xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
href="file:///C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Bethany.Stotts\Desktop\AIA\Spring%202007\March\for%20web\Antiwar%20Tendentious%20Scholarship%20for%20web.doc">
href="Antiwar%20Tendentious%20Scholarship%20for%20web_files/filelist.xml">
The
mainstream media is aghast and agog reporting yet another study, from another
expert, claiming how wasteful the war in
is killing the country.
This study
is contained in a book titled, The Three Trillion
Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict
style='font-size:8.5pt;font-family:Verdana;color:#333333;mso-ansi-language:
EN'>, authored
by economist Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes. The authors worked for
the Clinton administration. Stiglitz was the former Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors and
Bilmes was also an economic adviser.
Newspapers such as the UK Guardian have prominently
reported this book’s conclusions that the “true cost” of the Iraq War is $3
trillion dollars and that the Bush administration deceived the American people
about this cost.
Yet, what
was not reported, except in a book review by
style='font-size:8.5pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-ansi-language:EN'>Tunku
Varadarajan,
Times, was that the authors are ardent opponents of the
book, “By now it is clear that the US invasion of Iraq was a terrible
mistake. …we both ardently opposed the war and were against it from the start.”
Indeed,
Stiglitz wrote this antiwar screed for Project Syndicate in January 2003,
before the war began:
“…the war costs will be offset by expenditure cuts elsewhere. Investments in
education, health, research, and the environment will almost inevitably be
crowded out. …Obviously, if this military adventure were in fact necessary to
maintain security or to preserve freedom, as its advocates and promoters
proclaim—and if it were to prove as successful as its boosters hope—then the
cost might still be worth it. But that is another matter… There is also the
uncertainty factor. Of course, resolving uncertainty is no reason to invade
Iraq prematurely, for the costs of any war are high, and are not to be measured
only, or primarily, in economic terms. Innocent lives will be lost—possibly far
more than were lost on September 11, 2001 …Whichever way one looks at it, the
economic effects of war with Iraq will not be good.”
Given their opposition to the war and doubting its
validity even before it began; given that both authors worked for President
Clinton, who favored invading Iraq during the 1990’s, yet now finds it more
politically advantageous for his wife’s presidential campaign to claim invading
Iraq was a mistake; given that Stiglitz supports Barack Obama, who opposes the
Iraq war, is it not reasonable to suggest that this study might be biased?
Still, ignoring Stiglitz’s opposition to the war
notwithstanding, and the political benefit that would accrue to his chosen
presidential candidate, it could very well be that what is stated in the book
is true.
The problem with this is that much of the evidence and
“facts” that Stiglitz and Bilme offer for are not measurable. They are just
assertions. They may be true and then again they may not be.
Simply put, this book is just the opinion of one
economist of the cost of a war he deeply resents.
This does not prevent the Associated Press from
reporting, “The Iraq
and Afghanistan wars will cost approximately $12 billion a month—triple the rate
of their earliest years—Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and
coauthor Linda J. Bilmes report in a new book….Beyond 2008, working with best
case and realistic to moderate scenarios, they project the wars, including
long-term U.S. military occupation, will cost between $1.7 trillion and $2.7
trillion by 2017.”
Nor does
it prevent the misreporting by other papers that the “Iraq War has cost the
Since the
all over the world have been fed a steady diet of half-truths by antiwar
organizations. These groups have either misrepresented or outright lied about what
has happened in
Newspapers
have reported—drastically distorted and inflated—civilian casualty statistics
on the front page. They would later report that these initial reports were
untrue on the last page.
The
American and the world media prominently reported atrocity stories by American
military personnel that were later learned to be false—albeit not so
prominently reported.
Ironically,
it may be that in their zeal to discredit the American invasion of
discredited themselves. By disseminating misinformation they lost their
credibility.
Stiglitz and Bilmes antiwar screed is no different than
the antiwar propaganda that has preceded it.
is the author of the critically acclaimed novel
Barnesandnoble.com.
