need an army to intervene in the case of one life, and one person will find it dificult to wipe out 300,000 without an instrument. In that case, another instrument is required to disarm him.

Re: The Price of Everything

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

What really interests me is "why Iraq?". On as scale of potential danger to "the West", on the scale of human rights abuses or on the scale of humanitaruian catastrophe it wasn't that high on the list. North Korea would rate higher on all counts. Indonesia is a far worse human rights violator and the humanitarian crisis in Central Africa is massively worse. Call me a cynic but I do think oil was a huge factor.

Re: The Price of Everything

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

I totally agree - I'm almost certain that the reasons why Iraq was invaded aren't those which I would applaud. I don't think that matters though, since it was what I wanted to happen.

Re: The Price of Everything

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

My suggestion of "other reasons" is offered as an alternative to the more widespread view: that the people who led us into war in Iraq are fools. That's a perfectly legitimate explanation with quite a lot of supporting evidence, but I also think there is reason to believe they are not quite that dumb; therefore, they must have had better reasons than the (easily discredited) ones publicly offered.

I think there is a third, and perhaps most plausible, explanation. Both the Bush and Bklair administrations are highly centralized and intolerant of dissent, a quality which they shared with Saddam. In such an environment inconvenient facts and contrarian opinions are typically just ignored and a self-reinforcing group think sets in. Couple that with a culture in both cases of letting loose the attack dogs and crying "traitor" at anyone who shows less than extreme enthusiasm for the cause and reality can get distorted in a hurry.

Re: The Price of Everything

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I don't think that the Blair administration has a history of crying traitor, or letting loose the attack dogs - examples?

Re: The Price of Everything

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

What about the poor sodding scientist who committed suicide?

For a more recent example of attack dog ism look at Charlie C's attack on Jack Dromey yesterday.

Re: The Price of Everything

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

What, Jack "Mad Dog" Dromey? I think the attack amounted to suggesting that the party treasurer should have had a bit more of an idea what was going on. He wasn't dragged out of his bed with a hood over his head. And neither was Dr David Kelly (you could have taken 30 seconds to Google his name, you know). His death was tragic, and dirty politics, but, again, naming him as the source of a leak from his own department was a despicable thing to do, not a howling attack.

Re: The Price of Everything

[albionwood.livejournal.com]

Personally, I would call that foolish.

"He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not; he is a fool, shun him."

Re: The Price of Everything

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

Indeed, but it's a kind of foolishness found among some groups of very intelligent people.

[albionwood.livejournal.com]

The debate over whether the invasion of Iraq was or was not morally justified

It is profoundly depressing to see that debate still exists. We can argue about whether it was justified on economics, politics, mistaken-intelligence, or some other justification - but morally? No way.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

I completely agree.

[albionwood.livejournal.com]

Good, we have some common ground!

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

*chuckle* Less than you might imagine.

[albionwood.livejournal.com]

Well, we both like Cerebus the Aardvark, for starters...

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

And what about "Breakfast at Tiffany's?"

[albionwood.livejournal.com]

Never saw it.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

But you must have read the book?

[albionwood.livejournal.com]

Nope.

[albionwood.livejournal.com]

I see what you mean. You actually think the invasion was moral? *shakes head* Staggering. In what kind of morality does a good end justify evil means?

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

"For evil to triumph, it is only necessary that good men do nothing."

We might be able to argue about whether the war was legal or illegal, but unless you believe war is always evil (which is an admirable stance) then I'm afraid that i have to disagree with you.

[albionwood.livejournal.com]

Is it morally superior for good men to do evil than for them to do nothing?

Also, one more time: Doing nothing was NOT the only alternative to war. Stop trying to imply that it was.

Finally, yes, I do believe that war is always evil. The greatest evil is done by those who start it. Fighting back is justified, but the initial aggression never is. No-one can predict the future, so it is always impossible to morally justify a first strike.

[rhythmaning.livejournal.com]

This reminds me of an analysis of global warming I read sometime ago (my guess would be in the Economist) that, for the costs to the implementing the Kyoto agreement, you could just bite the bullet, give everyone adversely affected by climate change bucket loads of cash so they could move somewhere else and just get on with it.

I didn't with their analysis, but your view seems to make much more sense. Although perhaps that $248bn could even have been spent on the Iraqi people.