Prices

People don't like to make the monetary cost of a war the centerpiece of an argument against it. Nevertheless, it's striking how if you want to talk about early childhood development or public transportation or even "hard" things like monitoring parolees or hiring cops in this country, you immediately run into cost issues. Expanding SCHIP may be cheap and popular, but you'd better make it cheap enough to finance through gimmicks like cigarette taxes and so forth, because you just can't unleash the spigots of general revenue on something as trivial as making children not die when they fall ill.

For war, it's a different story. Mark Kleiman, for example, points out that at $200 billion a year, the war in Iraq costs $7,000 per Iraqi per year, which is more than double the country's per capita GDP. Now, obviously, it wouldn't have been literally feasible to give each Iraqi $4,000 in March 2003, then again in March 2004, then again in March 2005, then again in March 2006, then again in March 2007, and then start drawing our commitment down to $3,000 in March 2008, $2,000 in March 2009, etc. But if you could have pulled it off, it would have been enormously cheaper than what we actually did. It's this sort of thing that ultimately makes the humanitarian arguments around Iraq so fatuous -- this is just a ridiculously costly way to try to help people and when one talks about extending the deployment two or three more years in the hopes that the trend line will magically reverse, one is contemplating a truly massive expenditure of resources that could be more effectively deployed doing almost anything else.

UPDATE: PS note that annual expenditures in Iraq are way higher than the annual value of Iraqi oil exports. I do think that the large US military footprint in the Persian Gulf region is motivated by a sense that this is economically necessary to secure the area's precious underground fluids, but the numbers don't add up right.

Comments

The spending is ridiculous from a military standpoint as well. Much is made about 'stability in the region' and standing up Iraq's military so they can defend themselves. Here are the annual military budgets for Iraq's neighbors.

Iran - $6.3 billion
Turkey - $10.9 billion
Kuwait - $3 billion
Syria - $858 million
Jordan - $1.3 billion
Saudi Arabia - $31.2 billion

So the U.S. spends as much in one quarter in Iraq as the entire region spends in a year on military spending. "Standing up" the Iraqi government would be a hell of a lot cheaper if that was truly our goal but obviously we have some other goal than a strong Iraq.

Posted by joejoejoe | July 25, 2007 10:06 AM

Perhaps it would helpful to the GOP if someone calculated how much lower capital gains taxes could be if there was no Iraq war.

Posted by ChrisB | July 25, 2007 10:07 AM

Imagine if, in 2003, we'd offered Saddam and his family $10 billion and a villa in Paraguay to go away, and then committed $15,000 per Iraqi to economic development . . .

Much, much, much cheaper than what we did, wouldn't have involved any killing or torturing, and probably would have been more effective in reducing terrorism.

But of course, we only adopt big, impractical programs that involve blowing a lot of things, and people, up.

Posted by rea | July 25, 2007 10:07 AM

The problem is: humanitarian stuff is boring.

Its much more exciting to kill people and blow stuff up. The Iraq war was quite bracing for a lot of middle-aged neocons, allowing them to feel a little bit like Winston Churchill. Who would want to deprive them of those glorious feelings?

Its hard to factor these psychological benefits into the kind of cut-and-dried cost/benefits analysis you're providing.

Posted by Jim W | July 25, 2007 10:08 AM

"People don't like to make the monetary cost of a war the centerpiece of an argument against it. "

That's because war is presented as a moral cause.

Similarly, it's why Edwards is presenting his healthcare plan as universal and as a moral cause. It creates an environment where it's harder to make monetary cost the backbone of the arguments against.

Posted by Petey | July 25, 2007 10:13 AM

The oil revenue, war cost numbers don't add up if you make the mistake of thinking those are "our" benefits and "our" costs. They are not. The government is taxing and borrowing on the credit of the general population, but the money is spent not on obtaining cheap oil for all taxpayers, but on securing access and profit opportunities for certain oil companies and creating profit opportunities for certain DOD contractors.

From their point of view the benefits outweigh the costs and the numbers work just fine.

Posted by Doug | July 25, 2007 10:23 AM

It's always going to be a flawed argument to state that the Bush administration and the modern Republican party in general are either 1) lying about their motivation and hiding the real but less popular reasons for their actions, or 2) they're just incompetent.

The problem is that either argument by itself is wrong because both are right: They have secret agendas that they lie about and cover up with more popular ideologies, but at the same time they're also pretty dumb in how they go about trying to achieve those secret objectives.

As in this point, when it's true that they're obsessed with the Middle East because of the global strategic importance of oil, but it's also true that if they were really intelligent and effective in achieving their goals that they would see that simple-minded brute force is the least-likely course of action that would get them what they want.

Posted by Will Hutchinson | July 25, 2007 10:30 AM

The BBC just broadcast a report on how Republican business interests (including Prescott Bush) plotted a coup to oust FDR in 1933 and install something akin to American fascism ostensibly as a check against communism but really to keep the rabble that loved Roosevelt down. The coup was reported to a Congressional committe by a U.S. Maj. General Smedley Butler, winner of two Medal of Honor awards and the same Smedley Butler that has a current Marine base named after him in Okinawa.

I'm starting to think that the rot is a lot deeper than I ever imagined in this country and nothing short of eternal vigilance will ever keep rabid dogs like Dick Cheney from the tearing at the throat of our democracy.

Here's what Maj. Gen. Butler wrote in his book 'War is a Racket':

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested."

Everything old is new again.

Posted by joejoejoe | July 25, 2007 10:36 AM

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/u_s_to_give_every_iraqi_3_544_91

How sad it is to realize that if the administration had been acting on cue from the Onion for the last 6 years we would all be better off...

Posted by El Cruzado | July 25, 2007 10:44 AM

just the other day i was wondering why i don't recall anyone emphasizing cost as the main argument against getting into iraq. it doesn't seem that silly to argue that getting rid of saddam and trying to install democracy is not worth roughly $1 trillion. it's not particularly populist to point out that $1 trillion goes a long way (that is, i think you in theory should have been able to get a bunch of republicans to accept the argument). i'm sure i'm overlooking many who argued that the potential cost was too high. of course, this would have been yet more role reversal in terms of traditional stereotypes of the parties (dems arguing for fiscal restraint/realism/pragmatism in the face of repub idealism).

Posted by dj superflat | July 25, 2007 11:37 AM

Iraq's 112 billion barrels of oil are worth about 8000 billion dollars. We have spent 800 billion dollars. Let's assume that 10% of the cost of oil is profits. So the profits to the American oil companies under the Iraqi oil laws proposed by the US will be about 400 billion dollars.

So American tax payers pay about $800B so the oil companies can make about $400B.

Good way to distribute income.

Posted by gregor | July 25, 2007 11:55 AM

Back when I was in the Foreign Service, I had the idea during the Central American wars, which we were spending billions on, to simply give everyone one in El Salvador, Honduras, etc., US bonds worth $100K. The interest, about $5K a year, would have more than doubled per capita GNP and, presumably, taken the wind out of the sails of the FMLN and other guerillas, since the region's poverty was the chief underlying reason for the support they got. It would have been so much cheaper and avoided having the US allied with all those nasty death squads. But of course, no one listened to me.

Posted by Traven | July 25, 2007 11:57 AM

Bringing up cost to talk about Iraq vs. SCHIP doesn't work politically because soldiers aren't dying to save SCHIP. It's irrational that sunk cost plays such a role in our national thinking, but there you have it.

It wouldn't be the actual cost of Iraqi crude oil that we would compare to the cost of the war, but the effect of having a stable source of oil on the larger economy.

Posted by Consumatopia | July 25, 2007 11:57 AM

"I do think that the large US military footprint in the Persian Gulf region is motivated by a sense that this is economically necessary to secure the area's precious underground fluids, but the numbers don't add up right. "

The numbers don't add up because its the government (Cheney's enemy) that is spending the dough now, but the oil companies (Cheney's friends) that will be making the dough. Republican math says that two government dollars spent to make a private company one dollar richer is money well spent.

Posted by Joshua | July 25, 2007 12:13 PM

1)A few weeks ago, I noted that the true level of the Defense budget is closer to $1 Trillion/year if you included Veterans Administration, DOE nuclear program,etc.

I also noted that military control of the Middle East is costing us roughly $38 for every gallon of Gasoline we get from the Middle East.

2) Plus, that cost is ongoing CONSUMPTION that has to be paid over and over. By contrast, if we invested a small fraction of our military budget into alternative energy sources, we would be INVESTING in technology that would pay dividends for the next century.

3) But the pathology in the Republican Party is that they are willing to steal $1 Trillion of our dollars in order to pass a few Billion in profits to the Houston oil companies.

4) Since Bush and the Republicans paid for their huge defense budgets by stealing almost $3 TRILLION from our Social Security/Medicare Trust Fund accounts, the only cost to the Houston oil companies has been the few million dollars they pay in campaign donations to the Bush, Cheney and the RNC.

5) Nor have the Republican leaders had to pay the cost in BLOOD of this policy --since they and their children follow Bush/Cheney's proud military tradition of never getting with a 1000 miles of an active battlefield.

6) Of course, the damm lying co%$#&suckers at the New York Times, Washington Post, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly would never dream of pointing this out to the voters.

Posted by Don Williams | July 25, 2007 12:14 PM

Posted by joejoejoe | July 25, 2007 10:36 AM:"The BBC just broadcast a report on how Republican business interests (including Prescott Bush) plotted a coup to oust FDR in 1933 and install something akin to American fascism ostensibly as a check against communism but really to keep the rabble that loved Roosevelt down. The coup was reported to a Congressional committe by a U.S. Maj. General Smedley Butler, winner of two Medal of Honor awards and the same Smedley Butler that has a current Marine base named after him in Okinawa."

The BBC, that well known paragon of impartial reporting. So what? This story is based on the rantings of a General who clearly had gotten too much sun and very little else. In fact nothing else. I am surprised that you would endorse the Star-Chamber-like work of the House UnAmerican Activities Committee when it suits you. Perhaps not. Cynical though ain't it?

Posted by joejoejoe | July 25, 2007 10:36 AM:"Here's what Maj. Gen. Butler wrote in his book 'War is a Racket':

Posted by joejoejoe | July 25, 2007 10:36 AM"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism."

Yep. Obviously the guy that someone like Prescott Bush would approach to lead his Fascist coup. I mean it is so obvious. By the way, Butler claimed that he was promised 500,000 men. Where were those soldiers going to come from given the entire US Army in 1934 was about 125,000 men many of whom were overseas?

Posted by HeiGou | July 25, 2007 12:19 PM

Sadly, at this point throwing money at Iraq is unlikely to help much. Money from abroad is only useful to Iraqi individuals to the extent that it can be used to buy useful foreign goods and services. However the security situation now seems to have deteriorated so far that it would be almost impossible for foreigners to deliver any services without being beheaded and even quite hard to deliver $3,000 worth of useful goods to every Iraqi. Still, it would still be better than sending valuable (and very expensive) military personnel & equipment to blow things up and get shot at...

Posted by JohnTh | July 25, 2007 12:33 PM

About blood and oil:

PS note that annual expenditures in Iraq are way higher than the annual value of Iraqi oil exports. I do think that the large US military footprint in the Persian Gulf region is motivated by a sense that this is economically necessary to secure the area's precious underground fluids, but the numbers don't add up right.

The numbers still don't add up right, but your arithmetic is wrong.

If Iraq was a business venture designed to secure access to oil, then what you'd need to compare is the difference between the net present value of the stream of future oil supplies and the NPV of the costs of the war.

Just as a business enterprise will burn through more capital than it generates in revenue during its start-up time, an imperial venture would be expected to do the same.

Now, those numbers still aren't the only way to examine the problem. In essence, those numbers are valuing the rents that a war would transfer away from a potential hostile government and towards our satraps in Baghdad. They don't measure the direct benefit to Americans, if any.

The right thing to evaluate the benefit of our little colonial venture to Americans is to replace
the NPV of Iraqi oil revenues with the NPV of the difference between the future cost of American oil imports without the war and the future cost of American oil imports with the war.

Considering that our satraps have failed to pass an oil law, which is holding up investment far more than the violence, it seems unlikely that the war will reduce oil prices in the near future. Even if you believe that production will SOAR under a friendly (tm) government a decade from now, you'd need an impossibly low discount rate to make the NPV of the benefits exceed the costs.

So you're certainly still right, Matt, but give credit to the imperialists where it's due, and stop making the straight comparison between Iraqi oil revenues and American war costs.

P.S. Gregor, margins in Iraqi oil production are more like 96 percent than ten percent at current prices.

Posted by Noel Maurer | July 25, 2007 12:34 PM

i actually don't know which "people" don't think costs should be discussed in assessing a war: there's a nice simple standard assessment tool known as cost-benefit analysis. if you're fighting against german fascism and japanese militarism, you don't mind high costs because the benefits of a world not dominated by german fascism and japanese militarism are so high. but if the benefit is - in the best case - a shiite theocracy friendly to iran ends up in control of iraq, it's hard to see why that's worth any cost.

on a simpler level, for example, i've learned through experience that there is no benefit to reading the insipid rantings of heigou, so the cost of spending even a few seconds on him or her is completely out of line....

Posted by howard | July 25, 2007 12:46 PM

Re "Even if you believe that production will SOAR under a friendly (tm) government a decade from now, you'd need an impossibly low discount rate to make the NPV of the benefits exceed the costs.

So you're certainly still right, Matt, but give credit to the imperialists where it's due, and stop making the straight comparison between Iraqi oil revenues and American war costs. "
--------------
Ah, but you forget. In 2002, the imperialists were sure that they would be welcomed with cheering crowds throwing flowers.

That Army General Shinseki was going senile and needed to retire when he said that another 100,000 troops were needed.

Remember?

Posted by Don Williams | July 25, 2007 12:49 PM

Posted by howard | July 25, 2007 12:46 PM:"if you're fighting against german fascism and japanese militarism, you don't mind high costs because the benefits of a world not dominated by german fascism and japanese militarism are so high. but if the benefit is - in the best case - a shiite theocracy friendly to iran ends up in control of iraq, it's hard to see why that's worth any cost."

Sure but replace "world dominated by German Fascism" with "Austria incorporated by German Fascism". Or "Poland conquered by German Fascism". In the end the choice was not between Fascism dominating the world or going to war. It was between preventing Fascism getting any stronger in what seemed to be, with some reason, to be their quest for world domination. So after much huffing and puffing the West decided that it could live with Czechoslovakia dominated by Germany. I agree that on a one-off example that was reasonable (if immoral and tragic for the Czechs), but it was not a one-off deal. So you can live with an Iran-dominated Iraq? And an Iranian-dominated Bahrain? Kuwait? Eastern Saudi Arabia? Where exactly are you going to draw the line? Ohio?

I agree that Iraq is not worth any cost but is America paying any cost? The loss of life is tragic but not that great. Way smaller than Vietnam much less the road toll. I suspect some of those cost figures because many of them would have to be paid anyway - salaries for instance. But let's ignore that. So for a vast sum of money and the lives of a relatively small number of Americans, the US is getting what out of Iraq? Well it is probably causing massive loss of support for Jihadis across the world:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/4ed6c870-3a1b-11dc-9d73-0000779fd2ac.html

"The most striking declines are in Lebanon, where in 2007 34 per cent of people say suicide bombings are justified compared with 74 per cent in 2002. There has been a similar decline in Pakistan from 33 per cent to 9 per cent and in Jordan from 43 to 23 per cent. Only among Palestinians, where 70 per cent say suicide attacks are sometimes or often justified, do a majority continue to support it.

"The survey found a similar trend when it asked Muslims whether they had confidence in Osama bin Laden. Almost everywhere there has been a sharp decline in affirmative responses, with Jordan showing the biggest fall (from 56 per cent to 20 per cent). In Turkey, support has dropped from 15 per cent to five per cent since 2002."

I can't believe that is not related to the brutal methods of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Posted by howard | July 25, 2007 12:46 PM:"on a simpler level, for example, i've learned through experience that there is no benefit to reading the insipid rantings of heigou, so the cost of spending even a few seconds on him or her is completely out of line...."

Insipid? Now that is hardly fair.

Posted by HeiGou | July 25, 2007 12:55 PM

on a simpler level, i've learned through experience that there is no benefit to reading the rantings of heigou, so the cost of spending even a few seconds on him or is completely out of line....

Posted by howard | July 25, 2007 1:02 PM

Posted by Don Williams | July 25, 2007 12:49 PM:"Ah, but you forget. In 2002, the imperialists were sure that they would be welcomed with cheering crowds throwing flowers."

Which self-evidently proves they were not Imperialists. Or if they were they were the dumbest Imperialists in the history of the world. They invade a country, they all but hand out heavy weaponry (which is still legal to carry in Iraq I believe as good NRA-supporting Republicans would support), and then they do not bother to garrison it properly. If they intended to steal oil or oppress the Iraqis or any of the sort of things Iraqis would not be happy about, they would have gone in heavy as Shinseki wanted.

Posted by howard | July 25, 2007 1:02 PM :"on a simpler level, i've learned through experience that there is no benefit to reading the rantings of heigou, so the cost of spending even a few seconds on him or is completely out of line...."

It seems that someone is abusing their Junior High Computing Lab. Come on Howard, grow up.

Posted by HeiGou | July 25, 2007 1:09 PM

Re "Which self-evidently proves they were not Imperialists. Or if they were they were the dumbest Imperialists in the history of the world. They invade a country, they all but hand out heavy weaponry (which is still legal to carry in Iraq I believe as good NRA-supporting Republicans would support), and then they do not bother to garrison it properly. If they intended to steal oil or oppress the Iraqis or any of the sort of things Iraqis would not be happy about, they would have gone in heavy as Shinseki wanted."
------------

NOT if they wanted to drag us into a highly dubious operation gradually -- preventing the rise of opposition by promising that it would be a cakewalk and then sticking us with a fait accompli once we were committed.

The old political idea of "Boiling the Frog Slowly" -- if you throw a frog into boiling water, he will jump out but if you put him in lukewarm water and then gradually raise the temperature, you can cook him because of sunk costs.

Hence, the Republican talking point: "MAYBE some Mistakes were made. But we have to deal with the situation we have now -- but whereas we want to take RESPONSIBLE actions now to prevent the terrorist from winning , the Democrats just want to engage in irresponsible, partisan fingerpointering and Monday Morning quarterbacking. ?"

By the way, what ever happened to that $5 Trillion surplus that George Bush told us we would have? That "fuzzy math" of Al Gore's is not longer looking very "fuzzy".

Posted by Don Williams | July 25, 2007 1:38 PM

Posted by Don Williams | July 25, 2007 1:38 PM:"NOT if they wanted to drag us into a highly dubious operation gradually -- preventing the rise of opposition by promising that it would be a cakewalk and then sticking us with a fait accompli once we were committed."

Yes but what dubious operation? And why? This is ruining the Bush Presidency and the Dems are going to get the White House next year. Where's the logic? Why not send 500,000 right away and say that tribalism made it necessary? Why bother at all? They are getting nothing out of this whatsoever. Not even oil. Why bother? Other things they really wanted, like Syria and Iran, are beyond their reach as well. Why not hold off oppressing the Iraqis long enough to invade those countries too?

As I said, they'd have to be either really really dumb or just wrong. I think wrong is more likely. They did expect to be welcomed as liberators because that is how they saw themselves. It is the only logical explanation.

Posted by HeiGou | July 25, 2007 1:48 PM

rE: Imagine if, in 2003, we'd offered Saddam and his family $10 billion and a villa in Paraguay to go away

Saddam was offered a sweatheart tyrant-in-exile deal, but by the Saudis not by us. He still refused.

Re: but the money is spent not on obtaining cheap oil for all taxpayers, but on securing access and profit opportunities for certain oil companies

But even that' not working. Iraq is far too risky for the oil companies, and it looks likely that will not change. OK, maybe that's the same miscalculation that we all were fed: it would be a "cakewalk" and we'd be in and out in a few months.

Re: So you can live with an Iran-dominated Iraq?

If Iran actually tries to conquer Iraq (as Hitler did with Poland and Saddam did with Kuwait) I would say No. (And I would also we can cross that bridge if we come to it). But iof all we're talking aboyt is Iran having some influence in Iraq, much as China has in North Korea, Russia in Kazakhstan, or we in Mexico, then I don't see that as something we can't live with.

Posted by Jonf | July 25, 2007 1:59 PM

Medicine IS defense, against invaders that kill millions of us every year, way too young.

Posted by ferd | July 25, 2007 2:34 PM

Yep. Obviously the guy that someone like Prescott Bush would approach to lead his Fascist coup. I mean it is so obvious. By the way, Butler claimed that he was promised 500,000 men. Where were those soldiers going to come from given the entire US Army in 1934 was about 125,000 men many of whom were overseas?

While I've nothing to say about the veracity of the General's larger claims, I would assume a coup by business interests would employ paid mercenaries, i.e. Blackwater types. What his claim had to do with U.S. troop levels is beyond my understanding.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | July 25, 2007 3:24 PM

RE HeiGou's "Yes but what dubious operation? And why? This is ruining the Bush Presidency and the Dems are going to get the White House next year. Where's the logic? Why not send 500,000 right away and say that tribalism made it necessary? Why bother at all? They are getting nothing out of this whatsoever. Not even oil. Why bother? "
------------
Actually, Iraq has been a TREMENDOUS SUCCESS for the Neocons and Israel Lobby. It was a success on the first day of the invasion, when Bush became committed with disposing of Saddam.

A Iraq fractured by civil war will never be the threat to Israel that Saddam posed.

The invasion of Iraq occurred because the Republican billionaires of Big Oil wanted the oil, the Republican billionaires of Big Defense wanted war period, and the Democratic billionaires of the Israel Lobby wanted a major challenger to Israel destroyed.

But Thieves fall out. Big Oil wants a strong puppet government in Iraq whereas the Israel Lobby thinks the present chaotic situation is good and DESPERATELY wants to free up the US military for an attack on IRAN before Iran gets the same nuclear bomb that Israel has.

So Hillary gets millions of dollars for the reasons that Israeli Billionaire Haim Saban noted very explicitly in his recent Haaretz interview:

Bush has been the best "friend" Israel has ever had in a US President but he has no political capital left with US voters --certainly not enough to confront Iran -- so Haim needs another Shabbos Goy.

Bush ain't too happy with being left holding the bag of shit -- which may explain why Scooter Libby has been kept on a tight leash with an ongoing expensive trial.

It may explain why Richard Perle's sugar daddy Conrad Black has been nailed for fraud (nailed by ..ta da.. Libby nemesis Patrick Fitzgerald ) and is facing 35 years in prison, multi-million dollar confiscations and massive civil lawsuits.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Black#Criminal_fraud_trial

Needless to say, a rope is also being measured for Fat Richard.

It may explain why Haim Saban's tax returns have recently come ..er..under review by Bush's IRS -- and had to raise $300 Million:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117950655.html?categoryid=18&cs=1

Posted by Don Williams | July 25, 2007 3:26 PM

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | July 25, 2007 3:24 PM:"While I've nothing to say about the veracity of the General's larger claims, I would assume a coup by business interests would employ paid mercenaries, i.e. Blackwater types. What his claim had to do with U.S. troop levels is beyond my understanding."

That simply changes the equation to an even more absurd one. Where in 1934 would Prescott Bush get 475,000 mercenaries? Ask Pinkertons?

This story is utterly absurd and the irony is that the Committee that gave any credibility to this story and the even more absurd Butler became the House UnAmerican Activities Committee - now how much credibility would you give, say, a two-bit Patton clone, if he came to the HUAC and said that a group of American Communists had promised him 5 million soldiers to overthrow Eisenhower and create a Leninist state?

Posted by Don Williams | July 25, 2007 3:26 PM:"Actually, Iraq has been a TREMENDOUS SUCCESS for the Neocons and Israel Lobby. It was a success on the first day of the invasion, when Bush became committed with disposing of Saddam. A Iraq fractured by civil war will never be the threat to Israel that Saddam posed."

Perhaps but at what cost? Allowing Iran that much closer to Israel is a bigger threat than Saddam under sanctions. The power of the Israeli lobby has taken a huge blow. The Neo-Cons are on the way out. Israel is one of the big losers from the Iraq War as it has turned out (although of course politics in the Middle East are so twisty that perhaps it can snatch some victory from the jaws of defeat).

Posted by Don Williams | July 25, 2007 3:26 PM:"The invasion of Iraq occurred because the Republican billionaires of Big Oil wanted the oil, the Republican billionaires of Big Defense wanted war period, and the Democratic billionaires of the Israel Lobby wanted a major challenger to Israel destroyed."

Claiming the War was about oil involves ignoring the entire written record. Major challenger? Why not Syria or Iran?

Posted by Don Williams | July 25, 2007 3:26 PM:"so Haim needs another Shabbos Goy."

The line at which anti-Zionism becomes anti-Semitism is a interesting one. Just for my sake, would you please keep from using specifically anti-Jewish insults as opposed to anti-Zionists ones? Thank you.

Posted by Don Williams | July 25, 2007 3:26 PM:"
It may explain why Richard Perle's sugar daddy Conrad Black has been nailed for fraud (nailed by ..ta da.. Libby nemesis Patrick Fitzgerald ) and is facing 35 years in prison, multi-million dollar confiscations and massive civil lawsuits."

Yes. You have to admire a twisted mind that sees the prosecution and conviction of so many friends of the Bushes and Israel as a sign of a Jewish plot and conspiracy. Neat.

Posted by HeiGou | July 26, 2007 6:41 AM

RE HeiGou's comment "You have to admire a twisted mind that sees the prosecution and conviction of so many friends of the Bushes and Israel as a sign of a Jewish plot and conspiracy. Neat"
-----------
I said nothing about a "Jewish plot and conspiracy".

I said that the Bush Administration has shown recent signs of retaliating against the Israel Lobby -- after going to extremes to court that Lobby in earlier years -- now that the Lobby is shifting support back to the Democrats and leaving Bush holding the bag for Iraq.

Posted by Don Williams | July 26, 2007 9:40 AM

Re "Claiming the War was about oil involves ignoring the entire written record"
---------
Ah, horseshit. What earthy reason would the US have for caring about a godforsaken patch of arid desert if not for the Oil?

When the oil runs out, we will leave the Middle East to the same benign neglect with which we treat Rwanda.

Except that we will still have billionaires insisting that we spend $billions of tax dollars protecting Israel -- an "ally" which has given us nothing and is a continual burden. A bizarre situation which is understandable only if you look at the FEC campaign donation records.

Posted by Don Williams | July 26, 2007 9:47 AM

Posted by Don Williams | July 26, 2007 9:40 AM:"I said nothing about a "Jewish plot and conspiracy"."

A plot and conspiracy by Jews then. Big difference.

Posted by Don Williams | July 26, 2007 9:40 AM:"I said that the Bush Administration has shown recent signs of retaliating against the Israel Lobby -- after going to extremes to court that Lobby in earlier years -- now that the Lobby is shifting support back to the Democrats and leaving Bush holding the bag for Iraq."

And yet there is precisely no evidence whatsoever that the Bush administration is doing any such thing or that Bush is not, still, a strong supporter of Israel. And when you use terms like "Shabbat Goy" it ain't looking merely anti-Zionist is it? So it is a delusion based on a conspiracy by Jews, for which there is no evidence.

Posted by Don Williams | July 26, 2007 9:40 AM:"Ah, horseshit. What earthy reason would the US have for caring about a godforsaken patch of arid desert if not for the Oil?"

Ahh the Argument from Personal Incredulity - just because you can't think of a better explanation it must be God^H^H^H I mean Oil. Perhaps Bush means just what he says and no less? I know that is a little simplistic but perhaps it is also possible?

Posted by Don Williams | July 26, 2007 9:40 AM:"When the oil runs out, we will leave the Middle East to the same benign neglect with which we treat Rwanda."

I would fervently hope so. If not sooner.

Posted by Don Williams | July 26, 2007 9:40 AM:"Except that we will still have billionaires insisting that we spend $billions of tax dollars protecting Israel -- an "ally" which has given us nothing and is a continual burden. A bizarre situation which is understandable only if you look at the FEC campaign donation records."

Perhaps Israel has given America nothing. Perhaps not. Who is to say? What is true is that Israel's enemies are our enemies and a victory for Israel's enemies would have dire consequences for the entire world. In the meantime Israel has created a haven of peace, democracy, prosperity, and tolerance in a vile region. Israel and Israel alone has allowed three Faiths to share the Holy City of Jerusalem with few problems. Israel and Israel alone protects the Christian communities of the Middle East. All in all I can think of a lot of reason to support Israel. And yet not one Zionist dollar has ever come my way.

Posted by HeiGou | July 26, 2007 11:23 AM

Re: "Perhaps Israel has given America nothing. Perhaps not. Who is to say?"

The better question is: who cares? Israel's supporters in the U.S. certainly don't.

Posted by Jim W | July 26, 2007 11:27 AM

I'm more than somewhat irked to find my unobjectionable, on-topic comment still in moderation after 24 hours. Yes, it has two links: one to a MY article from 2006 and one to a CNN story from 2003. I guess the lesson is to make the links plain text.

Posted by Nell | July 26, 2007 1:51 PM

Re "A plot and conspiracy by Jews then. Big difference."
-------
Actually, it is. I've gone out of my way to note that the malign manipulations that dragged us into the Iraq war were the acts of some specific individuals -- superwealthy billionaires or their employees, for the most part.

It is the Israel Lobby which insists that its disloyal acts are condoned and supported --not by a few superrich egotists -- but by all American Jews.
(Except for the Self-Hating Jews, of course.)

One could make an argument that this claim -- that all American Jews support Haim Saban's actions --is itself anti-Semitic. The Neocons variant on the Protocols of the Elders.

And if I note that Haim Saban is Jewish, it is because he claimed that that --and his strong love for Israel -- is what drives his strong efforts to protect Israel. Drives his need to control US politics --because American military protection is the second pillar of Israel's security. Read the Haaretz interview I cited.

In my more cynical moments, I've noted that Haim might have other motivations. If the IRS thinks you've evaded $300 MILLION in taxes, then having citizenship in another country and an automatic second passport can be priceless. Especially if that second country will lobby a US President for a pardon on your behalf. Just ask Marc Rich.

Moreover, it is not clear if Haim Saban is protecting "Israel" --or if he is protecting the assets of his business partners --i.e., the 19 wealthy families who OWN Israel -- who receive about 54% of Israel's annual GDP as income. See
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/884114.html

Given such superwealth, I can't help wondering why those families need $3 BILLION plus from the American Taxpayer --year after year. Maybe it's because the $3 Billion is cheap -- only costs a few $Million in campaign donations.

Your quibble over my use of "Shabbos Goy" -- while ducking the primary substance of my arguments -- shows a bit of dishonesty, in my opinion.

The term is one coined by very wealthy men. Most Jews in Eastern Europe of centuries past were too poor to either need --or to be able to afford -- a Shabbos Goy.

Just as 99.9% of America's Jews today do not have the need, the wealthy means, --or the desire --for a sock Puppet who, as US Commander-in-Chief will spend American lives to deal with the next threat to Israeli assets.

Posted by Don Williams | July 26, 2007 7:31 PM