Costs of War

Via Jim Henley, Kevin Hall and David Montgomery tally up the price of war in ways you might neglect. To make a long story short, for all the billions that have been appropriated for Iraq, those appropriations don't actually cover the bills. That means cutbacks elsewhere. Specifically, services (janitorial, mail, bill payment) at military bases, it means that equipment isn't being procured for training purposes, it means that not all the equipment damaged in Iraq is getting repaired, etc. What's more, the thousands of dead soldiers are the least of the human toll: "More than 73,000 soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) . . . Internet blogs written by soldiers or their wives tell of suicide attempts by soldiers haunted by the horror of combat, civilian careers of reservists who’ve been harmed by deployment and redeployment, and marriages broken by distance and the trauma of war."

All the Senators seemed very pleased with Robert Gates yesterday. And as John Judis says, Gates really does seem less eager to buy into geopolitical madness than many of his Republican predecessors. Still, Gates seems to be part of the "mainstream" elite consensus which holds that Iraq is almost certainly doomed, but that we should sort of keep on prosecuting the war for years and years just because it would be embarrassing to give up and, hell, who knows maybe a pony will come along. That sort of thing works, I think, if and only if you regard the war as a total abstraction, rather than actual events happening to actual people.

Comments

How very sad. This is just "wildly off the mark" and eventually this war "will pay for itself."

Posted by: kp on December 6, 2006 09:52 AM

Still, Gates seems to be part of the "mainstream" elite consensus which holds that Iraq is almost certainly doomed, but that we should sort of keep on prosecuting the war for years and years just because it would be embarrassing to give up and, hell, who knows maybe a pony will come along. That sort of thing works, I think, if and only if you regard the war as a total abstraction, rather than actual events happening to actual people.

Looks like Silvestre Reyes is part of that mainstream consensus:

In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the soon-to-be chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a stepped up effort to “dismantle the militias.”

Damned mainstream elite. I hate being a part of it.

Posted by: Al on December 6, 2006 10:00 AM

Still, Gates seems to be part of the "mainstream" elite consensus which holds that Iraq is almost certainly doomed, but that we should sort of keep on prosecuting the war for years and years just because it would be embarrassing to give up and, hell, who knows maybe a pony will come along. That sort of thing works, I think, if and only if you regard the war as a total abstraction, rather than actual events happening to actual people.

This whole thing seems to be playing out politically as a weird farcical repetition of fall 2002. So I am keenly aware of the risk of imagining that this is going to be Ken Pollack's, or George Packer's, or Thomas Friedman's, or whoever's, way forward when in fact it's going to be George W. Bush's. But the actual question, it seems to me, is whether cutting and running would be worse for the Iraqis (with the tradeoff that it would obviously be better for American forces) than if we stay and try to manage the catastrophe. In this regard, I am not encouraged by the way Democrats are embracing the Rumsfeld memo's perspective - draw down with focus on training and beefing up the ISF as a patently Shiite-Kurdish force - seemingly unconscious of what the Salvador option/80% solution actually means for the 5.2. million Sunni Arabs. It likely means mass slaughter. And the Bush administration will just try to make sure it cannot be called genocide. So would the slaughter that would likely follow cutting and running be less bad because we would not have trained up the Shiites in the ways of death?

Posted by: Jeff on December 6, 2006 10:06 AM

"That sort of thing works, I think, if and only if you regard the war as a total abstraction, rather than actual events happening to actual people."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Matt, our soldiers aren't actual people. That's why we can feed them into a meat grinder for years on end with no compunction. Jenna and Barbara Bush are real people. Private Smith and Corporal Sanchez are abstractions. Clear?

Posted by: steve duncan on December 6, 2006 10:15 AM

Sigh. What gives them the right to fuck with our lives?

Posted by: FMguru on December 6, 2006 10:43 AM

"hell, who knows maybe a pony will come along"

You realize, of course, that that is what the finance people refer to as "optionality." Since optionality can magically transform a deal from a no go into a go, why can't it transform Iraq strategy from a go into a no go?

JK, partly.

Posted by: ostap on December 6, 2006 10:53 AM

The two most irresponsible groups regarding the Iraq War are the ones who wanted to rush in and the ones who want to rush out. The ISG report seems like a plausible plan to get us out over time. The key (to Matt's point in another post) is to define the factors that would cause us to deviate from the plan (put into metrics).

Of course, you can't be in the cool crowd in the blogosphere if you support a bipartisan plan. And supporting any plan means that you might be wrong (unless you support worst case everything - that way you're only wrong in a good way).

Posted by: Marty on December 6, 2006 12:39 PM

Marty, maybe you can help me understand how the ISG plan will help - because right now it looks like, "Oh we have too many people in Iraq who want us to fail, so let's invite in even more people who want us to fail and maybe that will make things better." Is this the pony Matt promised us?

Posted by: Russ on December 6, 2006 12:45 PM

We need a strategy to get out of the combat role over time (15 months is what I heard at the press conference). And we have to prevent the extreme worst case options to the maximum extent possible (regional war, millions killed, al Qaeda takes over territory as a new base, etc).

Posted by: Marty on December 6, 2006 01:34 PM

Blame us. We were not supportive enough.

-

Posted by: The American People on December 6, 2006 01:48 PM

We need a strategy to get out of the combat role over time (15 months is what I heard at the press conference).

And is Bush going to follow the Magic Pony Plan? No, he ain't.

I know Atrios can be rude at times, but he's on the mark about how Bush has made his position absolutely clear: while he's in the White House, leaving is losing. That takes you to January 2009.

Posted by: pseudonymous in nc on December 6, 2006 01:53 PM

If we pull out this year necklaces made out of chopped off purple fingers will glut Ebay. The Sunni's will eat the Goverment up.
I think it's time to send in the Bush twins and Jonah Goldberg

Posted by: Jerry k on December 6, 2006 02:01 PM

The "extreme worst case options" are not only un-preventable, they were cast in solid stone the minute the US troops started the invasion. This is an illegal and immoral war, and oh-so-breathtakingly-stupid.

Staying there only prolongs the violence and the killing and the death. Bush's plan is to bring freedom of the grave and the democracy of death to the Iraqi people.... and a few Americans.

Posted by: Susan on December 6, 2006 03:01 PM

Actually, just going along the same way won't work--our military will break, probably within the next six months. The alternatives are to ramp it way up, institute a draft, deploy 600,000 soldiers, be prepared to more than spend $400 billion a year for years and years and radically increase taxes, especially on the rich, to pay for it. The American death tole would probably be about the same or maybe higher and the economy would go in a ditch, but at least there would be a semblance of order in Iraq. The alternative is to get the fuck out.

Posted by: Jose Padilla on December 6, 2006 03:07 PM


What's more, the thousands of dead soldiers are the least of the human toll . . .

I think this is an unfortunate choice of words. I suppose it's true if it only means that numerically the dead are smaller than other categories of the 'human toll', but to my (metaphorical) ears it has a belittling sound.


Posted by: David Tomlin on December 6, 2006 03:57 PM

In tragic support of your statement about abstract vs actual events, the death count stands at 29 in the first six days of December.

...but we should keep this up, because... why?

http://www.icasualties.org/oif/

Posted by: klevenstein on December 6, 2006 04:31 PM

29 US troops, that is. Of course, I'm sure the ISG would want to consider the 330 Iraqis as of December 5, too.

http://www.icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx

Posted by: klevenstein on December 6, 2006 04:34 PM

It seems to me that elite consensus is where it is out of inertia, not malevolence.

After all, "every serious Democrat" in the Senate voted for the war, said Atlanta Journal Constitution editor Cynthia Tucker on Chris Matthews the other day. (Self-link on this.)

Being right about the war is still considered a pretty gauche thing to have done.

So Matt's characterization might be off-base because it assumes that elite consensus comes about in part out of people "regard[ing] the war as a total abstraction."

In fact, that consensus is rooted in domestic social realities, not on any assessment at all, abstract or otherwise, about the actual war.

Posted by: Elvis Elvisberg on December 6, 2006 04:49 PM

aman aman eller yıkan yıldızzzzzzzzzzz : )

Posted by: sohbet on August 22, 2007 05:34 PM

thanks good blogs.

Posted by: sohbet on October 7, 2007 06:52 AM

mylesef.com

Posted by: aşk sevgi on November 16, 2007 08:45 AM

Good comment.Thanks admin.

Posted by: youtube on November 16, 2007 01:38 PM

thanks

Posted by: hikaye on December 30, 2007 07:36 PM

thanks.

Posted by: sex on December 30, 2007 07:36 PM

wonderful web page.

Posted by: mirc on December 30, 2007 07:36 PM

thanks

Posted by: asi dizisi on January 27, 2008 02:09 PM

Thanks for you sites..

Posted by: ByUgur on February 11, 2008 03:38 PM

Thanks for you sites..

Posted by: ByUgur on February 11, 2008 04:27 PM

No joke! What a great, energetic group - very outgoing. Other than the fact that they kicked Arizona’s ass 6-1 I could hang with these ladies and learn a little something about focus and team spirit. nice

Posted by: muhabbet on June 5, 2008 10:17 AM

No joke! What a great, energetic group - very outgoing. Other than the fact that they kicked Arizona’s ass 6-1 I could hang with these ladies and learn a little something about focus and team spirit. nice

Posted by: irc on June 5, 2008 12:49 PM

No joke! What a great, energetic group - very outgoing. Other than the fact that they kicked Arizona’s ass 6-1 I could hang with these ladies and learn a little something about focus and team spirit. nice

Posted by: forum on June 5, 2008 12:50 PM

Post A Comment

advertise_liberally.gif