After the full tally is reached, the authors then continue on with
“Global Consequences” where the economy reaches into a more politicized
arena. The attempt to bring free market capitalism to Iraq via “shock
and awe” therapy, combined with a complete disregard for international
law have created a scenario where the U.S. is more feared, more
disliked, than ever before on a global scale. Oil becomes one of the
main areas of interest as the cost of oil (today hitting $112 per
barrel) has ramifications throughout the world for the obvious area of
transportation and its resulting cost increases, and also in areas like
agriculture with the rapid rise in fertilizer prices. Associated with
that, though not developed in this work, is the parallel technological
search for alternate bio-fuels, both from a price and environmental
perspective. The rush for “green” fuels that are cheaper and more
environmentally friendly is fatally flawed as their costs, monetarily
and environmentally, are more than the value gained from the product.
There is not much to argue with the bulk of this project, but as the
authors reach into ideas for “Exiting Iraq” and “Learning From Our
Mistakes” there is room for improvement. Specifically, Stiglitz still
considers that the U.S. and its organizations of the Washington
Consensus are the means by which the world can rejuvenate itself from
the disasters of the very same institutions, disasters that Stiglitz
himself acknowledges.[2]
Stiglitz and Bilmes indicate that “American leadership is important for
addressing a host of global problems confronting the modern world,” a
highly arguable statement. Cooperation and participation, yes, but
there is a noticeable lack of leadership in any of America’s
relationships with the world today. Most previous leadership also
centred around American power, its self-centred privileges, and its
jingoistic exceptionalism of universal values and moral right combined
with its advocacy of free market capitalism that has damaged so much of
the world economically. The world does not need any more of that.
The first step, that is addressed well, is to get the U.S. out of Iraq.
Unfortunately, that comes up against the reality of a huge
political-military-industrial complex that is profiting greatly from
the instability in the Middle East, not to mention the reality of the
powerful Israeli lobby that is content to have America embroiled in a
war that minimizes Israeli intentions within Palestine. As 2008
progresses, there is also significant evidence that none of the major
candidates for the presidency will be able to affect change swiftly or
at all, nor are they interested in decreasing their militant rhetoric
against their next possible victim, Iran.
The suggestions for learning from their mistakes carry reasonable
arguments as far as they go. There are the obvious points of having
national (Congress) and international “checks and balances…on the power
of the U.S. president.” Great idea, but unrealistic in a unilateral
pre-emptive governance mode. Most of the reforms beyond that are
directed at accounting procedures, natural from an economist’s point of
view. While not supporting a military draft, they do bring a free
market message into military recruiting – if it is so difficult to
recruit volunteers, “our political leaders should listen to their
message” - another great idea, but one that history indicates that the
leaders of any country really do not care about the views of either
volunteers or conscripts while fulfilling their own needs. Probably the
most significant argument that would bring the war to the forefront of
public discourse is their suggestion that “a war tax should be levied
to fund such an expenditure” and not disguise the costs for future
generations to pay.
In their final statement, they do get it right: “…war is about men and
women brutally killing and maiming other men and women. The costs live
on long after the last shot has been fired.”
What is not learned is that perhaps the world is overburdened with
American leadership, with American rhetoric and jingoism about its
supposed universal values that are applied very much in the homeland’s
self-interest. The reforms America needs to undertake would be immense
– deconstructing the military-political-business alliance that will
continue to plunder the world for the benefit of the elite few at the
top. With the largest war budget in the world (bigger than all others
combined) and with many hundreds of military installations spread
around the world and with the subordination of the NATO countries as
military mercenaries, the U.S. may surrender a touch of direct
confrontation and soften its rhetoric, but it will still remain
confrontational in its economic and military spheres, backed by the
premise of a global war on terror of which it is one of the main
contributors.
[1] Wilson, Jamie. “Iraq war could cost US over $2 trillion, says Nobel
prize-winning economist.” The Guardian. Saturday, Jamuary 07, 2006. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/07/usa.iraq
[2] see Stiglitz and Charlton Fair Trade for All and Stiglitz Making Globalization Work, both flawed works. See reviews at http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=13127 and http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=13092.
Jim Miles is a Canadian educator and a regular contributor/columnist of
opinion pieces and book reviews for The Palestine Chronicle. Miles’
work is also presented globally through other alternative websites and
news publications.
Book Reviews 
Following on their previous pronouncement that war costs could amount to as much as 1 trillion to 2 trillion dollars, ten times more than even then previously thought [1], Stiglitz and Bilmes have furthered their research into the cost of the war with their new title
Subscribe to this comment's feed
