February 14, 2006
According to Harper's Magazine, the projected cost of the Iraqi adventure will come out to about $20,000 per U.S. household.
That's just the financial cost, of course. The cost in lives and limbs is far, far greater.
As with many large human enterprises that end in disaster, the actual costs are never known or described at the time the enterprise is embarked upon, because if they were, no sane person would approve of the plan. If George Bush were running for president this year and he promised to start a war that would cost every household $20,000, I don't think most people would vote for him.
I've heard it argued that most people felt, at the time, that attacking Iraq was the right thing to do. That is why the Democrats-- especially Hillary Clinton-- sound so anemic right now. They can't really take Bush to task about this-- they voted for it too.
Were there reasonable people around who knew that attacking and occupying Iraq was going to cost so much at the time George Bush set out to do it. The answer is clearly yes. Not George Bush, no. Not anyone on his staff-- except, dimly, Colin Powell-- no. Not anyone in the Republican party, no. And, it is clear, almost nobody in the Democratic Party, which is why so few Democrats are now able to make hay of the horrible consequences of the stupid decision to invade and occupy Iraq.
But a lot of other people, including Canadians and Europeans knew that it was a bad idea. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien-- probably not sure if he was doing the right thing at the time-- declined to participate because a large majority of Canadians didn't think it was a good idea. They were right.
The Americans are in a massive, unholy mess right now in Iraq. Bush keeps on insisting that there is light at the end of the tunnel, but I think that light is coming from a directorship at a large oil company after 2008, or the reflection off Karl Rove's fleshy forehead.