RSS Feed Menu
For her column, Anne Applebaum writes about what it has cost the United States to occupy Iraq:
On Tuesday, President Barack Obama will make a speech about Iraq. With 50,000 troops still in the country “in an advisory capacity,” he can’t declare victory, so he will instead celebrate “the end of combat operations.” If he follows others who have already marked this occasion, he will focus his comments on Iraq: the state of Iraqi democracy, the level of violence, the impact of seven years of war on Iraqi society.
All of which is fair enough. But I hope he spares a few extra minutes to assess the impact of seven years of war on American society—and American foreign policy. I supported the invasion of Iraq, I think the surge was a success, and I believe that an Iraqi democracy could be a revolutionary force for good in the Middle East. Yet even if violence abates, even if U.S. troops go home, we have still paid a very high price for our victory—much higher than we usually admit.
Aside from the very real blood and the very real money spent in Iraq, there were also other casualties, some of them hard to count and classify. Here are a few of them:
America’s reputation for effectiveness. The victory was swift, but the occupation was chaotic. The insurgency appeared to take Washington by surprise, and no wonder: The Pentagon was squabbling with the State Department, the soldiers had no instructions and didn’t speak the language. The overall impression, in Iraq and everywhere else, was of American incompetence—and, after Abu Ghraib, of stupidity and cruelty as well. Two years ago, a poll showed that vast numbers of our closest friends felt that the “mismanagement” of Iraq—not the “invasion” of Iraq—was the biggest stumbling block for allies of the United States.
No wonder, then, that America’s ability to organize a coalition has also suffered. Participation in the Iraq war cost Tony Blair his reputation and the Spanish government an election. After an initial surge of support, the Iraqi occupation proved unpopular even in countries where America is popular, such as Italy and Poland. Almost no country that participated in the conflict derived any economic or diplomatic benefits from doing so. None received special U.S. favors—not even Georgia, which sent 2,000 soldiers and received precisely zero U.S. support during its military conflict with Russia.
It will be a lot harder to get any of the “coalition of the willing” to fight with us again. Indeed, “Iraq” is part of the reason why there is so little enthusiasm for Afghanistan and why it is so difficult to put organized pressure on Iran.
Another victim of the conflict was America’s ability to influence the Middle East. Admittedly, we were never as good at this as we would like to be, but the chaos in Iraq has clearly strengthened Iran. It has had no positive impact on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. By helping raise the price of oil for a few years—this was supposed to be a “war for oil”; remember that?—it has also strengthened Saudi Arabia, the regime that produced 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers.
Click here to read more.
Good points but I didn’t see her mention what it did to our credibility. There was a time when our word meant something. It was taken for granted by other countries that we could be trusted. Not anymore, which is going to make any future wars that need to be fought that much more difficult.
I also didnt see her mention what it did to our domestic politics. Instead of “changing the tone in Washington” the “debate” over Iraq made it worse. It was clear that people were lying and those people won the “debate”.
The word “debate” is in quotes because they’re supposed to be held before a decision is made, not after.
The lead up to the Iraq war saw propaganda used in this country like it has never been used before. We were literally bounced into a war the Neocons always wanted, and for what? Nothing but pain,sorrow and a Trillion bucks or so. A shameful episode in American history.
Republicans should be ashamed of the lead up to the war and the incompetence shown in running it, however they do not do introspective honesty so I will not hold my breath.
Both Oldskool and TerryF98 address the poisonous consequences of misleading a country to war. This is a devastating act – obviously in terms of loss of life, limb and treasure – but as well in its implicit endorsement of bold domestic propaganda as an acceptable political tool. And in its wake we have a decorated Viet Nam war hero and presidential nominee painted as a liar and a coward, a biracial president raised in a multicultural environment painted as a racist, that same president a practicing Christian painted as a Muslim, economy-destroying tax cuts to the wealthy touted as essential for rescuing an economy, demonization of industry regulation in the face of unprecedented environmental catastrophes, the list goes on. This is an era of the Big Lie, more toxic than the John Birch/Joe McCarthy period, unapologetically driven by one party and its powerful media allies, and enabled by the timidity of the other political party. What this country needs, right now, is a truth (as in facts) offensive.
I clicked on this link because I thought it would have information about the financial cost of the war.
I am interested in this topic because it is a current Republican talking point that the cost of Obama’s stimulus bill exceeds the cost of the Iraq War:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/30/cbo-years-iraq-war-cost-stimulus-act/#content
CBO figures put the cost for Operation Iraqi Freedom at $709 billion, whereas the Stimulus Bill will cost $862 billion over two years.
I find the Iraq War figure highly dubious, however—especially considering that the daily burn rate for the war was conservatively estimated to be around half a billion dollars per day. For 7 years of war, this would amount to at least $1280 billion.
Furthermore, Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz calculates the true cost of Iraq War to be over $3000 billion:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3419840.ece
And of course none of this takes into the non financial costs of the war, which is the subject of this Anne Applebaum column. These factors may not have been costly in dollars, but they are still extremely expensive in terms of other factors such as lives, preparedness, credibility, etc.
Let’s see, how can we work the dead and maimed Iraqis into our cost of the war. No doubt, they’re some one’s cost, but whose exactly remains to be decided. If some one is proficient in double entry bookeeping, where should enter the dead Iraqis?
More than two and a half years ago other observers and writers began to quantify the shocking and almost unbelievable costs, Ms Applebaum reveals in her post, on August 31, 2010…!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3419840.ece