To the Editor
Photo by Getty Images
Inefficient Use of Resources
I was disappointed to read the review by Professor Murphy (in particular) of the cost of the Iraq war. One question I’d like answered is whether his support would include participation on the front lines by him or his next of kin. I have to imagine that he would find that an inefficient use of resources, which I find to typically be the case of many “supporters.”
Jim Jelin, ’91, Alpharetta, Georgia
Send “Cost of War” to Congress
The article about the cost of the Iraq war should be sent to every member of Congress with special attention to the presidential candidates.
Karen Krey, Houston, Texas
Calculating the Cost of Containment
Thirty-three years is an awfully long time horizon to use for the cost of containing Iraq. If one used a third of that time period, the net-present value (NPV) would be $80 billion ($9.7 billion for 11 years at 5 percent discount rate). Other economists have estimated the total direct and indirect costs of the war at $1 to $1.5 trillion; $80 billion looks a lot more attractive, and this without factoring in the cost of American and Iraqi lives.
Could the authors do a study on the NPV of invading Saudi Arabia (to lower the price of oil)? Presumably it would generate a much lower figure than the NPV of the current status quo, with a cartel keeping oil at $60 per barrel. Ah, the inefficiencies of certain human activities and institutions (e.g., democracy, sovereign states)! These must drive our professors at the GSB to distraction. Thank heavens, though, that these folks do not run this country’s foreign policy.
Hugh Morgan, ’88, Alameda, California
Real Cost of War Will Be Higher
The new format and cover of the magazine represent an improvement over the old one. Just keep it that way.
The interview with Raghuram Rajan was excellent. It’s one of the more interesting articles you’ve had in the past few issues. “The Cost of War” also was good, but I think that the real cost will be much higher through the war than containment because we have managed to lose much of the Muslim world without gaining anything there or in Iraq. The opinion of Bush and his Bible Belt supporters is extremely low here in Germany, where I live, and he has lost good will in much of the Western world as well. Was it worth it? I personally don’t think so.
John Meyer, AB ’51, MBA ’54, Germany
Did Pro-War Stance Color Assumptions?
I was sorely disappointed to read “The Cost of War.” Kevin Murphy admits a wide array of assumptions are necessary to complete such a study. Can there be any doubt that his other admission of being pro-war since the beginning colored his assumptions? In particular, the team’s assumption of a linear projection of deaths under Saddam Hussein is a fallacy. By far, most deaths occurred early in his reign or following U.S. provocation, such as quashing the Kurdish uprising following the 1991 war.
Next, assigning a dollar value to a human life is morally bankrupt. Courts do it post-mortem because there is no alternative in arriving at a damage figure. To use such a figure as a potential expense in weighing the relative merits of war implies the people killed would, on average, opt to exchange their life for that figure. To validate their figures, perhaps the researchers could study the number of people willing to make that trade. Finally, the Iraqi economic downturn they cite does not distinguish between pre- and postsanction periods, but lumps them together.
With conservative apologists on the faculty, is it any surprise the University of Chicago community is often, to my embarrassment, frequently written off as hired hacks? I thought the U of C was about seeking truth. There was no truth-seeking in mind with this study. It is propagandistic baloney, pure and simple.
Steve Carle, ’87, Bloomington, Minnesota
“A Ridiculous Academic Exercise”
The basic idea of comparing the likely costs of alternative courses of action, as the authors of “The Cost of War” undertake to do, is, of course, reasonable. But attempting to approach a complex decision such as the invasion of Iraq may not be reasonable. The article reports a ridiculous academic exercise. Considering alternatives, surely there are far more productive uses for the time of the faculty of the University of Chicago, as well as the pages of your magazine.
The consequences of such a decision are so uncertain and unmeasurable that the attempt to reduce probable outcomes quantitatively is doomed to produce only nonsense. For example, so far as is reported, the authors make no attempt to account for the effect of the precedent of starting an illegal, aggressive war, on future decisions by others, which may swamp the numbers presented. They take no account of the effect of the Iraqi invasion on the ability of the U.S. to threaten or to undertake other military action, or to address other problem countries, or the cost of the effect on relations with European countries. While they acknowledge that the war may have “actually raised the risk of terror attacks against U.S. interests,” which is surely likely, their calculations assume that the war reduced such risks.
They assign a high cost to possible U.S. action to contain Hussein, giving little or no attention to alternative scenarios. The notion that Iraq in 2001 represented a threat to the U.S. is preposterous, as is an assumption that countries other than the U.S. would not act to contain any ambitions Hussein may develop. After all, an aggressive Iraq is far more threatening to its neighbors than to the U.S.
The cost of war to all participants is enormous. Voluntarily adhering to established international norms is one factor reducing the likelihood of war. Violating those norms, as the U.S. did by invading, and then in other ways, such as engaging in torture, sets precedents that may well lead to human suffering and financial costs far beyond anything the authors attempted to take into account.
Milt Laurentian, ’60 (XP-16), Gloucester, Massachusetts
Excusing U.S. Leadership
I find this article to be a ridiculous effort to defend those who pushed our country into needless war in Iraq. The assumptions made in the paper are completely baseless and are a result of rhetoric that pushed us into the war in the first place. To say that we would need 33 years to contain Hussein is a ridiculous statement. It is enough to look at Libya to clearly see that the authors of the paper have no idea about Middle East or world affairs. Based on their assumptions, we should have bombed the U.S.S.R., not contained it, which is basically the same as saying that Ronald Reagan had a bad vision of the world. Moreover, to say that more Iraqis would die is baseless in itself as it is now well known, based on several respected studies, that the mortality rate in Iraq is now several times higher than what it was before the war. These terrible crimes by Hussein, while mostly true, were still based on political statements of Iraqis who fled his regime. There is no proof at all today, four years after we captured all Hussein’s highest-ranking officials, that shows these terrible numbers cited by the authors as evidence of future deaths.
On the other hand, this country lost 3,100 of its finest citizens in this war. And it is infuriating to claim that we would fight Hussein one day even if we waited years. The fact that authors again mention 9/11 in the paper about Iraq shows their true effort to link Iraq to terrorism, which was never the case and was never shown to exist.
This is a ridiculous paper that tries to excuse those who pushed us into war by using the same false arguments. It is nothing but a Monday-morning-quarterback effort to excuse the leadership of this country and, I would guess, their own errors of judgment.
Greg Mitkovetskiy, ’05, Vernon Hills, Illinois
Speculating on Containment Costs
Please look at the Boston Globe article, "Economists say cost of war could top $2 trillion ." I would believe Joseph Stiglitz over the conclusions of Steven Davis, Kevin Murphy, and Robert Topel. I appreciate the admission of bias in that they were in favor of the preemptive strike against Iraq. Even Stiglitz did not consider all of the costs of the war. Consider these facts:
The Iraqi citizen is economically worse off than before the war.
There are two million refugees who have fled to Syria and Jordan since the start of the war, giving those respective governments enormous problems.
The influence of Iran in the region has increased substantially, and its nuclear threat is not being effectively dealt with as a result.
Estimates of total deaths in excess of normal deaths are from 600,000 to one million, according to reliable studies.
The Taliban is making a comeback in Afghanistan as a result of the drain on U.S. forces caused by the war in Iraq.
A civil war is raging in Iraq, and the consequences could well be a dictatorship far worse than Hussein’s.
The questions asked by Davis, Murphy, and Topel were correct in that the cost of containment must be considered. However, their estimates of the cost of containment seemed to be pure speculation. I admit my own bias: I was opposed to the preemptive strike against Iraq from the very start. The article “In Defense of International Rules on the Use of Force” by Oscar Schachter (The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 53, No. 1 [Winter, 1986], pp. 113–46) is the basis for my objection to the preemptive strike. I don’t know how to put a price tag on such considerations.
Robert Greaves, ’66, Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin
Considering Other Costs of War
“The Cost of War” from the viewpoint of three economists was interesting and unusual, but far from complete. A cold peace is nearly always preferable to a hot war. As a WWII veteran who has studied the history and cultures of all 158 countries I have traveled in, I find that economics is not the most important viewpoint. However, let’s first look further at economics. The Iraq war has already cost more than $400 billion for our nation and is expected to cost far more. The authors estimated the cost of containment at only $14.5 billion a year but the war is expected to cost at least $170 billion this year alone! After six years of Bush’s rule, our national debt has soared from about $5,700 billion to $8,718 billion. Each family of four now owes about $116,250. Republicans won the 1952 election by showing that our national debt had climbed to $259 billion under Democrats, after the Great Depression, World War II, and the Korean War. Reagan and Bush Sr. increased our national debt by three times as much in only 12 years as in our previous 204 years as a nation—from $900 billion to $4.5 trillion! Under Hussein, Iraq satisfied a big portion of the world’s insatiable demand for petroleum. Now terrorists destroy a pipeline soon after it becomes functional. The dollar dropped like a rock as we became the world’s biggest debtor.
Any welcome invader soon becomes an unpopular colonizer. The Iraq war and its aftermath were poorly planned by people who knew little about the history and culture of the Middle East. Many of Iraq’s priceless artifacts, carefully rescued and studied by archeologists from the University of Chicago and others, were lost forever when looters were permitted to steal them from Baghdad’s once-great museum. We now have fewer windows to mankind’s early culture. Our invasion exacerbated and revived ancient hostilities between Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. We stirred and shook the dangerous pot that the Middle East has been for eons. Where it ends is unknown, but if we avoid an unending world war, we will be lucky. We have created enemies everywhere and made international travel for Americans more dangerous. The country that gave the world Washington, Lincoln, the Good Neighbor Policy, and the Marshall Plan now ignores international law that civilization has developed, and we will never again be trusted or respected. Saddam Hussein, our former ally, was no worse than some of our other allies, such as Marcos, Pol Pot, Iran’s Shah, and the tinhorn dictators of Latin America. A dictator who is cruel like Hussein is sometimes the best ruler for a heterogeneous group of quarreling peoples. Most Iraqis say they lived better then than now. All religions were accepted, and women could go to any university and safely work in respected professions. Can they now? Backward mullahs and terrorist groups now replace Iraq’s once-secular society.
Wesley Wilson, ’54, Olympia, Washington
Thinking Critically
Today I had the very fulfilling experience of thoroughly perusing the winter magazine. I found a great deal to admire and even more to make me think critically about some of the subjects so cogently reasoned and presented. “The Cost of War” was truly surprising to me in how the analyses were conducted and in the conclusions reached. I find myself in substantial agreement with the conclusions reached!
The profile on the workings of the IMF was well written and elucidated many aspects of international finance to which I had never given thought or attention. “Globalization and the Gains from Variety” was a delight to read. Since this is the new face of the magazine, I say keep up the level of accomplishment exemplified by this issue.
Douglas Rosenberg, SB ’63, MBA ’69, Columbus, Indiana
“Underwhelming” Tribute to Friedman
Thank you for that underwhelming tribute to Milton Friedman in the latest magazine. You couldn’t have done much less for this man, whose resoluteness in bringing his ideas on the free market and individual freedom to the world make him one of the greatest men of the 20th century.
I don’t need to tell you the extent of his influence: bringing down the Wall; bringing down the Soviet Union; turning Britain on its ear; helping Estonia, Chile, and other countries achieve; and even helping China to ease into the world marketplace. The masses of humans today who are better off because of his influence are uncountable.
Someday, this country will look back and find that it was literally saved by the revolution in education that will result from Friedman’s ideas on school choice. Hopefully, we will recognize the source of our salvation in those times. Friedman deserves a cover on our magazine and a larger-than-life spread— a fitting tribute to the larger-than-life man it would honor.
Robert Brinson, ’70, Mount Pleasant, North Carolina
Unique Content
I agree with you that this alumni magazine offers unique content. The Critical Dialogues series is starting with a timely discussion between Ted and Raghuram Rajan. It sets a high bar for an exchange routine that I am sure you will match each edition.
Especially interesting also is the “The Cost of War” feature. It is discussed in the intellectual, unbiased Chicago manner. I think that the GSB universe will appreciate the analysis by three strong thinkers.
I am entering the Chicago VA Hospital in March and will share this piece with many of my veteran brothers and sisters. I am having complete shoulder replacement surgery due to my hooking of a ski on an easy downhill run, at the end of the day, in Aspen. What was bone and socket will become titanium and plastic—I’ll become the $6 million XP-39!
My surgery team has agreed upon a fast track rehab, directed by a force recon Marine at the VA, and it will form the final chapter of my fitness book, Pull Your Own Weight—see the March 2006 XP newsletter for more: ChicagoGSB. edu/email/xp/gupdate/Mar06/#gleason.
This may be of interest to readers who may experience similar surgery that will enable them to continue an active, athletic lifestyle in their future.
John A. Gleason Jr., ’77 (XP-39), Chicago
A Voice From XP-10
After reading so many reports of the deaths of members of the XP-10 class in the winter issue, I thought you might be interested in hearing from a member of the XP-10 class who is a long way from dead. There are still a few of us XP-10s left, though the number was not sufficient several years ago to continue the operation for another 50 years of Executive Associates, the investment group we formed at the suggestion of (former dean) John Jeuck, AB ’37, MBA ’83, PhD ’49. Living in Florida, I have finally lost track of the last “Associate” with whom I occasionally met and corresponded.
I’m currently a director of the Martin Memorial Medical Center and of the Martin Memorial Foundation of Stuart, Florida. I also serve as a director and chairman of the audit committee of the Martin County Library Foundation. I played tennis and golf regularly until I injured my back and now swim daily. I read omnivorously—and quickly—as a result of the speed reading course I took at Chicago. One of our main hobbies has been travel. Another is philanthropy.
I like the new format of your magazine, especially the analysis of critical issues and the reports of what faculty members are reading. I welcome direction beyond the New York Times bestseller lists.
Alonzo (Lon) Kight, ’54 (XP-10), Stuart, Florida
