Moonsigns  |  Band Guide  |  Blogs  |  In Pictures  |  Adult
Boston  |  Portland  |  Providence
Letters  |  Media -- Dont Quote Me  |  News Features  |  Talking Politics  |  The Editorial Page  |  This Just In

Iraq: Five years later

Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz explains the punishing cost of staying any longer
By PETER KADZIS  |  March 12, 2008


What's going on? Never mind the information age. When it comes to the war, we’re still in the dark. By Vanessa Czarnecki.
Five years later, President George Bush and his minions were wrong about the need to fight in Iraq, wrong about the way to fight in Iraq, and wrong about what the war in Iraq would ultimately cost. Original estimates of between $50 to $60 billion were, at best, optimistic guesses.

In a startling and persuasive new book, The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict, Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize–winning economist, and Linda J. Bilmes, a professor at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, calculate that the war has cost the United States as much as $5 trillion to date. The $3 trillion of their title is, to say the least, a conservative estimate.

There is nothing wild-eyed about the methodology Stiglitz and Bilmes employ. The Three Trillion Dollar War is the work of two very smart and experienced experts who have put their learning at the service of the general-reading public. It is hard to imagine anyone capable of independent thought reading this book and not coming to the conclusion that the war in Iraq is a political, strategic, and financial blunder of staggering proportions.

We caught up with Stiglitz by phone in New Zealand recently. What follows is an edited transcript of our hour-long conversation.

Let’s start at the beginning: why did the Bush Administration go to war in Iraq? And why did Congress and the American people go along with it?
Those are hard questions to answer. The alleged reasons don’t make any sense. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There were not, until the United States invaded, any connections with Al Qaeda. Anyone familiar with the highly secular nature of Hussein’s Baathist regime would have known that a connection with Al Qaeda would have been inconsistent with Saddam’s political views. The irony, of course, is that while we were worrying about weapons of mass destruction that didn’t exist in Iraq, North Korea became a nuclear power. While we were focusing on a country where there was no connection with 9/11, things went terribly wrong in Afghanistan, a nation strongly connected to the New York and Washington attacks.

What about oil?
The Bush administration never gave that as a reason. Although some people, such as former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, said the connection was obvious. That’s just not plausible . . . well, let me take that back. It is not plausible if you think it through. There probably was a bit of naive geopolitical thinking about oil going on. But we are not living in the 19th century, where one country marches into another and seizes its oil. Oil is an internationally traded commodity. The price of oil is determined by global demand and supply. There is a sort of worst-case scenario where access to any oil at any cost would be vital, but we are not anywhere near that sort of reality. If we went into Iraq to keep the price of oil cheap, then — given current prices — we failed.

Are there any other theories worth considering?
Jacob Weisberg has written a book [The Bush Tragedy] where he suggests there is a link to Bush’s oedipal relations with his father. But that goes beyond economic analysis. And then there is the neocon interpretation that we went to war to force democracy. That, on its own, is a peculiar notion. If you were going to force democracy, why begin there? There are lots of other dictatorships around the world.

By some measures, Bush’s so-called surge appears to be working. Combat deaths are down. The once-hot insurgency appears to have cooled. Senator John McCain, the republican presidential nominee, says this is the road to victory. Cynics, such as myself, see the surge as a way to ensure that the next president will be forced to continue the fight. What’s your view?
I am a bit inclined to your view. The question, I guess, is what lessons can we infer? First, you say the level of violence is down. One has to put this into context. The level of violence is still extraordinary high. And it’s just down from the peaks that it attained at the beginning of 2007. It’s still at the level of 2006. It is not exactly peace and stability.

Secondly, the objective of the surge was to create room to create a viable, stable, political solution to the civil conflict. It hasn’t worked. The political solution has not emerged. So, going forward, you have to ask this: “Are we supposed to maintain our forces there forever? For the 80 to 100 years McCain has talked about?”

1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |   next >
  • Political art
    The know-nothing Bush administration makes one more attack on the arts. What you can do and why you should do it.
  • Hoosier daddy
    Spooked by Hillary? Evan Bayh could be your man in 2008
  • Fighting words
    The ‘War on Terror’ in Jenny Holzer’s declassified documents
  • More more >
  Topics: News Features , George W. Bush , Business , National Economy ,  More more >
  • Share:
  • RSS feed Rss
  • Email this article to a friend Email
  • Print this article Print
Iraq: Five years later
The point of the war was/is oil: Produce it and sell it by "American" companies,the neocons "Halliburton Energy Services" is one of them.
By Dr. Yehia Badran on 03/13/2008 at 1:18:23
Iraq: Five years later
The often cited reason for the war was to establish a democracy in the Middle East.We now know for sure that the Shiite clerics are calling a lot of the shots in Iraq and it will result in at best a theoracy. Our founding fathers were very careful and wise to avoid religious influence in goverment. What are our people dieing for ?
By Gabe on 03/13/2008 at 10:17:49
Iraq: Five years later
At the outset, the war was branded "Shock and Awe." As good an explanation as any might be this transposed passage from "Tree of Smoke" by Denis Johnson: "Intelligence data, analysis be damned; to hell with reason, categories, synthesis, common sense. All was ideology and imagery and conjuring. Fires to light the minds and heat the acts of men. And cow their consciences. Fireworks, all of it--not just the stuff of history, but the stuff of reality itself..."
By C Lovett on 03/13/2008 at 11:20:44
Iraq: Five years later
I truly believe that Bush went into Iraq on a personal note. The fact that Saddam threatened Bush sr. naturally his neo-con son saw fit to avenge his father. For the blame "the blame America first" crowd who else should we blame? Now that Iraq is clearly on its way to becoming Irans friend in the region and an Islamic Republic just like its neighbor congratulations to George Bush and his mis-guided party for beliving that these people want, need or even understand what democracy is never mind practice it you failed miserably and many have died for it and now as an American middle class citizen I struggle day in and day out trying to make ends meet but to spend trillions on a country that has more oil than sand it boggles the mind, just one question how much of those trillions did Halliburton get?
By snappa on 03/14/2008 at 8:35:16
Iraq: Five years later
We chased the Taliban out of Afghanastan, we chased Al-Queda out of Afghanastan, we chased Saddam out of Iraq, now what we are left with. Pakistan must deal with both the Taliban and Al-Queda trying to destabalize Pakistan which I might add is a NUCLEAR country once its overthrown Bin-Laden will have access to all the NUCLEAR bombs he will ever need. In Iraq we have Al-Maliki kissing up to Irans president because they so much in common thanks to bush why these people are not indicted is beyond me. President Clinton lied about having sex with some female George Bush has the blood of THOUSANDS of people on his hands for NO GOOD REASON and yet he is still the president????? WHAT A COUNTRY.
By snappa on 03/14/2008 at 8:50:10

election special
Share this entry with Delicious
  •   CHINA, TIBET, AND THE OLYMPICS  |  August 08, 2008
    Buddhist scholar Robert Thurman explains the Dalai Lama’s political wisdom, the myopia of the Chinese, and the essence of the Olympics
  •   BEYOND THE SPIN  |  May 14, 2008
    Why Clinton's commanding West Virginia win is more show than substance
  •   THE PLAYER  |  April 02, 2008
    Trying to find some meaning in ace biz-boy columnist Steve Bailey’s move to London
  •   IRAQ: FIVE YEARS LATER  |  March 12, 2008
    Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz explains the punishing cost of staying any longer
  •   LLOYD SCHWARTZ: THE BEAT GOES ON  |  January 30, 2008
    Letter from the Executive Editor

 See all articles by: PETER KADZIS

RSS Feed of for the most popular articles
 Most Viewed   Most Emailed 

Featured Articles in Features:
Monday, October 06, 2008  |  Sign In  |  Register
Phoenix Media/Communications Group:
Copyright © 2008 The Phoenix Media/Communications Group