Peace and Global Solidarity |
||
|
by Amata Miller, IHM Tallying the economic costs to the USA of the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a daunting task. The "official" information provided to Congress and to the public is confusing. The Center for Defense Information concluded after its report on 2006 congressional oversight hearings about the cost of the wars that "nobody in the executive branch or Congress can reliably say what the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost, nor the exact number of troops deployed for them." In its September/October 2007 Newsletter, the Center reported on a Congressional Research effort to determine the costs of the war in Afghanistan. The Center reported that since the Department of Defense combines what is spent for Afghanistan and Iraq with that for all other DOD purposes, it is impossible to separate and identify what the nation has actually spent on these wars. Adding to the confusion, the Bush administration has consistently funded the wars through supplemental requests rather than through the regular budget process. Trustworthy estimates come from the Friends Committee on National Legislation, which recently reported the commonly held figures of $2 billion a week on the war and occupation of Iraq, and total FY08 military spending of $486 billion (plus $29 billion on diplomacy and development). Since most of us do not think in terms of billions, it is difficult to put these expenses in context. In addition, we have not been asked to make economic sacrifices to support these two wars. They have been financed by deficit spending by the federal government, that is by bonds which have been sold mainly to foreigners. As long as the economic costs are borne by others, what monies we spend on these wars are mostly hidden from us and so tend to be far from our consciousness. But economic costs are important because they remind us that we cannot have everything - we have to make choices - and we do make them as a nation through decisions of the leaders we elect. Our national expenditures reflect our priorities. To get a realistic idea of the meaning of the economic costs of these wars, therefore, we need to use the economist's concept of "opportunity cost" - basically what have we given up in order to spend on the wars. This kind of comparison makes it possible to grasp the implications of war spending in a new way. This also gives us a stark picture of our real priorities as a nation - what we actually value. For example, according to the Associated Press, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that we could have provided health care coverage for 10 million children for an entire year for the cost of less than 40 days in Iraq, (Peace Through Justice, #233, Jan 2, 2008.) And we know that we have 47 million Americans uninsured for health care, and 9 million children living in poverty. (U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Census Bureau, Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States, 2006, p. 60-233, August 2007) In his 2005 book, The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time, economist Jeffrey Sachs made the point that in 2004 the US spent 30 times more on the military than on assistance to poor countries so badly in need of help for providing for basic human needs ($450 billion compared with $15 billion.) (New York: Penguin Press, p. 329) Though we, along with other industrialized nations, long ago promised to contribute 0.70% of our GDP, we still contribute only 0.16% while other, smaller countries have more than fulfilled the promise. These examples could be multiplied many times over, but the point about our national priorities is clear. As a nation we prefer to spend on war rather than on the health needs of our own children, basic education and health needs of the world's poor, or on helping the world's poor to help themselves develop their own economic potential. A question to consider is: what economic arguments are made to justify this kind of expenditure? In earlier times it was argued that, as long as war is not fought on one's own territory, war spending is good for the economy, creating additional spending, production, employment and income to better the well-being of the people of the country. This was true when war stimulated economic growth as it did in World War II, bringing the country finally out of the Great Depression. But since that time studies have shown that war spending has mainly detracted from civilian well-being. Though there have been technological spillovers, the net effect has been negative. But the myth that war is good for the economy continues to hold sway in people's minds. Even so, at least among economists this time the economic question has become whether the security benefits of war justify the costs or whether alternative strategies would cost more (Postrel, Virginia. "Economic Scene" The New York Times, March 27, 2003, C2.) However, among the U.S. public, war spending seems to be the only category in which people will support enough public spending in conjunction with private demands by households and businesses to keep everyone at work. So the argument that war is necessary for economic health still has political power in the USA and stands behind the current self-defeating escalation of military budgets Changing the public mind takes a very long time, it seems. Certainly, the economic arguments, pale before the human and environmental costs of war - to the countries which support war being waged elsewhere, and especially to those countries where war is ravaging the population, their homes and their livelihoods. Opportunities for providing for unmet human needs are foregone in countries that put real or perceived security requirements ahead of human well-being. And settling conflicts through violence wastes lives and necessary resources in war-torn countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. One wonders how long it will take before the human race comes to reject killing as a way to resolve conflict! May we be peace-builders wherever we are! January 5, 2008
|
