My piece in todays Fin (subscription required) is about the opportunity cost of the war on Iraq. An excerpt
In the absence of large-scale discoveries of weapons, attention has focused on the undoubted benefits of overthrowing an evil and oppressive dictator. This is a form of foreign aid and can usefully be compared to other aid programs. The total budget of USAID, the main US agency for development and humanitarian assistance is $8.7 billion for the coming year. That is, the money already spent on the Iraq war could have doubled USAID’s budget for the next five years.
It seems certain, however, that the war will herald a sustained increase in military expenditure of at least $US100 billion per year. A more reasonable comparison, therefore, is the ambitious proposal of the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health, led by Harvard Economist Jeffrey Sachs. The Commission aimed to achieve, for all a poor countries, a two-thirds reduction of 1990 child mortality levels, a three-fourths reduction of 1990 maternal mortality ratios and an end to the rising prevalence of major diseases, especially HIV/AIDS.
As the Commission pointed out, in addition to the humanitarian benefits of saving as many as 8 million lives per year, reductions in mortality are directly correlated with a reduced frequency of military coups and state collapse. These provide the breeding ground for terrorism and dictatorship and ultimately lead, in many cases, lead to US military intervention. The estimated cost for the Commission’s seemingly-utopian program over the next decade is estimated at between $US 50 billion and $US 100 billion per year.
War is sometimes necessary in self-defence. But when war is adopted as an instrument of policy, it is often counterproductive and almost never cost-effective.
John Quiggin 
Pr Q’s interpretation of the opportunity cost of US militarism is ahistorical and one dimensional.
There was the opportunity cost of “peace” in Iraq. This was the continuation of dynastic democidal fascist dictatorships ad infinitum.
Totalitarianism, a war of the Party against the People, imposed economic costs of:
– external militaristic containment and
– internal authoritarian repression)
Why are these costs ignored by the anti-RC Left?
Militarism can save lives and money, esp as the US is dedicated to liberty and prosperity and tends to spread that system whenever it’s political hegemony is secure.
Three times during the 20 th c the US has spent big money to go to war against Revolutionary Collectivist states, each time there has been an enormous liberation and peace dividend.
Against the W. European Nazis during the forties, which resulted liberation & multi-trillion dollar valued recovery of W. Europe .
Against the E. European Communists during the fifties and eighties, which resulted in the & liberation & multi-trillion dollar recovery of E. Europe.
Against the E. Asian Nationalists during the forties & sixties, which made a mess of Vietnam but also contributed to the decline of Collectivism in China and the economic revival of Democracy in Japan. This has been the biggest pay-off as the Asian Tigers have and will be the growth leaders of 21C.
Now Islamic fundamentalism threatens civil society in S Asia and aspires to take over Pakie nukes and Araby’s oil. The US is moving into Afghanistan & Iraq to secure these regions.
This will save trillions in money
– stopping the waste that fundamentalists and fascists cause to their own societies
– preventing the damage that terrorists could cause to our own societies (cost of rebuilding a nuked NYC?)
Further down the track the PRC will have to be contained. Until these fascists and fundamentalists are put out of action, spending on security is a money saving measure.
If you think that is wrong, one questions will settle it: Ask the Poles.
Pr Q cites the puzzle that the Australian electorate tend to be more Left wing on provincial issues and more Right wing on national issues.
There is no mystery.
The problem for the Left is that it does not take security seriously, as such the electorate will not take the Left seriously.
So the Vietnam war was a success? How about the consequential war in Cambodia and the subsequent alliance with the Khmer Rouge against Hun Sen?
As regards East European communists, what war are you referring to? The policy of containment without war was applied rigorously here by both sides.