08S7B trailblazers

Iraq war

UPPOSE that, five years ago, George Bush had asked every American household to stump up $25,000 to pay for an imminent war on Iraq. How would they have responded?

That money, suitably husbanded, would have paid for arming, provisioning and remunerating the troops; treating the wounded; and restoring the army's strength in the aftermath. It would have paid just compensation for the death and injury of American servicemen and contractors, and it would have covered America's outlays on reconstruction. It would also have allowed America to subsidise the price of oil by $10 a barrel—offsetting the disruption to Iraq's supply.

Mr Bush never asked, of course. But this hefty sum is nonetheless just part of the toll the war may take on America by the time it is over, according to a new book by Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel prize-winner in economics, and Linda Bilmes, a budget and public finance expert at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.

How do the authors arrive at the $3 trillion figure of the title, and the still bigger numbers they report inside? To the administration's own requests for money they add other costs to the taxpayer that either appear elsewhere in the budget (such as the bonuses required to attract recruits put off by the war) or do not yet appear at all (such as the future disability claims of wounded veterans). They put a dollar figure on the American lives lost or damaged by debilitating injury. And they also estimate the damage the war has done to the American economy, by raising the price of oil and diverting spending from domestic investment to foreign adventures.

Along the way, they accuse the administration of both mortgaging the nation's future and short-changing the troops and of deceiving the public and deluding itself. The administration still treats a five-year war as an unforeseen contingency to be paid for by an extra, emergency appropriation outside its regular budget request. And it has indulged in false economies that shave the cash requirements of the war today—by, for example, hesitating to purchase mine-resistant vehicles—only to store up much bigger burdens for the future, such as the cost of caring for veterans injured by roadside bombs.

Critics have questioned some of the authors' estimates, since these were first rehearsed in an academic paper in 2006. The head of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, for example, thinks that paper overestimated the burden of brain injuries, overstated the cost of replacing munitions and equipment, and misattributed other military expenses. But the authors have taken pains to answer those quibbles, and they disclose their sources so that readers can add or subtract as they see fit.

They go on to pursue the war's trail through every twist and turn of the macroeconomic labyrinth. Here, their reasoning is a bit too ingenious. They argue, for example, that the government's spending abroad prevented it from giving America a needed fiscal boost at home. Even if you believe America has suffered from a shortfall of demand in the past five years, surely the blame cannot be pinned on the Iraq war. It must lie instead with the Federal Reserve, which is supposed to maintain full employment as best it can.

Indeed, what is remarkable is how small a macroeconomic price America has paid for its adventure. Not only has the war been financed by borrowing rather than taxes, but also the borrowing has been dirt cheap. Neo-imperialists worry that America has the responsibilities of a global superpower, but an electorate unwilling to shoulder them. For better or worse, though, the combination of volunteer soldiers, hired guns and Asian creditors has lightened the load.

Unlike some other economists, Mr Stiglitz and Ms Bilmes do not weigh the cost of the war against the obvious counterfactual: the cost of containing Saddam Hussein. (They do subtract the cost of enforcing the no-fly zones over the country). Keeping a big force in the region—big enough to cow the dictator into letting weapons inspectors do their job—would not have been cheap, although with hindsight the strategy looks like a bargain. Nor do they pay much attention to the benefits of the invasion, however meagre. For example, the world now knows for sure that Saddam will never lay his hands on weapons of mass destruction. That knowledge may not be worth $3 trillion. But it is surely worth something.

The book mixes the patience of an auditor with the passion of a polemicist; it combines forensic intelligence with prosecutorial zeal. This reviewer responded more to its quieter virtues. As the authors say, the book is not just about the big number on the cover. More importantly, “by examining the costs, we come to understand better the implications of the war.”

Great powers almost never pay for their wars up front. Even in America's war of independence, the revolutionaries printed money to finance their campaign. But a government contemplating war should surely provide a credible advance estimate of the final bill, akin to what Mr Stiglitz and Ms Bilmes have done. If they cannot, it is a good sign they have not fully weighed the implications of their venture. If so, perhaps they should not undertake it at all.

posted by hyk @ 11:25 PM