Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Cost of Containment
Via that really cool blog I was citing last week, Rossputin, there is a white paper worthy of attention from everyone who claims to be agonizing over the cost of the War in Iraq, and similar military action. It is exactly what the title claims it to be: An analysis of the costs of “War in Iraq versus Containment”. Rossputin’s link is here.
The passage I think best summarizes the content meanders through pp. 60-62:
Forcible regime change in Iraq has proved to be a costly undertaking. As of January 2006, it appears likely that the Iraq intervention will ultimately unfold along a path that implies present value costs for the United States in the range of 410 to 630 billion in 2003 dollars. These figures reflect a 2 percent annual discount rate. They capture the estimated economic costs of U.S. military resources deployed in the war and postwar occupation, the value of lost lives and injuries sustained by U.S. soldiers, the lifetime medical costs of treating injured soldiers, and U.S. outlays for humanitarian assistance and postwar reconstruction.
:
Factoring the contingencies into the analysis yields present value costs for the containment policy in the range of roughly $350 to $700 billion. These large sums are in the same ballpark as the likely costs of the Iraq intervention seen from the vantage point of early 2006. Thus, even with the benefit of partial hindsight, it is difficult to gauge whether the Iraq intervention is more costly than containment.
The problem with any such comparison, in my view, is one of apples and oranges. Today, the Bush administration stands criticized because — altogether, now — the search for Weapons of Mass Destruction has been a dismal failure.
Leaving the residual problems with that absolute pronouncement aside for the time being, the simple fact of the matter is that the presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, is in a known state — to be more accurate about it, Saddam Hussein’s ability to use those weapons is in a state of some certainty. He can’t do it. So these policies yield disparate products, since with a policy of containment — as we all know by now — we got no freakin’ clue what the hell is going on in Iraq.
Another concern I have about the comparison: With our “lessons learned,” is there not some substantial savings to be realized, in a subsequent forceful displacement of some other hostile regime? This is a debate about policies, after all. I’m frequently told I should have the opinion that Donald Rumsfeld needs to go. Even those who say the Defense Secretary should stay where he is, concede that mistakes have been made in this go-round. Boy oh boy, that old fart Rumsfeld, he’s really biffed it here.
If one is to insist that our subsequent executions of this policy will involve equal-or-higher costs, and our hard-won wisdom from this implementation will yield no savings because our expenses over the last three years represent a bedrock minimum — is this not antithetical to the assertion that unforgivable mistakes have been made? It seems to me you can have one or the other, but not both.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.