On onother thread, I suggested that the War on Terror that invloves War on Iraq ought to be spreadsheeted for its cost and benefits, versus a containment approach (coddling nominally democratic Muslim friends and abandoning the Heartland of Islam, i.e., abandoning our Saudi bases, tribut to Egypt, etcetera, which I've labeled a "Reservation policy" with friends). Well, a trio of bright economists with University of Chicago's Scholl of Business have done just that--except that it's limited solely to the subset of Iraq itself--not to alternative strategies in the War on Terror. Also at Chicago, Polic Sci Prof Daniel Drezner has pronounced this analysis as basically sound. The most substantial scooping of the brief study's conclusions I found here http://zogby.blogspot.com/2003_03_30_zogby_archive.html#200087480 I quote it in its entirety for the benefit of debate and discussion [insertions mine]: --Orson ---------------------- The Cost of War People talking about the cost of war may mean very different things. Some refer to the cost in lives of coalition forces, or the cost of civilian lives in Iraq. They may also refer to the cost to our reputation in the world. Or they may actually mean financial costs. How will this war affect the economy. Some say war is good for the economy. Some say a swift end to war will bring an economic upturn. [NY Times economics columnist, March 27, 2003, Section C , Page 2 ] Virginia Postrel discusses the change in how military spending is viewed by economists. But ultimately, she says, we must look at the cost of this war compared to the cost of containment. A recent study at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business [http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/steven.davis/research/War%20in%20Iraq%20versus%20Containment,%20Weighing%20the%20Costs%20(March%202003).pdf[ evaluates the costs of war vs containment. Although I read the study, I'll use Virginia's basic analysis, as she explains it well. "They use a generous estimate of $125 billion for the direct costs of the war and peg the cost of containment at $13 billion a year for troops and equipment. Assuming a 3 percent chance that the Iraqi regime "morphs from malign to benign in any given year," an estimate based on the persistence of other "contained" repressive regimes, containment would last 33 years, they estimated. "The most apt comparison is probably to North Korea," Professor Davis said, noting that the regime continued "in essentially the same form" even after Kim Il Sung died in 1994. "This dwarfs any reasonable estimate of U.S. war costs," they concluded." There are other issues involved, but their estimated cost of containment is $630 billion. That is certainly much more than the amount this war is likely to cost. [The net benefit of war option is estimated at $380 billion (see study, p. 3). ] Bruce Bartlett also addresses the study[for National Review Online], but has an evaluation of the benefit of this war for Iraq. http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett040203.asp "Per capita gross domestic product was $9,000 (in 2002 dollars) in 1979, the year Saddam Hussein solidified his power. The most recent estimate puts per capita GDP at a little over $1,000. In short, well before the first bomb fell on Iraq, the country had already suffered a devastating destruction of its economy equivalent to what might result from a major war. In less than a generation, Iraq went from being among the wealthiest countries on earth to among the poorest. The banking system in Iraq has collapsed and inflation is estimated at about 100% per year. The Iraqi dinar was worth $3 as recently as 1983. Today, $1 will buy 2,700 dinars. The study estimates that more Iraqi civilians would die if the prewar situation had remained in place. They estimate that at least 200,000 Iraqis would have died on top of the 500,000 that have already died at the hands of Saddam Hussein."
