« Wellstone and Krugman | Main | More Wellstone »
October 25, 2007
Your World in Charts: War on Terror Edition
Via Mark Thoma comes this CBO report totaling "the funding provided through fiscal year 2007 for military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other activities associated with the war on terrorism, as well as for related costs incurred by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for medical care, disability compensation, and survivors’ benefits." The trend is telling:
The numbers are striking. 2001 and 2002 are straight efforts against terrorists, against the Taliban, in pursuit of those who harmed us on 9/11. 2003 and forward are those costs, plus Iraq. And Iraq's costs are huge. Imagine a strategy aimed at global jihadism which used the same resources, the same billions, to track terrorist networks, to improve intelligence gathering, to deploy soft power and humanitarian efforts aimed at improving our image, to increase financial incentives for Middle East powers to play a constructive role in the Israel/Palestine peace process, etc, etc, etc.
Instead, that money, those hundreds of billions, have funded a failed war, subsidized the deaths of thousands, destroyed our image in the Muslim world, harmed our global moral authority, recruited terrorists and trained them in urban operations, weakened our military and exposed the limits of our power. That is what we have spent it on. That is what we have bought.
October 25, 2007 in Charts | Permalink
Comments
To agree with you completely, one must believe that the simple fact that we have not had a major terrorist attack in over 6 years is a coincidence, that the attack on 9/11 was an isolated occurance, that there are no groups out there plotting against us and that we are not in a continuing struggle with them.
If that is what you believe, then your post makes perfect sense.
Posted by: El Viajero | Oct 25, 2007 12:59:18 PM
That makes perfect sense El Viajero,
If you believe that breaking our Military's back in Iraq while bankrupting the country over said failed endeavor is protecting the country from terrorism by magical osmosis.....
If that is what you believe, then your post makes perfect sense.
Posted by: Zedd | Oct 25, 2007 1:38:24 PM
"destroyed our image in the Muslim world,"
Yeah! They loved the US before we invaded Iraq.
Oh, wait a minute......9/11/2001?
Posted by: abg | Oct 25, 2007 1:41:46 PM
"Yeah! They loved the US before we invaded Iraq."
They didn't love us, but they at least tolerated and perhaps even feared us.
Now, not so much.
Posted by: Doug H. | Oct 25, 2007 1:48:13 PM
"They didn't love us, but they at least tolerated and perhaps even feared us."
If they tolerated us, why did they attack our country on 9/11/2001?
If they feared us, why did they attack our country on 9/11/2001?
Posted by: abg | Oct 25, 2007 2:01:54 PM
uhhhhh ABG...
who exactly are 'THEY' in your context? Your are conflating 'THEY' as in the entire world of radical Muslims from the above comment with your own 'THEY" as in the specific group of criminals that perpetrated the 9/11 attacks......these seem to me to be 2 separate entities and you seem quite confused.....
Posted by: Zedd | Oct 25, 2007 2:06:46 PM
Wow!
or unfuckinbelievable!
and we let it happen or happen to us
America? Americans?
Wow!
Posted by: has_te | Oct 25, 2007 2:09:56 PM
zedd,
I guess you missed the thousands of Palestinians dancing in the streets and passing out candy to the children after they heard about what happened in NYC on 9/11.
You ever see the childrens shows in the West Bank and Gaza?
Posted by: abg | Oct 25, 2007 2:12:11 PM
Not my point ABG....your post was completely disingenuous.
Posted by: Zedd | Oct 25, 2007 2:16:24 PM
Instead, that money, those hundreds of billions, have funded a failed war, subsidized the deaths of thousands, destroyed our image in the Muslim world, harmed our global moral authority, recruited terrorists and trained them in urban operations, weakened our military and exposed the limits of our power. That is what we have spent it on.
Or, rather, that's what you believe we have spent it on. Every one of your assertions is highly disputed.
The money we've spent on Afghanistan, Iraq and the War on Terror since 2001 amounts to less than 1% of GDP over the same period. Its impact on the economy is negligible. That's one reason why you have so much trouble provoking strong opposition to the war among Americans. It just doesn't have any significant impact on the lives of the vast majority of people.
Posted by: JasonR | Oct 25, 2007 2:20:30 PM
JasonR - No one (at least not Ezra in this post) has suggested that the war is a drain on the economy. Rather, the point is that the war is funneling money away from anti-terror measures that may actually be effective, not to mention domestic spending.
Additionally, I'm not sure where you got the idea that there is no strong opposition to the war, but all available polling data suggests you pulled it out of your ass.
Posted by: Dungheap | Oct 25, 2007 2:32:12 PM
I'd like to explore the notion that Zedd brough up and that is the that it was only individuals that we are at war with and there really is not conspiracy among radical Muslims. ABG is correct in that the radical Muslims from most all Arab countries would like to see you and all of your family die. A concerted effort to destroy the US is, indeed, in play.
That's the reason why Zedd and others like him would not like to vacation in Arab countries that we are not at war with.
Posted by: El Viajero | Oct 25, 2007 2:44:17 PM
Rather, the point is that the war is funneling money away from anti-terror measures that may actually be effective, not to mention domestic spending.
Those are just more disputed assertions.
I'd love to see your polling data showing strong opposition to the war. There's a difference between believing the war was the right thing to do at the time but has turned out to be a mistake, and being strongly opposed to it. The fact that even the Democrats are not pushing hard for a policy of immediate withdrawal illustrates just how weak and ambivalent public opposition to the war is.
Posted by: JasonR | Oct 25, 2007 2:46:11 PM
JasonR - Simply because an assertion is disputed doesn't make the assertion untrue. It simply means that it is disputed.
I hope this helps.
Posted by: Dungheap | Oct 25, 2007 2:53:16 PM
Um, JasonR, go here to get the numbers:
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
Here, I'll help:
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 12-14
"Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in Iraq?"
Favor: 65%
Oppose: 34%
Unsure: 2%
There's lots more at the link. What's really weak is your ability to comprehend public opinion survey data.
Posted by: pinson | Oct 25, 2007 3:06:17 PM
dungheap,
JasonR - Simply because an assertion is disputed doesn't make the assertion untrue. It simply means that it is disputed.
And simply because it's asserted doesn't make it true. Ezra offers no argument or evidence to support his assertions here.
pinson,
You're not listening. Yes, a majority of Americans now say they oppose the war. But how strongly do they oppose it? How big of an issue do they think it is? How much effect will it have on their vote? Do you have any data on that?
Posted by: JasonR | Oct 25, 2007 3:12:47 PM
The so called war on terror always brings this quote to my mind:
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed – and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken
Posted by: Floccina | Oct 25, 2007 3:20:33 PM
JasonR:
Let me follow up on pinson's point. First, vast majorities oppose the Iraq War. Second:
CBS News Poll. Sept. 14-16, 2007. N=706 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4.
"What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?" Open-ended
War in Iraq 28%
Economy/Jobs 16%
Health care 8%
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Sept. 4-7, 2007. N=1,002 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.
"Thinking ahead to the November 2008 presidential election, what is the single most important issue in your choice for president?" Open-ended
War in Iraq 35%
Health care 13%
Get the drift here?
Further, You know full well that there are myriad sources to substantiate the so-called disputed assertions you have qualms with.
Posted by: Dungheap | Oct 25, 2007 3:29:15 PM
No El Viajero,
Sorry to bust your little preset argument, no I am NOT claiming that there are no relations with the groups that planned the 9/11 attack and the larger picture of fundamentalist Muslims - that would be absurd....
My sole intention was to point out the ABG's hysterical jumbling of the specifics and the broad were making a completely false argument - his point was false.
One question however? Do you believe Jerry Falwell was personally responsible for giving marching orders to Paul Hill? What about Clayton Waagner?? My point being that your veiled assertion that there is a monolithic singular Muslim enemy about to actually destroy the US is indicative of some serious paranoia issues at the very least....
Religious extremists hate the US? You betcha - you can find them in out out of our country at this point.......of all flavors and stripes. Vigilance is something we will always need - but your pants pissing fear coupled with weak arguments seems to be the best you can muster at defending an administration hell bent on weakening us in every way imaginable out of sheer greed while keeping people like you in fear....tremble away.....I prefer to find real solutions that DON'T involve siphoning out all of our real securities and freedoms by criminals.
Posted by: Zedd | Oct 25, 2007 3:40:37 PM
dungheap,
The polling data you cite does not address my questions. What proportion of that 35% who rank the war the most important issue in the presidential race are opponents of the war rather than supporters? And what proportion of the opponents favor a policy of immediate or near-term withdrawal?
You're cherry-picking your data, too. The CBS News poll shows huge swings in the rankings of various issues between July, September and October, suggesting that public opinion is highly volatile, and making it difficult to draw reliable conclusions.
Posted by: JasonR | Oct 25, 2007 3:47:43 PM
CBS News Poll, Oct 12-16:
"How much longer do you think large numbers of U.S. troops will have to remain in Iraq: for less than a year, one to two years, two to five years, or will U.S. troops have to stay in Iraq for longer than five years?"
Less than a year: 10%
One to Two Years: 26%
Two to Five Years: 32%
Longer than Five Years: 22%
So, according to this very recent poll, nine out of ten Americans believe that large numbers of U.S. troops will have to remain in Iraq for at least another year. Over half believe we'll be there for at least another two years. And more than a fifth believe we'll be there more than five years (over twice as many as believe we'll be mostly out within a year).
These results do not give proponents of immediate or near-term withdrawal much cause for optimism.
Posted by: JasonR | Oct 25, 2007 3:53:57 PM
Zedd,
Did you see Christians dancing in the streets and celebrating abortion clinic bombings? No! Christians condemned them.
About 30 to 40% of the world's Muslims believe that suicide bombins and terrorism against civilian targets is sometimes or often justified. A far greater percentage support the destruction of Israel. There are one billion Muslims in the world.
Posted by: abg | Oct 25, 2007 4:49:29 PM
No! Christians condemned them.
*Condemned*? How many Christians?
And don't tell me *none* of them celebrated.
As a percentage, I'll bet as many celebrated abortion clinic bombings as Arabs did celebrating 9/11. Religious fanatics are religious fanatics.
And you are still pissing your pants in senseless fear.
Posted by: Captain Goto | Oct 25, 2007 5:45:25 PM
Your forgetting the Iraq war also caused Global Warming, and surprising Rickets.
Posted by: Patton | Oct 25, 2007 6:05:33 PM
"I guess you missed the thousands of Palestinians dancing in the streets and passing out candy to the children after they heard about what happened in NYC on 9/11."
No, what I really miss is the French newspapers with headlines saying "Nous Sommes Tous Americans", and the candlelight vigils in Tehran after 9/11. I miss when we were looked upon as being a power that saved the world from totalitarian ideology (twice), that consolidated its power and influence by creation of international institutions, that respected and promoted human rights, instead of a punch-drunk incompetent, fearful, unpredictable power that ditches Enlightenment concepts of human rights and the limitations of the state whenever the ruling party deems it necessary.
That's what I miss.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan | Oct 25, 2007 6:37:06 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
