War on Terror – War on Want
September 11th, 2006 by Stephen
According to the Independent,
The “war on terror” – and by terrorists – has directly killed a minimum of 62,006 people, created 4.5 million refugees and cost the US more than the sum needed to pay off the debts of every poor nation on earth.
If estimates of other, unquantified, deaths – of insurgents, the Iraq military during the 2003 invasion, those not recorded individually by Western media, and those dying from wounds – are included, then the toll could reach as high as 180,000.
As if this terrible statistic was not enough, a US congressional committee has just concluded that the argument that the invasion of Iraq had anything to do with the war on terror has been blown out of the water as it turns out that not only did Saddam Hussein not have anything to do with al Qa’ida, but he even tried to arrest Mohammed al-Zarqawi when he was in Iraq. Furthermore, George Bush and his government knew this, even as they tried to convince the American people of the opposite.
And then there is the cost of this ugly war. From the Independent again:
Beyond the blood price, there is a dollar and sterling cost. In July it was reported that the US Congress had approved $437bn (£254bn) for costs related to the “war on terror”. This, a sum greater than those spent on the Korean and Vietnam wars, compares to the $375bn that Make Poverty History says is needed to clear the debts of the world’s poorest nations.
What could we do with £254bn? That is £42.33 for every single person on the planet. For our family of four, that adds up to £169, which is not a huge amount – but would pay for perhaps a week’s groceries and shoes for the family. But for people in parts of the world that subsist on a dollar a day, it equates to perhaps three months income. Maybe enough to invest in seed or livestock, or education, or raw materials or something else that could make a real difference in their lives.
As the Independent points out, we could wipe out the debts of every poor country on earth with this money. Rather than killing 180,000 people and making 4.5 million refugees, we could make leaps and strides to wiping out poverty, housing refugees and saving millions of lives.
We could have spent the money on schools and hospitals. Indeed, had we done so we, this would be enough to fund a health service the size of the entire UK national health service for nearly 10 years and still have enough left over for the schools!
Indeed the amount spent on Iraq is about the same as the GDP of the United Kingdom (the world’s fourth largest economy). It is equivalent to about $150 for every single American citizen (population of 296 million).
And what has all this death and money achieved?
Iraq is a foreign policy disaster that has destabilised the world. We have a nasty dictator (who had been effectively contained) on trial, but we have to sit back and watch as genocide takes place in Darfur. The world is not a better place for Iraq.
And terrorism is worse than ever. On the day that we hear self congratulation on a policy that has “effectively defended” the US against Al Qa’ida, we see more terrorism, more death daily than ever before, and we know that nasty men like bin Laden have not gone away, and they have used the foreign policy errors in Iraq to radicalise people against the west.
“Not in my name”, brave people cried. But in the name of those very people, we have killed maybe 180,000 people and made 4.5 million new refugees, when we could have made the world a better place.
If only we could have directed these kind of resources, and this kind of determination against the war on want. Then we would have something to be proud about.
I understand the logic, Stephen, but I don’t necessarily believe that it’s as simple as you’d like it to be.
For one thing, regardless of how the U.S. spends its money, there will always be people that do not like the U.S. or what it stands for (granted, what it stands for may be perceived differently based on how it spends its money!). We were not actively procsecuting a war on terror when the planes hit the twin towers, or the towers were bombed in 1993 or the U.S.S. Cole was bombed.
Furthermore, what are “related costs to the War on Terror.” Are we talking beefed up border security? Securing the ports? More police/first responders? One could argue that these were underfunded in the first place (and may still be).
Iraq may or may not be a mistake– the biggest mistake is judging history without perspective. Certainly, at the time and with the risks involved I believed that we were right to go into Iraq.
And lastly, even if we were to take that money and do some humanitarian mission, even the money that we are giving is being wasted or horded. Don’t forget that even Sadaam was abusing Oil for Food and a whole bunch of aid money is being given to corrupt governments.
I believe that if we started to try to caluclate the true cost of making a difference in lives through monetary aid you’d find that it would be many times over how much we are spending on the war on terror– which has the side benefits of freedom for enslaved people and teaching them to supply themselves.
Hi Min,
I agree that it is simplistic to say that we could have just used all that money to right the wrongs of the world. The comparisons were an attempt to give some sense of scale to what this policy is costing.
You are right that you were not prosecuting the war on terror from 1993 onwards. What the U.S. had done was to base very large forces in Saudi Arabia for the first time (following the first Iraq war), rather than relying on a policy of off-shore balancing. It is this issue that caused terrorists to take up suicide bombing as a coercive means against the USA’s foreign policy.
I accept you believed that war in Iraq was right. On the other hand, I never did. But there are a couple of issues here: those who took our countries into this war lied and deliberately misrepresented the facts. The war on terror was a convenient means for Wolferwitz to finally get his way on Iraq. The time given to Saddam Hussein to comply with weapons inspectors was a sham. Saddam complied, and nothing he could have done would have prevented the US pursuing regime change (which was illegal in International law).
So now we are in Iraq, and the only reason for staying there is “we broke it, we bought it”. The country is predictably sliding into civil war and is now a hotbed of terrorist activity. I predicted this result as did many others – if our political leaders failed to do so, it just shows how quickly and thoughtlessly they bounced us into this nasty and expensive invasion.
As for making a difference through aid: well the USA has made a difference before. The Marshall plan was one such example (despite Chomsky’s objections that it was a transfer of money from public to private sector). We could also see America’s role in the Egyptian peace treaty with Israel of 1979 as a great success of American foreign policy.
I remember in 1979, people waving placards saying “God bless you, Jimmy Carter”. People would have pictures of the American president on their walls.
But it will be a long time before we can envisage such placards again. People the world over are more likely to burn the American flag than to pin it on their walls. When asked what the greatest threat to world peace is, the world is in agreement: it is America!
Now the USA also consistently spends a much lower percentage of its GNP on foreign aid than other industrialised countries. Last year it spent .22% on overseas development aid – well below its .7% commitment. Many other nations failed that commitment (the UK spent just .48% of GNP). However Norway and Sweden spent .93% and .92% and others (such as Denmark) came close.
If the USA upped its foreign aid just to the levels it agreed internationally, and if it stopped invading nations and supplying bombs to people who are using them against innocents, then I think that attitudes could quickly change again. People would be less frightened by America the rogue state, and more enamoured with the benevolent superpower.
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
Hey Stephen– glad we have something to talk about.
In regards to Iraq– we will never know the answer to the WMD and whether he had it beyond the fact that we knew he used it in the past and that he had a desire to aquire more deadly weapons and use them. We know he supported suicide bombing financially. We know that he had no problem trying to take over foreign countries.
I do not believe that we went in because of a lie. I believe that we may have gone in with incorrect intelligence (thought that, in my mind, has yet to be proven). What Iraq will become has yet to be seen. Certainly Civil War should be something avoided at all cost, but it is not something that would be new to the region. In fact, I’ve read bloggers (particularly Vox Day) who subscribe to the idea that we should encourage such in fighting because it makes radical Islam fight against itself rather than united against the “Great Satan.”
As far as terrorists attacks since 9/11, for the most part the policy has succeeded in keeping the battle in the Middle East rather than on the shores of other countries with a few exceptions. I don’t believe that if you removed the US base in Saudi Arabia (something that government agreed to) and just stuck to issues on the home front you would see Arabs just giving up on their goals of world domination.
If anything, look at how the respond in defeat. The Iraqi defense minister was talking about crushing the foe when they were losing. Look at the communications from Al Zawahri. If we were to pull out now you would see two things (I believe):
1) Radical Islam would declare victory over the Great Satan. They would do even more recruiting because they would be able to say that the US will cut and run in a long engagement. They would kill any US sympathisers to enforce their dominance.
2) Rather than the world scene quieting down, you would find that any moderate Arba regimes would be overthrown. Governments would now pursue things (weapons programs, whatever) that they want without fear of retaliation.
The UN is a paper tiger. They pass multiple resolutions with no teeth. How many resolutions were “Iraq, don’t do this or else?” That’s why we could go in– there was a resolution to comply or else.
The biggest problem I have in following your line of thought lies in this comment:
This doesn’t make sense on its face. Not your logic, but the idea that we elect these people and they surround themselves with experts. I find it hard to believe that us arm chair generals could do a better job or that the real ones are caught totally off gaurd by what’s going on on the ground. There’s more to the picture than we understand and we cannot judge everything by the news outlets that we have due to slant and our own innate bias.
In regards to aid, again, the governments of these countries are the problems, the quantity of funds is not. If anything, we need more volunteers to go into these countries and work with the people– rather than throwing money at a problem. Americans throw money at a lot of problems and you can see the result– poorer education… We need to empower people to make a difference in their lives, educate them, mentor them.
It’s the old saying: Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he gets his finger caught in the hook– oh! I mean he eats for a lifetime.
Thanks for your comment, Min.
No-one doubts that Saddam Hussein was the nasty leader of a nasty regime. However, his regime was successfully contained, and he was no threat to his neighbours, let alone to us.
Before the invasion began, one of our government ministers – Robin Cook – resigned from the cabinet, because he knew there was no evidence of an Iraqi weapons programme, and that there were no weapons of mass destruction. As a former foreign secretary, and a member of the cabinet, he was in a position to know exactly what intelligence we had – and he forensically and totally demolished the government case for war.
I was in discussion prior to the war with someone else who used the argument that there must be evidence and intelligence of which we were unaware if the governments of the US and the UK were so convinced of the case for war. I disagreed with him then, and he recently acknowledged the whole Iraq war was a huge foreign policy mistake.
The fact of the matter is that all the “evidence” such as it was, was made public. It had to be presented to the U.N. and to governments. The UK produced a dossier which very clearly was more spin than substance. It simply was not beyond the ability of an analyst, looking at the evidence presented, to realise that there were no weapons of mass destruction (although even these analysts, including Robin Cook, were surprised that there was essentially nothing at all. Their belief was there was no credible threat).
What was clear from the whole pre-war political manoueverings, was that a decision to go to war had been taken for some other reason, and that all the arguments were window dressing, to bring the public on-side. This is why full compliance from Saddam to the weapons inspectors, and a report from these inspectors that there were no WMD, could be so blithely ignored, and that our political leaders could declare the opposite of what the inspectors were saying.
Covering their tracks with plausible deniability, we are told to blame the intelligence services for each thinking the other knew more than they did. What we actually see is a case of the tail wagging the dog, and yes men giving their political masters what they wanted to hear.
*
I disagree with Vox Day. We don’t want muslims fighting each other (even if it distracts them). It is better that we work for peace in the world. Al Qa’ida would not be here if we had not had two groups fighting each other, to distract them from us. We armed and trained these people when ths soviets invaded Afghanistan. We also fuelled a belief in them that they could overcome superpower agressors.
Terrorist attacks have not been directed at the US because of a deliberate strategy from Al Qa’ida. They have deliberately been working to strip America of its foreign support, so the allies of America have been targetted (Australia in the Bali bombings, Spain in Madrid, the UK in London). This strategy was uncovered by a document intercepted by Norwegian intelligence and probably still available on their website.
That does not mean there will not be attacks on the US in the future. It is just that the recent phase of al Qa’ida’s war has been focussed elsewhere.
*
I know that the Saudi’s agreed to the American base there, but it is this issue that has so exercised al Qa’ida. Should the US pull out?
Well the question is whether the base meets any strategic aim that cannot be met elsewhere. Prior to 1992, the US successfully had a policy of offshore balancing, which did not involve large forces on the Arabian peninsular (which is considered special to Arabs). It would be possible to return to that policy without strategic loss (unless you are committed to imperialism).
But would the withdrawal lead to the results you suggest? Well it would not be ideal. Al Qa’ida could claim a victory, and that is bad for public relations. However, despite the victory it is unlikely that al Qa’ida could continue to recruit suicide bombers. Suicide terrorism is a coercive device used exclusively against democracies to force a power to remove military forces from a land that these people hold to be special or treat as their own.
No forces – no call for suicide terrorism, and al Qa’ida begins to shrivel and die.
Moderate Arab regimes would not be overthrown, because a religious difference is required to recruit suicide terrorists, and – for instance – the Saudi government (who are not as benign and moderate as we are led to believe!) would not be targetted by suicide terrorists because you could not recruit arab muslims to attack non democratic arab muslims in this way.
*
Finally on aid: The governments of these countries are *sometimes* the problem (for instance in Zimbabwe), but the biggest problem for most developing countries are the crippling levels of debt owed. The biblical model has a year of jubilee when debts are cancelled, and that is a sound principle. The debts cannot be repaid, and if we relieve the debt and open up our markets to these countries, then as their economies grow, our economies can also benefit more greatly than our exacting of the debt “tribute” will ever supply.
Simply throwing money at a problem is not helpful, as you say. But giving money and access to markets and education and other help can make a real difference.
I like the “give a man a fish quote”
Thanks again for commenting.
Bush and the Republicans were not protecting us on 9-11, and we aren\’t a lot safer now. We may be more afraid due to george bush, but are we safer? Being fearful does not necessarily make one safer. Fear can cause people to hide and cower. What do you think? How does that work in a democracy again? How does being more threatening make us more likeable?Isn\’t the country with
the most weapons the biggest threat to the rest of the world? When one country is the biggest threat to the rest of the world, isn\’t that likely to be the most hated country?
Our country is in debt until forever, we don\’t have jobs, and we live in fear. We have invaded a country and been responsible for thousands of deaths.
We have lost friends and influenced no one. No wonder most of the world thinks we suck. Thanks to what george bush has done to our country during the past three years, we do!
Our country is a Democracy only if we include the parameters found in the definition of a Republic. We depend on the responsibility of the voting population to send representatives to speak on our behalf in matters of government. Our freedom is restricted by the laws our representatives enact in order to maintain an atmosphere in which we can work, worship, and recreate. Our freedoms would need to be severely restricted in order to provide the type of security you are apparently wanting. Even then it cannot be gauranteed. Sometimes life just comes at you fast. We should respect our government even though we may not see eye to eye with the leader or other representatives currently in office. Without it we would have anarchy. When you travel to other countries you soon realize that even with its faults our country is a wonderful place to live. A position of strength does not always prevent violence, but it is much preferred to a position of weakness. The easy path is not always the right choice especially when considered from the standpoint of its long term effects. It will be many years before we can truely evaluate the effectiveness of our current military efforts. Most people in our culture today operate from a position of heavy personal debt. I agree it is not the best position, but we (as well as many other countries around the world) have come to depend on government to do many things for us that it was never intended to do. We should strive to do everything we can ourselves to take care of our own problems before asking for help from our national treasury. I believe our National unemployment rate is somewhere around 4.5%. That means that 95.5% of the people in this country are working. Check that in any other country you choose. If other people in other countries have such a low opinion of us here, why are so many of their citizens trying to immigrate? Be thankful for what you have here and try to do your part to insure that it remains the greatest country in the world. Thanks.
I have moved these comments to a more appropriate post thread, as it has nothing to do with capital punishment.
Antibush: I don’t think the world thinks you suck – but your foreign policy sucks! George Bush tried to diagnose why people hate America by saying that they hate your freedoms etc. That analysis makes good soundbites, but very poor history. If people hated the free nations of the world, we would have to question why they do not bomb Norway (where there is much greater freedom etc.)
No, the issues with foreign policy go back to an aggressive foreign policy – murders in the philipines, illegal regime change in Iran, support of repressive regimes (Iran and Iraq) and so on.
There is nothing new in this. America does not have a monopoly on violent and nasty foreign policy. The great powers have always acted in this self interested and amoral manner. People in the UK, for instance, are no more entitled to hate America for its foreign policy than to hate the UK for the same.
But we *do* need to try and bring about radical change – restraint on the abuse of power and compassion for those beyond our borders.
*
Dennis, a country does not need to be a republic to be a democracy. It is also worthy of note that no major democracy that has arisen since the US democracy was founded has tried to emulate the US system. I think the US system fails to achieve its democratic potential (the UK system is also flawed, for some similar reasons).
I don’t think that “antibush” was arguing for security. Indeed, I think that part of the problem with Bush (and Blair in the UK) is the way that civil liberties have been sacrificed for some imagined security (apparently demanded because of political scaremongering about terrorists). Rather we should accept the very small risks that our liberty entails. As the New Hampshire license plate has it: “Give me liberty or give me death”. If only we were really so brave.
A 4.5% unemployment rate does not mean 95.5% of people are in work, as many are excluded from the figures because of disability, or else because they are housewives or whatever. Nevertheless, many countries have lower rates. Uzbekhistan, for instance, has an unemployment rate of about 0.4%. Moldova, Kazakhstan, and many others have rates of about 1%. There are scores of countries with rates lower than 4.5%. Of course, many of these are not OECD countries. Of the OECD countries, I note that Irelands unemployment rate has been rising and is now at nearly 4.2%. The UK’s unemployment rate has only recently moved above the US rate.
But as I said above: people do not hate Americans, although the world is rightly suspicious of US foreign policy.
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
Stephen