The publication of new survey estimates suggesting that there were 150 000 violent deaths in Iraq in the first three years after the invasion, and as many as 400 000 excess deaths (relative to the death rate immediately before the war) has provoked a predictable flurry of blog activity. The main concern has not been the figures themselves, but whether and to what extent these results are consistent with previous, even higher estimates, by Burnham and others, often referred to as the “Lancet survey”. You can read the Crooked Timber view, with which I broadly agree, here and here, and follow links to others on all sides. For an opposing view from Oz, you can go to Harry Clarke.
It seems to me that most of this debate is, like most blog and media wars, is missing the main point. The central fact is that the Iraq war has turned out worse, on almost every count, than even the most pessimistic critics suggested .
As regards war deaths, there were few precise predictions, but suggestions that the death toll would amount to more than a hundred thousand were at the upper limit. Here’s a piece written two years into the war saying that such estimates were way off the mark. If the latest estimate of 150 000 violent deaths in the first three years of war is correct, the pessimists had already been proved right by then, and we’ve had nearly three more bloody years since. Almost certainly, the war has, by now, caused the deaths of well over half a million people who would be alive if the policy prevailing in 2002 (sanctions, but with essential imports of food and medicine permitted under Oil-For-Food) had continued. That includes over 4000 US and Coalition troops killed, along with tens of thousands severely wounded.
The UN suggested war would drive 1 million refugees from Iraq, and internally displace another million. The true figure could be twice as large.
While Treasury Secretary Lawrence Lindsay was sacked for predicting that the war could cost $100 to $200 billion, extreme pessimists like William Nordhaus were projecting a total cost of $1 trillion. It’s already clear that the total cost will be closer to $2 trillion, and it could well be more.
This war has been a disaster for everyone involved*. Quibbling over how large a disaster seems pretty pointless.
* With a handful of exceptions: mercenaries and contractors on the US side, Shia radicals like Sadr in Iraq, and the Iranian government waiting in the wings to pick up the pieces.
John Quiggin 
since the bush family has substantial investments in oil and armaments, no disaster for them, quite the contrary.
until the americans leave iraq, and the income of oil production falls into the hands of iraqis, the disaster for america remains in question. possibly a democrat president will have to leave iraq, but i have to see it happen.
casualties in the vietnam war were ten times higher, there was no visible material reward, american methods were criminal. that war was a disaster in every sense but one: the usa was too big to punish, too rich to shun, and consequently, walked away unscathed.
the iraq invasion offered real geopolitical prizes, the lords of the universe thought they could write their names under alexander and caesar. well, victory remains elusive, and the expense may preclude rejoicing anywhere but the boardrooms of carlyle and halliburton.
but i suspect the people who planned the iraq invasion are cheerful about their bank balances, even if in the end there are no laurel crowns. the losses sustained by americans at large do not figure in their lives, anymore than they worry about hitting a dog on the road.
Agree with you on the argument over the number of deaths. But I’m interested to know what you think about the economic impact of this war. It was argued, convincingly I thought, that US expenditure in Vietnam was largely responsible for the global stagflation of the 1970s (via huge budget deficits and CAD leading to Nixon’s devaluation of the dollar in 1971). Are we getting a similar result this time around? Similar arguments were being put forward about oil back then too – Club of Rome, for example. Except that this time climate change leads to the search for alternative fuels rather than the search for more expensive sources of oil?
A trillion, is roughly equivalent, I believe, to the number of seconds in 35 years. Anyway it is a very large amount of money that could have been spent in other areas, with greater net social benefits. It seems to me implicit violence exists in the decision process, in the choice made, as much as in the outcomes. These outcomes were predictable. In this light, the whole foolishness and stupidity can be seen as the triumph of aggression over intelligence. Contrary to popular belief, and the political posturing of those under its spell, aggression, according to Wikipedia, is associated with low levels of testosterone.
It’s a huge disaster for the US, despite what the oil cronies might get out of it in the short term. Long term it has complete rooted the USA.
Oil is no longer a strategic resource (regardless of the exact timing of any peak in production). In the medium to long term oil is a dud. Therefore the USA will never recoup what it has spent in Iraq.
The Iraq War 2 is the end of the American century and a result of short term thinking by powerful men who gained their power and experience through short term activities and know not how else to think.
The USA is now officially stuffed.
Here is a quibble. Lawrence Lindsay, whoever he is, was not Treasury Secretary. Maybe he was someone down the food chain in the Treasury department.
Meika: “Oil is no longer a strategic resource…” Actually, oil is a very strategic resource for armed forces. I have said it before: without oil, the planes don’t fly, the tanks don’t move and the ships don’t leave harbour. While the civilian economy can become much more carbon-efficient in ways long expounded by eg. the Rocky Mountain Institute and other environment groups, armed forces can’t. They need oil.
On another point, isn’t it revealing how the US seems prepared to pay almost any present price to get its way in Iraq, but is prepared to pay virtually nothing to ameliorate global warming. The payoffs for both projects are in the future. What does that tell us about the discount rate the US Govt. uses for evaluating policy projects? For global warming, US economists insist that a high discount rate be used. For Iraq, on the other hand, it must be far lower.
Good point Gordon, I think you underline what I’ve said though. They need oil so they need an oil war… to prove their importance or something, that they’re needed, that their needs are real, that they’re special… even it destroys the country –in order to save it— in the long term stakes.
Oilmongering has-beens.
The oil was a strategic resource for armed forces, now it’s just a tactical tide-over. They need to control wants left so nobody else gets the cheap polluting energy source. Shortterm thinking by parasites.
So it’s interesting that in recent weeks was the US Mil’s release on possible solar energy platforms in orbit, beaming energy back to the surface. This has two benefits for them, easy control of an energy source as compared to solar voltaics on every roof, and they would make mighty fine microwave fry-em-if-they-move-fry-em-if-they’re-well-disciplined beam weapons.
The oil was a strategic resource for armed forces, now it’s just a tactical tide-over.”
You’re confusing 20 to 50 years from now with the reality of today. At the moment, nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers are the only types of military equipment that can even operate without oil.
A single mission by one fighter plane uses 6 tons of fuel. A bomber uses more like 50. Just starting up a tank engine uses 11 gallons. And these things happen thousand or tens of thousands of times in even a small war. At some point this will change as technologies move on, but not in any meaningful way for 20 years at least. Considering it takes 10 to 20 years to get a weapon system from concept to operational use its probably even longer.
They need oil so…”
Its not so much that they need oil rather than the need to deny oil to others. Germany and Japan lost WWII in part because it had no oil and the Americans have never forgotten that. That’s why if there was a war between China and America today it could not last more than 12 months. The US Navy controls the oceans that China’s oil travels over. No oil means no planes, no tanks, no transport vehicles, no logistics, effectively no military.
“At some point this will change as technologies move on, but not in any meaningful way for 20 years at least.”
That’s what I mean by short term thinking.
George Bush has been running around the Middle East once again giving umpteen billion dollars in military aid and equipment to Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. At the same time he has been trying to drum up support to take on or at least contain Iran. Then he has the effrontery to talk about peace in the Middle East.
There will never be peace in the Middle East while Western powers interfere. Israel has been made into the strongest 2nd rank power in the world. It is easily militarily stronger than England or France in both conventional and nuclear force terms. This is on a population base one third of Australia’s and a land mass smaller than Tasmania.
Clearly Israel is not viable in this form except as a militarised and subsidised client state of the US. This of course illustrates how the US is locked into endless support of Israel unless it wants to see Israel collapse utterly. This in turn illustrates that my posited condition for peace in the Middle East (disengagement of the Western powers) can never be met.
Hence, there will not be peace in the Middle East. Not in the next 150 years anyway. The only way there will be peace in the Middle East is if the human race goes extinct. Hmmm, come to think of it there may be peace in the Middle East in the next 150 years.
As one who has on occassion attempted to do his washing in a crowded laundromat in a predominantly arab suburb, I can state that there will never be peace in the middle east whilst it is populated by people of middle eastern origin!
satp, I think you are probably of middle eastern origin!
Ikonoclast, I don’t think we should discount the major change in rhetoric from the Bush/Olmert camp in recent weeks. Neither want to see Israel collapse utterly and both are now suggesting that this means returning to the 1967 borders. Possibly too good to be true though.
The pre-1967 borders are militarily undefendable (another time round at least). The Israeli government and military high command will never agree to that. Without the West Bank and Golan Heights we have;
(a) the drive to Tel Aviv – 18 kms
(b) the drive to Netanya – 15 kms
(c) the drive to Haifa – 35kms
(d) Nth Israel dominated by the Golan Hts.
These distances are chicken feed for an armoured drive. If I was an Israeli General, I would never give up the West Bank and the Golan Hts. Sorry to say Melanie. It won’t happen. I would discount all rhetoric and look at action. The action to continue massive military aid to Israel says it all.
Postscript. If you think a portrayal of the vulnerability of Israel on pre-1967 borders is inconsistent with a portrayal of Israel as the strongest second rank power then I beg to differ.
That much power still needs (indeed demands) a minimum footprint from which to operate effectively. The current borders provide that… just.
I am very disappointed that Prof. Quiggin threw in the remark about Iran waiting to ‘ pick up the pieces’. Firstly it has never been in any way Iran’s interest to have a failed state, let alone an occupied tribal/ethnic grouping torn by pending civil war, as Iraq is now, on its borders. Like most developing countries its internal problems are more than enough for it to deal with. What pieces that Iran may ‘pickup’, in say, territory, goodwill or treasure, or whatever, is not made clear, and with respect I am skeptical that any of these things could eventuate. And also with respect,I don’t believe that the Iranians would delude themselves, or show such blindness and ignorance of their own regional realities, to believe that there is some prospect of capitalizing on Iraq’s catastrophic predicament. If you have better evidence of such, please present it. The emphasis put on Iran’s foreign dealings by the media of its enemies, is invariably racist, ill informed and tendentious. Iran is more democratic than most of the petty tribal/clan and familial oligarchies of the middle-east. Not only is it more democratic, within of course,the limitations of its culture and history, it has far more to offer the world as a agent for peace than as an object of demonisation.
Ikonoclast, Personally I think that a one-state solution is inevitable in the long-run. But Bush has a problem on his hands – his legacy will be disastrous for the US. He’s hoping to pull a rabbit out of the hat and he is putting pressure on Israel (or rather he is listening to Rice on this issue, for now). Olmert put it rather succinctly a couple of weeks ago (upon his return from Annapolis): either we get a 2-state solution now or we eventually have a South African style integration = end of Jewish state. In short, Israel is more vulnerable in the long run if it maintains the ‘swiss cheese’ approach to Palestinian statehood, than if it can achieve a peaceful solution now. 60 years is not long in colonial histories and military solutions have never worked before.
Persse, I think you’re overreacting. I’m not imputing anything more to the Iranian government than the normal reactions of governments anywhere.
It’s obvious the Iranian government is better off with its enemies destroyed or weakened – Saddam gone and the US overcommitted. As for picking up the pieces, it’s scarcely surprising that they would seek to promote the emergence of a friendly government from the current chaos, and obvious that they have done so by promoting friendly political parties such as SCIRI, whose ties to Iran are a matter of public record.
wmmbb wrote:
A trillion, is roughly equivalent, I believe, to the number of seconds in 35 years.
No, it is a far larger number. One American trillion, the number under advisement here, is 10 to the power of 12. There are a trillion seconds in 31709 years, 9 months and 15-and-a-bit days.
My back-of-the envelope calculation is that the US has been spending an average of $10,000 per second since the invasion of Iraq.
[…] As John Quiggin suggests, the Iraq War has now turned into a disaster of epic proportions of murder, human suffering, and wasteful expenditure. Surely the better option would have been cheaper to buy the oil from the Iraqis at the market price. Then again if the American proxy, Saddam Hussein engaged in a bloody and long war with Iran on America’s behalf, he might reasonably assume he then could attack Kuwait, instead of been turned on by his promoter and the quislings from the South Pacific and other regions. Such is the state of international law, then as now, that the criminals responsible for war are not ever it seems to be brought to justice. […]
Thanks for putting me straight Syd W.
Obviously, I had billions and trillions confused.
Persse:
On the one hand, Iran has long-standing border disputes with Iraq.
On the other, there are close cultural and business links between the Shia south of Iraq in particular and Iran. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians go on pilgrimage to sites in Iraq, equal numbers of Iraqis used to vist Qom and other holy Shia sites in Iran. Even on a perely commercial basis, the Iranians are probably keen for those visits to resume.
It is quite reasonable that Iran would hope that a friendly governemnt in Iraq would allow them to finally resolve the border disputes and deepen their connections with their fellow shia.
Meika “The USA is now officially stuffed.”
The US may never recover its position of unchallenged global preeminence but that was almsot inevitable anyway given the rise of China and India.
Dubya’s just moved up the schedule a bit – and his moronic economic policies have probably contributed to that as much as his moronic Iraq policy.
Look at it this way, Britain post-Empire is in many ways a more pleasant place to live than it was in the days of the Raj.
Maybe the same thing will happen with America.
“The USA is now officially stuffed.”
I doubt it. The USA is still the only modern western country I know of that celebrates rather than denigrates success. Until Australia, Canada, Europe, etc get over their tall poppy hangups, they’ll forever be playing catchup with the USA.
[…] How big a disaster ? […]
I now see that I did take your comment beyond what you meant to imply. I gave what you said a predatory implication that obviously on re-reading was not meant.
Montana State University researcher finds renewed interest in turning algae into fuel BOZEMAN — The same brown algae that cover rocks and cause anglers to slip while fly fishing contain oil that can be turned into diesel fuel, says a Montana State University microbiologist. Drivers can’t pump algal fuel into their gas tanks yet, but Keith Cooksey said the idea holds promise. He felt that way 20 years ago. He feels that way today. “We would be there now if people then hadn’t been so short-sighted,” Cooksey said.
And Mugwump, in this context, you seem to be touting the Iraq 2 misadventure as success and then implying criticisim of it as denigration of said success. I hope you do not mean this. Worshipping success does not mean one is actually uccessful. These are two different things.
I was denigrating failure, and short-term idiocy.
mugwump,
What’s the saying? “If you don’t like it, leave.”
Puh-lease!
I’m disappointed there is not more energetic and intelligent debate on Prof Q’s blog about this subject. Are economist-type people scared to say what they think?
G.W. Bush has set a new standard for incompetence, but it’s not really his fault. We should blame the people who pushed him through the door: if ever there was a puppet President, this guy is it!
And of course all roads lead to Dick Cheney and his Big Oil mates. No wonder they wouldn’t release the details of those Energy Taskforce meetings in the early days of the Bush 43 administration! Big Oil took over the White House in 2000.
So if we accept that fact, we need to look at things from this viewpoint. US-based Big Oil going to the casino with trillions of US taxpayer dollars in their pockets… and losing. Big time. Year after year.
Because oil has peaked, the US military is a pack of ignorant teenagers, the world has long had a gutful of US exceptionalism, the theatrical drama of 9/11 didn’t survive the post-release scientific reviews, and it turns out that US allies in the Middle East never liked them anyway.
So where are we? You can come up with all kinds of conjecture, but the basic fact remains: we are smack bang in the middle of a massive global economic disaster. It just hasn’t played out yet.
I’m tempted to say, “put on your sunglasses and get out the popcorn”, but it’s far too serious for that. We are all f*cked.
the USA is also the only modern country where the theory of evolution, stem cell research, universal health insurance and counting election votes are seriously considered controversial. not to mention being the world’s largest debtor and most murderous international aggressor.
whoops – forgot to add torture to the list.
How much suffering is enough? More importantly, how can the mess be cleaned up? Whilst the amount of oil under Iraq is hard to pin numbers to it has to be one of the great fortunes of our time and as long as ownership/control over it is in any way uncertain the bloodshed is likely to continue. If there was a time when the invasion may have done more good than harm, it’s long past now. Those Iraqi’s that cheered the arriving troops are surely disillusioned at the least and at the worst are supporting militants who want the invaders forced out – or more likely supporting the militants that are attacking Iraqi’s that support the US presence.
So, would we see acceptance of whatever post-withdrawal regime(s) arise in Iraq by the US or, should they be brutal (most likely) aligned with Iran (likely) or otherwise unacceptable, or will we see further interfering and meddling of a military nature? I’ve not noticed that the US considers brutal and dictatorial as reasons in and of themselves to meddle, so long as they aren’t harming US interests, but after all that’s happened I expect anti-US sentiment to be quite popular over there. Can the US cope with yet more anti-US rhetoric for long enough to let it die down? Remembering that people over there will have much longer and clearer recollections of messy military interventions in the region than most Americans – or Australians. When we’re asking why they hate us they’ll recall quite clearly.
In any case, for those who wanted a full measure of blood to pay for the twin towers, surely there’s been enough. Especially since so little of it’s the blood of anyone who had anything to do with that atrocity.
Gerard, are you seriously suggesting that the USA is the world’s leading perpetrator of torture?
Most murderous international aggressor?
Any more hyperbole to give?
Gerard, are you seriously suggesting that the USA is the world’s leading perpetrator of torture?
Most murderous international aggressor?
In keeping with good neoliberal principles, the US outsource much of its torture, strictly speaking.
It’s not difficult, however, to argue that the US is the worst country in terms of brutal foreign policy, post-WWII.
The people of Latin Amercia, South East and Central Asia, and Africa would likely agree.
“I doubt it. The USA is still the only modern western country I know of that celebrates rather than denigrates success. Until Australia, Canada, Europe, etc get over their tall poppy hangups, they’ll forever be playing catchup with the USA.”
Yeah, if only Richard Branson, Rupert Murdoch and Kerry Packer had been born in the US – they might have made something of themselves.
“The pre-1967 borders are militarily undefendable (another time round at least).”
Yeah 1948, 1956 and 1967 were all just flukes.
This was, of course, the argument used to oppose returning the Sinai to Egypt.
Ken “More importantly, how can the mess be cleaned up?”
Narrowly and precar4iously it seems that the current US policy in Iraq is working, at least well enough to prevent further catastrophe there.
That being the case, the policy should continue – but we shouldn’t kid ourselves that the worst is over.
A precipitate American withdrawal could still result in disaster and even the progressive drawdown envisaged by the Bush administration is extremely risky.
SATP, Gerard was responding to Mugwump’s comparison of the US to other “modern western countr(ies)”.
Can you give examples of other modern western countries that apply torture more freely than the US?
“The USA is now officially stuffed.�
Anybody wishing to put real money on that?, not “pretend money”
Subject to clarification of “officially stuffed,” of course.
Stupid question Ian Gould, there is no evidence that the US applies torture “freely”
America is far from stuffed. It is the most productive economy and will remain so for a while. It has an experienced, competent military and a civilian government prepared to use it.
America regularly goes nuts. I am thinking of laissez-faire capitalism, the 1920s stock market, the 1950s McCarthyism, Vietnam, Iraq. Basic reason is its inadequate democracy.
American individualism is an attitude that believes in (or requires) vengeance in a lawless environment. Don’t tread on me! Someone has to pay for 911.
With a bit of give and take Israel could have solved its problems in 1948. But win-at-all-cost bloody-mindedness prevailed and now they are unsolvable.
Over the next fifty years America, productive, tough and bloody-minded, will drive the world into one giant Middle East conflict.
SATP: the US the most murderous international aggressor in the world at present? I would say that’s simply a blindingly obvious statement of fact!! World’s biggest arms manufacturer too, by an enormous margin. And while they’re not the world’s leading perpetrator of torture (within their own borders at least), the US is the world’s only ‘modern’ country where torture is even considered a legitimate topic for debate. same for death penalty.
as for America being stuffed – at any rate, it’s not looking in great shape. the euro is kicking the dollar’s arse and the leading banks (Citigroup and Merril Lynch in the news today) are being bailed out by the asians and arabs. the American military is embroiled in its worst ever failure having just spent a trillion dollars effectively handing the world’s largest energy reserves to Shi’ite nationalists, while the Russians are laughing all the way to the bank. back at home poverty rates are hitting thirty percent in rust belt cities where the only job opportunities are drugs and crime; healthcare and education standards are a joke but the country does boast the world’s biggest prison population. the judicial system has been turned into a branch of the Republican Party, which is taking unabashed corruption and bare-knuckled government law-breaking to new extremes while rolling back America’s defining constitional rights to privacy and a fair trial – and the so-called opposition party of Reid and Pelosi couldn’t organize a root in a brothel. The type of science-hating religious fundamentalism that the rest of the modern world shook off ages ago is taking off like there’s no tomorrow – I guess the country’s problems will sorted out when Jesus returns, as millions of Americans expect will happen any day now.
Meanwhile, America’s corporate elite is investing plenty of money on long-term, wealth-creating, job-creating industrial development… in China!
“Stupid question Ian Gould, there is no evidence that the US applies torture “freelyâ€?”
Brush up on your grammar Rog.
If I donate dollar a year to charity and my neighbour donates $2 he’s donating more generously even if his donation is not generous in an absolute sense.
But just for you, can you site another “western modern country” which uses torture to the same extent as the United States?
If you want to claim Mexico or Turkey say as “western modern countries” feel free to show your workings.
“America is far from stuffed. It is the most productive economy and will remain so for a while. It has an experienced, competent military and a civilian government prepared to use it.
America regularly goes nuts. I am thinking of laissez-faire capitalism, the 1920s stock market, the 1950s McCarthyism, Vietnam, Iraq. Basic reason is its inadequate democracy.”
I recently did a fair bit of reading about American history, including military history.
The US faced near-certain defeat in the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. Even in the Mexican-American War, Santa Ana who was actually a pretty decent general and had superior forces won several early victories as did the Californios (hispanic Californians who favored independence rather than rule by either Mexico or the US).
What struck me was American resilience. America survived the disastrous defeats in the New Jersey and Quebec campaigns of 1775 and went on to win their independence.
I’m not sure that democracy in itself is enough to explain America’s success.
Is anyone else struck by the similarities between the Iraq War and the Boer War?
Two Great Powers set out to engage in discretionary wars against far weaker (and despised) opponents for reasons of sheer expediency (however dressed up in grand language about freedom and democracy).
Both powers expect brief glorious wars to be followed by immense material benefits.
Both powers find initial overwhelming conventional victories succeeded by long-running bloody humiliating Guerilla struggles which stretch their military to an extent that would have seemed absurd pre-war.
Both powers find themselves resorting to tactics they would have considered unthinkable at the start of the war (e.g. the British concentration camps).
Both powers are amazed and angry at the extent to which world opinion turns against their little adventures.
Of course, the Boer War was close to marking the high-point of British power and the whole Imperial edifice began to fall apart little more than a decade later.
Let’s hope history doesn’t repeat itself.
“What’s the saying? “If you don’t like it, leave.â€?”
I did.
That’s 20/20 hindsight if ever I saw it. 1948 was 3 years after WWII ended. You might want to put yourself in the shoes of an Israeli Jew whose entire race had just nearly been wiped out before preaching about “give and take”.
They don’t say Never Again for nothing.
Let me guess gerard, you write for Green Left Weekly? You should visit the US sometime. Apparently you’d find it unrecognizable.
Both powers are amazed and angry at the extent to which world opinion turns against their little adventures
Actually Ian, you’ll find most of the US couldn’t give a rat’s proverbial about the rest of the world. Bush’s biggest problem is the overwhelming domestic anti-war sentiment.
formatting:
Actually Ian, you’ll find most of the US couldn’t give a rat’s proverbial about the rest of the world. Bush’s biggest problem is the overwhelming domestic anti-war sentiment.