Copyright by:
Edward A. Corcoran
29 April 2005

History will judge the correctness of the decision to go to war and how it was carried out. It is obviously too early for a definitive assessment - major actions are still in progress; items which are currently unrecognized or seemingly negligible could yet turn out to be crucial. Nevertheless, we can outline major elements of an assessment and provide a preliminary evaluation of their status.

What can we see now?

BENEFITS

The most obvious benefit is that the world is rid of Saddam Hussein, a cruel tyrant responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths. Although the United States had earlier provided him significant surreptitious aid, he was actively hostile to US interests and a threat to regional stability - as vividly exemplified by his invasion of Kuwait. His hostility was supported by major oil resources which had given him an ability to finance a number of threatening programs.

The total destruction of these programs is another benefit of the war. His military threat to the region has been eliminated. Various programs to develop weapons of mass destruction have been totally eradicated; they cannot be re-vitalized to threaten again. And he is no longer able to provide support to terrorist groups (such as paying stipends to families of Palestine suicide bombers) or to form any marriage of convenience with organizations such as al Queda. However, it is clear in hindsight that these benefits have not lived up to initial expectations, simply because the threats they posed were much smaller than official assessments made them appear. The real benefits are correspondingly much smaller also.

Replacing an oppressive regime with a democratic, or at least a benign, government can serve as beacon of achievement in a region of autocratic regimes and a model for other Islamic states. This is a work in progress and its final outcome may well be uncertain for years to come. Suffice it to say that any real benefit is problematical and off in the future.

The war has also demonstrated US resolve, making it clear that the United States can respond very directly to external threats. This certainly gives other hostile entities second thoughts about directly challenging the nation. Libya's new found spirit of cooperation, for example, may well have been encouraged by such considerations. But to the extent that the costs for the United States far outweigh the benefits and that this resolve has hindered mid-course corrections, the resolve has been misplaced.

Finally, the war has minimized US tendencies toward isolationism. Regardless of their specific views on US involvement in Iraq, most Americans now recognize the need for active US involvement in international affairs.

COSTS

Costs of the Iraqi war can be looked at in three general categories: direct costs, indirect costs, and consequences of the war itself.

Direct Costs

The most obvious of the direct costs are the coffins of those killed in this effort, as well as thousands of others wounded physically or psychologically. These wounds will cause continuing problems for the soldiers themselves. And the impact of the deaths and wounds ripples out, directly affecting tens of thousands of associates, indirectly affecting hundreds of thousands more, and eventually affecting all of us. The social impact of the war will be felt for decades to come.

The continuing insurgency with its steady toll of dead and wounded and its deleterious impact on the fledgling Iraqi government, is a direct result not just of the war, but of inadequate initial resources, poor planning, and faulty decisions. The inability of the invading forces to immediately assert full control over the country allowed hostile elements to re-group and solidify a civilian support base. Disbanding the army which released thousands of angry, armed men into the general population and then the agonizingly slow pace of reconstruction have only compounded the problem. The stubborn, malignant, and amorphous insurgency is the cost we are paying for these missteps.

The strength of the opposition in such places as Fallujah and Ramadi exemplifies its tenacity. Despite deaths of dozens of US soldiers and the wounding of many more, areas remain under the control of ruthless Baathist elements, remnants of Saddam's regime. In contrast, the fighting in Najaf and Sadr City exemplified the dilemmas faced by the United States. The insurgents there are not terrorists or al Queda, but angry young Shiites -- people oppressed by Saddam who should be our supporters. All we have done in two years of occupation is alienate them. We have killed many of them because they have a different vision of a future Iraq than we do. In the process we have been further worsening our image among all the Shiites of the world, including in neighboring Iran.

The $200 billion spent on the war is another obvious cost. Yet, this is not really a cost in itself, but rather an abstract number whose impact is only visible by evaluating the indirect costs it forces on society.

The undermining of US military response capabilities is a major problem. Although the war has demonstrated US resolve, it has also tied down so many military assets, that the ability to respond to other threats has been greatly diminished. Recruitment into the armed forces has suffered so badly that there is even talk of a renewed draft. Stresses on reserve and National Guard units have made membership much less attractive. These problems will persist for many years, and it will be many years before we can evaluate future setbacks to US policies caused by a restricted response capability.

Internal response capabilities have also been undermined as hundreds of local police and firefighters who are members of the National Guard or reserves have been taken from their communities.

A less visible direct cost is the expenditure of a large portion of US national leadership assets on this one challenge. Like the dollar cost, the impact of this human cost is not felt directly. It can only be assessed in terms of missed opportunities and foregone programs.

Indirect Costs

These costs are much more difficult to assess. There can never be any definitive evaluation because the costs reflect lost alternatives - what would have or could have done with the assets used in the war: the lost and mangled lives of participants, the dollars spent there that cannot be spent elsewhere, the leadership attention diverted from other pressing national problems. We can only look at what the most pressing problems are and speculate on alternative developments.

Internationally the nation has a solid realization that leadership is not just a mantle that comes by default to the single contemporary superpower. The national well being, -- its economic health and physical security -- depend on active global involvement. A prosperous United States cannot exist in a depressed world. To take even a cursory global tour identifies numerous areas that cry out for greater US resources:

- Afghanistan is the most obvious problem area, the precursor conflict to Iraq. A fragmented society full of ethnic and religious fanatics, it served at the fulcrum for al Queda attacks on the World Trade Center and may still harbor Osama bin Laden himself. Actions here were in direct response to the attacks and directly engaged radical Muslim elements. The conflict in Iraq sidelined these actions and current efforts to stabilize this wretched country have bogged down with woefully inadequate resources. Large areas of the country are controlled by ruthless warlords or Taliban remnants. Opium remains the main cash crop, probably providing as much support to hostile elements as the West provides to the central government, a government disturbingly dependent on the survival of a handful of dedicated individuals. Efforts at creating a democracy in a profoundly undemocratic land inch toward an uncertain future.

- Neighboring Pakistan poses its own unique challenges. Allied to the United States thanks to the personal commitment of President Musharraf, a single bullet could bring a dramatic change. A hotbed of Muslim radicalism and the other likely refuge of Osama bin Laden, Pakistan has done more than any other nation to promote nuclear proliferation, with its own development programs and the supplying of critical technologies to countries such as Libya and North Korea. Continuing conflict with India even raises the specter of an actual nuclear war, though on-going negotiations are thankfully easing that concern. But a change to a radical government could pose a much more direct nuclear threat to the United States than Saddam ever did.

- Russia continues to stabilize and to interact positively with the United States. But its shaky democracy is being systematically constrained and thousands of nuclear warheads remain under questionable protection. While it is possible that a change of government could resurrect or even intensify the former Soviet nuclear threat, a more pressing concern is improving controls over existing weapons as well as the hundreds of knowledgeable specialists who developed and maintained them. Nor does creeping autocracy bode well for long term US interests. And the debilitating war in Chechnya is becoming intertwined with worldwide Muslim extremism.

- Latin American problems are particularly bothersome because they are in the US own backyard. Sham democracies with restless populations provide a steady flow of refugees, and drugs into the United States. Haiti provides a vivid example of another challenge met with woefully inadequate resources. The 1996 US invasion brought broad hopes of real improvements, hopes that were shattered by the US penchant for quickly losing interest in struggling with a long term problem. Not only does the refugee flow from Latin America provide opportunities for hostile insertions into the United States, the regional governments have yet to form any effective network of cooperation in the struggle against terrorist groups.

- The Balkans remain unstable, renewed conflict seethes below the surface. While primarily a responsibility of European powers, actual efforts to promote stability had been led by the United States. The subsequent nation building efforts have only served to illustrate the difficulties in lands full of embedded hatreds and foreshadowed the difficulties in Iraq. Even with a high level of resource commitment, there is no end in sight for requirements for peace keeping forces and dim prospects for real democracy any time in the foreseeable future.

- The Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues to destabilize the entire Middle East. Prior US diplomatic efforts to help resolve this impasse have withered with the focus on Iraq. Current Israeli and Palestinian efforts are encouraging. Promoting Palestinian commitment to any moderate solution would clearly demand a large influx of resources to lay the foundation for a new prosperity focused on development rather than destruction.

- African miseries provide their own unique challenges. It has taken tens of thousands of deaths to spur US diplomatic involvement in the Sudan conflict, while the much touted program to address AIDS got off to a real start only a year and a half after being announced. The 1998 bombing of two US embassies not only provided a foretaste of the World Trade Center attack, but also showed the deep roots that terrorist organizations have in Africa. The inability of Latin American governments to work together in addressing the terror challenge pales in comparison to the total fragmentation of efforts in Africa.

- Global economic and environmental challenges also receive inadequate attention. Outsourcing of US jobs has become a focal point of concern, but is only one aspect of the underlying challenge - how to promote a prosperous world in which the United States can enjoy its own prosperity. Global warming is another challenge that the United States fails to address, choosing to dispute details instead of taking action. Dozens of other challenges require real resource commitment, including supporting nascent or struggling democracies, addressing nuclear challenges from Iran and North Korea, reducing US oil dependence, and integrating global efforts to address medical problems ranging from SARS to mad cow

- Overall, these and other international challenges defy quantification. The United States cannot fix the whole world; no one can say with confidence what the impact of additional resources would be. But it is clear that restrained resources intensify the risks to US prosperity and security.

Domestically, there are a range of other challenges that are being inadequately addressed.

- Homeland security is the most pressing area of resource shortfalls. This is a challenge of staggering dimensions, seeking to protect thousands of miles of coastline, tens of thousands of critical installations, and millions of vulnerable points. The underlying base of this protection has to be an integrated network of local, state, regional and national organizations. Funding remains inadequate with a hodge podge of different radio systems, response procedures, information processing methods, and emergency notifications. Hardening vulnerable facilities, developing emergency plans, stockpiling critical supplies, forming and training response teams, and disseminating threat information all require more resources.

- The terror threat is also a domestic one. In April 2003, discoveries of a weapons cache and cyanide bomb in Noonday, Texas, provided a stark reminder that home-grown groups remain capable of perpetrating another Oklahoma city disaster. Smaller scale attacks continually arise, like the Columbine massacre, the Washington area snipers, mass shootings by disgruntled workers, or even the destruction of downtown Granby, Colorado, by a deranged dozer driver. Every now and then another serial killer surfaces. Whoever perpetrated the anthrax attacks of 2001 remains at large. Averting such incidents not only requires a more integrated response to early indicators, but broader social development that reduces the number of embittered citizens that make such threats possible.

- Curtailment of individual freedoms remains a topic of heated debate. For many years, the United States lived with the awareness that criminals took advantage of individual freedoms and protections to prey on society. The terror threat exacerbates these concerns, while the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have intensified the pressures to curtail individual freedoms for the sake of national security. The Patriot Act has tried to address this dichotomy - one cost of higher security is lower freedom, undermining the very essence of American society.

- Hundreds of domestic programs have been cut back. Some of these cutbacks bring economic costs, others bring social costs. Pertinent examples include:

* Education budgets remain constrained. No Child Left Behind remains largely a slogan. Future social cohesion is weakened, not to mention international competitiveness, and consequently US prosperity.

* Medical costs continue to threaten the well being of families and individuals. Curtailment of mental health programs has forced thousands of troubled individuals onto the streets, lowering short term costs and significantly increasing long term ones. Millions of Americans remain without health coverage.

* The US economy has always had a significant share of low paying, undesirable jobs including agricultural harvesting, domestic servants, and trash collectors. These were often filled by guest workers or illegal aliens, but now higher end jobs are disappearing overseas and society is increasingly being divided into those with really good jobs and those with really bad jobs. The US distribution of wealth continues to polarize.

* The National Park Service struggles to keep up adequate maintenance and services; the parks face widespread deterioration, while the chief of the Park Police was fired for publicly asserting that funds are short.

* Nationwide our infrastructure continues to deteriorate, including roads, bridges, and the power grid. After the widespread blackout in 2003, little has been done to address the underlying problems.

* The Federal Aviation Administration faces billions of dollars for modernizing the nation's air traffic system, while being forced to cut back on flight service specialists.

* The United States continues to have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. The direct costs of prisons, judges, lawyers, and court facilities is still dwarfed by the social costs. Although widely recognized as a training ground for hardened criminals, prisons remain locked in antiquated systems that do little to support re-entry into society.

* Similarly, social workers and support programs remain severely underfunded, leading to a constant stream of heart-breaking stories about broken families and battered children.

* Research in basic science steadily diminishes, and with it, the base for long-term US competitiveness.

* All of these problems decrease the quality of life in the United States and degrade prosperity. Dreams are shattered, frustrations rise, and extremist agendas (both home grown and imported) can seem more and more attractive. The United States has seen its share of shooting sprees and copy cat plots; it seems only a matter of time before the nation also faces suicide bombers, infrastructure attacks, and biological or chemical strikes. Every disgruntled individual raises that probability.

- It is really impossible to adequately address all the domestic challenges facing the nation. There will always be shortfalls, and in hindsight some of them will certainly appear to have been caused by negligence. There is no surer way to compound these challenges than draining money from the programs that address them.

 

Consequential Costs

These are the direct result of the war itself, corollaries to the actions within Iraq. The most significant of these consequences include:

- Rising anger, frustration and even hatred towards the United States, especially in the Muslim world. The specific causes are varied. They include significant civilian casualties during initial unsuccessful attempts to bomb key Iraqi leaders; unsympathetic conduct of US troops untrained in Iraqi language and culture and facing daily, deadly attacks; the slow pace of reconstruction as appropriated funds sill remain largely unspent; the mistreatment of captives at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, and perceived US support of Israel versus the Palestinians. All of this and more is zealously reported and often distorted in the Arab media. One can certainly debate the validity or importance of any individual factor, but one cannot debate the results - they are clear. From Morocco through the Middle East, Pakistan, Central Asia and Indonesia to the Philippines, Muslims are enraged by what they know, or think they know, of US actions. Certainly this simplifies recruiting into the terror networks of al Queda and other extremist groups and significantly undermines US national security.

- Degraded cooperation with US allies. It was easy to fault US allies for their reluctance to support operations in Iraq and their insistence that the US focus was misplaced. One can attribute this reluctance to anything from frustrated nationalism to sober political analysis. The fact remains that much of their original skepticism was well placed, and their continuing reluctance to follow the US lead is understandable. They still have a common cause with the United States in addressing international terrorism and there is broad cooperation on this topic. But it is clear that passive cooperation is inadequate and it is much more difficult for the United States to persuade allies to join in common efforts. It is tough to lead when no one is willing to follow.

- The loss of confidence and trust in the United States is not limited to the US allies. The crumbling of US justifications for starting a war and the appalling abuse of prisoners at Abu Graib and elsewhere, among other factors, have sapped US prestige. Rhetoric on democracy seems empty when many of our key partners are far from democratic - Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan and Pakistan to mention a few. What the United States sees as resolve and determination, many others see as arrogance.

CONCLUSIONS

Although many of the costs that the United States has paid, and continues to pay, for its operations in Iraq are not quantifiable, their magnitude is so imposing that they clearly outweigh the meager benefits the war has brought. Both benefits and costs can be very subjective. Events in progress will continue to modify any current assessment.

One tyrant of many has been deposed. Some risks have been eliminated. But when probabilities of an event are vanishingly low, and consequences would be catastrophic, it is impossible to evaluate the risk rationally. Saddam, for example, might have developed a nuclear weapon and passed it on to terrorists to smuggle into New York harbor. This is akin to an asteroid strike on the earth, or being paranoid about dying in an airplane crash. It is prudent to take some preventive measures against such remote risks, but it is impractical to expend large resources for this. It is possible to develop hundreds of far-out scenarios and totally impossible to defend against them all.

Osama bin Laden remains at large; by most accounts, the threat from his al Queda network and a growing number of other similar networks continues to proliferate. At this point capturing Osama could well make the threat even more virulent. Global disenchantment with the United States has complicated international cooperation and boosted extremists. Real nuclear threats remain, including such scenarios as a disintegrating North Korean leadership determined to go down in flames, or a smuggled Russian weapon finding its way into hostile hands, or even disgruntled individuals at a US weapons base or power plant initiating some kind of nuclear incident. The recent discovery of a cyanide bomb and the unsolved anthrax attacks underscore the fact that the local chemical and biological threat is just as serious, if not more so, than such threats from Saddam ever were.

An unbalanced focus on one threat has resulted in the worsening of a wide range of alternative threats. Certainly $100 billion spent improving the many areas discussed above and another $100 billion in the pockets of US citizens ($1000 per family) would have improved overall security much more than the $200 billion or more being spend on Iraq.

The bottom line is that we face a wide range of threats, and the line between economic and military threats has significantly blurred. Under these circumstances we need to carefully and wisely balance the resources allocated to the many challenges facing the nation.