Economist: Iraq War will Cost $2 Trillion

Iraq war economyFrom the Christian Science Monitor comes a news roundup on a “new study by Columbia University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz, who won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2001, and Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes concludes that the total costs of the Iraq war could top the $2 trillion mark.”

The study, which takes into account not only defense spending, but the wide range of economics associated with fighting a foreign war (medical costs, lost productivity, higher oil prices, a larger US deficit and greater global insecurity caused by the war) is deemed ‘moderate’ in it’s approach.

In the political realm, Stiglitz is championed as being leftist on his views on Iraq by his previous association with the Clinton administration and negative views on globalization (he’s not vocally against free trade though). Still, many conservatives are wary that even if his estimates are exaggerated, there is cause for concern that the true economic impact of the war is being grossly underrepresented by the Bush administration.

Some would argue that the cost of not going would be even greater, pointing at a detterance of another attack like 9/11. Yet, facts continue to vindicate anti-war views that there was no link between Saddam and terrorists and the revelation that there was no active WMD program in Iraq. Sadly, now that the debate has turned from reasons for invasion to reasons for extraction, neither Democrats nor Republicans have a solid grasp on their exit strategy, relying only on bombast and posturing. Thusfar, the only political entity with any clear exit plan are the Libertarians, though without current representation in federal government, those plans represent little more than wishful thinking.

Stephen VanDyke

I've published HoT along with about 300+ friends since 2002. We're all Americans who are snarky and love our country. I'm a libertarian that registered Republican because I like to win elections. That's pretty much it.

  1. Whats truly disgusting is that the political advantage of the LP plan, not withstanding it’s flaws ( and there were some ) was pissed away by a combination of no money to speak of, no publicity plan that we even had a plan in the first place, and protests by the hard that doesnt give a shit if the LP ever becomes a viable force in American Politics, as long as the party “represents their views”.

    The LP had the upper hand in this for MONTHS, if only they could have done something with it.

  2. “A few trillion here, a few trillion there, eventually it all adds up to a lot of money.”

    It’s a pity that the average person doesn’t realize that all these massive expenditures are funded by a printing press. It’s not as if these fiscally conservative Republicans are slashing spending on hundreds of programs to enable themselves to afford a foreign war.

  3. Why dont we stop the war in the what happens we sit and talk about it was up with war i can tell you if nobody had wepons in the us this would of never happend why cant we have peace you know that your fighting where the first civilizaton was if i was bush i would bring the boys back home. or go and fight with them not sit in a office