N
HIS STUDY on the possible cost of invading Iraq, Yale University economist
William Nordhaus issues a sober reminder that governments almost always
grossly underestimate the financial toll.
The Civil War cost the North $3.2 billion in current dollars, 13 times
more than the original estimate by Abraham Lincoln's Treasury secretary.
The costs of Vietnam were underestimated by 90 percent, with a final cost
of between $110 billion and $150 billion.
''The historical record is littered with failed forecasts about the
economic, political, and military outcomes of wars,'' Nordhaus wrote in
his report published last fall by the American Academy of Arts and
Sciences. He has projected that an attack and occupation of Iraq could
cost as little as $99 billion but as much as $1.9 trillion over the next
decade.
''With hindsight, would the ministers of George III have risked the
empire for the principle of levying a tax on tea?'' Nordhaus wrote.
''Would the Southerners have seceded and provoked a civil war if they had
known the devastation that would follow? Would the Germans have provoked
World Wars I and II? Would Japan have bombed Pearl Harbor? Would the
United States have sent half a million men to Vietnam? ''
In Vietnam, Nordhaus wrote, Lyndon Johnson was ''foolishly sucked into
a psychology where honor and credibility are valued above the lives of
combatants and the livelihoods of citizens.'' In Johnson's case, ''both
credibility and the economy end up as casualties.''
Nordhaus, who served on Jimmy Carter's Council of Economic Advisers,
said there is no doubt that Saddam, most notably in his 1990 invasion of
Kuwait, has long displayed what author Barbara Tuchman described nearly 20
years ago in ''The March of Folly'' as ''wooden-headedness'' and
''self-deception.'' But Nordhaus bravely wonders out loud if the United
States is also deceiving itself about the need to attack Saddam and Bush's
guarantees of victory.
''In contrast to clear danger from terrorist activities, there is no
imminent threat from Iraq,'' Nordhaus wrote. ''A war in Iraq threatens to
claim the scarce resources and attention of the United States for many
years. A stagnant economy, fiscal deficits, a persistent crisis of
corporate governance, growing health-care problems and trouble spots in
the rest of the world - all these would take a back seat if the United
States gets bogged down in issues of war and peace in Iraq....
''If wars are thought to be short, cheap, and bloodless, then it is
easier to persuade the populace and the Congress to defer to the
president. If the American people are led to believe that a war with Iraq
will be like the first Persian Gulf war or like the Afghanistan conflict,
then they may believe that war will not disrupt life or comforts and the
world will be rid of a terrible tyrant.
''Moreover, if optimistic forecasts prove wrong, it is much easier to
raise the extra billions of dollars once troops are in the field and
bullets are flying than before the battle is engaged. Politics does not
end at the water's edge, but it is surely silenced when the first shot is
fired.''
What also is clearly being silenced is a serious discussion of what
comes afterwards, even if an attack on Iraq actually results in a swift
and relatively inexpensive victory. ''It is difficult to see how a
successful occupation of Iraq could be less than five years and might
easily extend for two decades,'' Nordhaus wrote. ''While there are no
public estimates of the total, a minimum cost would be $75 billion, and an
upper bound of $500 billion over the next decade is consistent with
peacekeeping operations in the Balkans and the size and scope of the task
in Iraq.''
Just as important, the nation has yet to debate how closely Bush's rush
to war mirrors Lyndon Johnson's. Without any proof of an imminent threat,
it is fair to ask if Bush is foolishly dragging the nation into a personal
vendetta against Saddam 12 years after Bush's father was criticized by the
right wing for not destroying Saddam's army instead letting it flee home
to rebuild after being driven out of Kuwait.
''The cost of war may turn out to be low, but the cost of a successful
peace looks very steep,'' Nordhaus wrote. ''If American taxpayers decline
to pay the bills for ensuring the long-term health of Iraq, America would
leave behind mountains of rubble and mobs of angry people. As the world
learned from the Carthaginian peace that settled World War I, the cost of
a botched peace may be even higher than the price of a bloody war.''
2003 Globe Newspaper Company.
Join our
Daily News Headlines Email Digest
