The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[casi] Military dictatorship in Iraq spending money hand over fist



http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/billions.html

August 28, 2003

Billions, Trillions, Who Cares?

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.



For those of us who balance our checkbooks to the penny, government finance
exists on another planet. Thanks to the institution of central banking, and
the ability of the economy to generate unfathomable amounts of money for the
tax state, we read daily headlines announcing figures in the billions and
trillions. To us mere mortals with mortgages and electrical bills, these
figures are darn near meaningless.

They are meaningless in another sense too. There are some things that
government money can't buy. Peace, order, prosperity, and freedom in Iraq
are among them. Iraqi military dictator Paul Bremer, in a fit of something
approach honesty, has admitted that "several tens of billions" are necessary
in order to rebuild what the US destroyed. We aren't talking here about
setting up shopping centers and stock exchanges. This is only to get the
power back on and clean water flowing again.

"The UN estimates that to get a more or less satisfactory potable water
system in the country will cost $16 billion over four years. The 2,000
megawatts we need to add now just to meet current demand will cost $2
billion, and the engineers tell me we probably should spend about $13
billion over the next five years to get the power system" back in shape he
told the Washington Post. It is "almost impossible to exaggerate" the
country's economic needs.

Spoken like a true central planner with an unlimited budget. He bears no
personal liability for the success or failure of his plan. He need only
assist in bamboozling Congress to continue to authorize money for the
ghastly "reconstruction" effort.

So long as the government is spending the money, what incentive does it have
to economize on resources? At least an elected government could face some
reprisal from the voting population. But a foreign military dictatorship is
radically detached from the interests of the population it rules. In fact,
the occupying military regards the Iraqi population as divided between good
guys (compliant and passive) and bad guys (people who visibly resent US
presence and are seen therefore as potential threats).

Any Iraqi who resents the US presence is decried as a "Saddam loyalist," as
if the only two choices Iraq faces are between two forms of dictatorship.
More absurdly, any Iraqi who attempts to do anything about the US presence
is seen as a "terrorist." On September 11, we learned that people who come
from foreign nations and use sneaky tricks to destroy our infrastructure and
people are terrorists. But now we are being told that the people who resist
foreigners who destroy infrastructure and people are the terrorists.

In any case, these are no conditions under which to rebuild anything. But
they are the perfect conditions to spend vast amounts of money with nothing
to show for it in the end. As a wildly imperfect analogy, think of how Mike
Tyson blew through $300 million before declaring bankruptcy. He was no
financial wiz. He was just a guy who drew crowds of paying customers to see
him beat up on others, and suddenly found himself earning 8 digits. His
fortune didn't last because his temperament is disinclined to long-term
investment.

We laugh at Tyson's mismanagement but at least he earned his money by
providing something others want. The same cannot be said for the US
government. It takes all the money it has by force, and goes through a
Tyson-level fortune in less than two hours, 12 times a day, every day of the
year. Nor do the people the government beats up on enter the ring
voluntarily. What the US is doing in Iraq makes Tyson seem like a model of
humanitarianism and financial prudence.


But let's block that metaphor and move on to the fundamental economic
problem: even with the best of intentions, government has no way of knowing
the correct production priorities or best means of achieving them. It's the
socialist calculation problem, identified by Mises in 1920, all over again.
The US decided early on that it would not allow the country to be managed
privately. It has kicked out cell phone companies, airlines, and oil field
operators it has not specifically approved. What this means is that the US
is attempting to rebuild the country socialistically - in both means and
ends - which cannot work.

Meanwhile, even large cities are denied electricity most of the day. Oil is
smuggled out every day, even as oil infrastructure is blown up to keep the
US from taking what it does not own. Kidnapping for ransom and other forms
of crime are rampant. Car theft is routine. Collaborators are killed daily,
as are US troops. And in the midst of this, President Bush vows to "stay on
the offensive." If this is offense, God protect us from defense.

The presumption from the beginning of this war has been that any country can
be brought to it knees with a strong enough show of force. This seems to be
the only model the Bush administration knows. Once having embarked on a
blood and awe path in the name of freedom, it is on the verge of being the
last holdout in the world to claim its policy as a success. "The more
progress we make in Iraq, the more desperate the terrorists will become,"
says Bush, when the truth is that the more of a mess the Bush administration
makes of Iraq, the more desperate the Bush administration becomes.

The symbols of failure are all around us. Pick your favorite: the UN
headquarters and the Jordanian embassy in Iraq being bombed, soldiers being
killed everyday, the skyrocketing oil price, the widespread assumption that
Bush lied us into this war, the growing popularity of Saddam and Osama in
the Muslim world, the growing radicalism of Muslim youth worldwide, the
rising anger of families of US servicemen and women. Any one of these means
failure of the Bush policy, and no amount of protest from paid spokesmen is
going to change that.

The US started this mission with the assumption that there is nothing that
bombs cannot accomplish. We were told of the amazing, wonderful success of
this war on Iraq, and how it liberated the people of Iraq. All this time
later, with Iraq in ruins and worse, they are still defending the disaster,
and they will continue to do so. Now they tell us that there is nothing that
dollars cannot accomplish if they are spent on the right things. Who
believes them?

Whatever the results of an immediate US pullout from Iraq, it would be
better than the continuing military occupation. Bremer and his henchmen
shouldn't get one thin dime.



Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail] is president of the Ludwig von
Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, and editor of LewRockwell.com.

Copyright  2003 LewRockwell.com




_______________________________________________
Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss
To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk
All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk


[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]