Thursday, August 01, 2002

Do the Math! Let Free Enterprise Rid Us of Saddam Timothy Wilken writes: As reported in the New York Times Tuesday, the direct costs of Desert Storm were ~$80 billion (80 thousand million dollars), adjusted for inflation to 2002 dollars, of which our allies paid 80 percent. So America paid only $16 billion (16 thousand million dollars) again adjusted for inflation. Estimates of the direct costs for the proposed new war with Iraq range from $80 billion (80 thousand million dollars) to $120 billion (120 thousand million dollars) of which this time our allies may pay nothing. Estimates of the human costs are unknown, but estimates of the number of Americans soldiers that could be involved range from 25,000 to 250,000. Then there are the indirect costs such as 1) the effect of the war on the stock market, 2) the increase in cost of oil during the war, 3) the potential cost of putting out oil well fires, if the Iraqis torch the oil fields as they did in Kuwait in 1991, 4) the medical and psychological costs of the American war casualties, 5) the financial and emotional costs to the families of the combatants, 6) the risk the war could spread--Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Etc., Etc., 7) the risk that while at war with Iraq, we might be attacked elsewhere including here in the United States, 6) the risk that the war might go nuclear, 7) the damage to the environment, and 6) other risks we may not have thought of or even imagined, etc., etc., etc.. So the total cost to American, including both the direct and indirect expenses of a new war with Iraq, might exceed $1 trillion ( 1 million million dollars) plus the unquantified suffering of the American combatants their families, and the rest of us. ... We need to find a better way to get rid of Saddam. (08/01/02) Financial Cost of War with IRAQ ? $$$$$$$ New York Times -- An American attack on Iraq could profoundly affect the American economy, because the United States would have to pay most of the cost and bear the brunt of any oil price shock or other market disruptions, government officials, diplomats and economists say. Eleven years ago, the Persian Gulf war, fought to roll back Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, cost the United States and its allies $60 billion and helped set off an economic recession caused in part by a spike in oil prices. For that war, the allies picked up almost 80 percent of the bill. Today, however, as the Bush administration works on plans to overthrow Saddam Hussein, the United States is confronting the likelihood that this time around it would have to pick up the tab largely by itself, diplomats said. ... James A. Placke, a former senior diplomat specializing in the Persian Gulf and now a senior associate of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, said the market reaction to any invasion of Iraq was at best uncertain. "Given the marked lack of enthusiasm for this venture, I wouldn't think the market reaction would be very good," he said. "When weapons start going off in the Middle East, markets generally go down, gold prices go up, and oil prices shoot to the moon," he added, "and I expect that this is the short-run pattern that we can reasonably anticipate." ...  Still, the fear is that Mr. Hussein, who set afire oil fields in Kuwait a decade ago, might strike out with chemical, biological or radiological weapons at Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer with the largest capacity to expand its oil production to stabilize oil supplies. "Everybody's nightmare is Saudi Arabia," said an Energy Department oil analyst. "People are deathly afraid of any military campaign spreading to Saudi Arabia." That country contains one half of the spare production capacity in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. (08/01/02)     9:21:45 AM

© TrustMark 2002 Timothy Wilken. Last update: 9/3/2002; 6:03:18 AM. This theme is based on the SoundWaves (blue) Manila theme.