Baghdad's municipal government is asking the United States to apologize for damages to the city and for $1 billion in damages. See here. Should we pay?
From a political science standpoint, since the US's aim is stability and peace in Iraq then the US should work towards reconstruction of the country and this would be a great step towards it. However, from a plainly economic perspective, since the US public no longer favors increases in international aid and donor programs, this would be against the public desire and welfare function. It would hence be inefficient for the government to spend money when the people have revealed their preferences through polls and other qualitative surveys.
I agree with J.J. When we started this "so called" war on terror about 10 years ago we were supposedly helping "liberate" the Iraqi people. If this is really what we are/were after then without a doubt we should be paying for the reconstruction of the city. As J.J. pointed out however, this wouldn't make much sense form an economic standpoint. But if we were going to look at this from an economic standpoint then why did we begin the war in the first place? It doesn't make much sense to me.
The middle east is such an expensive mess, this article exasperates me. I believe that we went in and caused much more long term harm then good. To be accountable we have to pay for it. As JJ said, whether we have that money is an entirely different issue.
agreed... we've invested so much into this war already. It does not make much economic sense to invest another billion dollars into this unfavorable war, but by not doing so, we would be taking a step back in the goal for piece that we set out to obtain so long ago
JJ best articulated my view of this situation. I wonder how the local people would react if the US pulled out of Baghdad, just stop the damage that has occurred?
It sounds like the American military has severely damaged the infrastructure and aesthetics of the city, but it seems like these blast walls and some other destruction have been necessary in maintaining the protection and safety of the military and the Iraqi people. I'm sure the US government will end up paying for the damages even though our country doesn't really have the money to do so.
We did it after WWII, so why not now? Last I heard, we started it anyways. I agree with JJ to a point when he says that "since the US public no longer favors increases in international aid and donor programs, this would be against the public desire and welfare function." However, that is the prevailing opinion now. When we invaded the Afghanistan the public was squarely behind the war save for a few. I dont think we get to just blow up a country and walk away because it hasnt turned out the way we want to and now we are against the war. Seems like we would stand to lose more credibility and make more enemies that way. In addition, its a billion dollars. The government talks about that like its pocket change. We coughed up 700 times that amount in a matter of weeks to save a bunch of banks that have been much more harmful to this country than the Taliban, so why not fork over quick billion under the table for blowing up an entire nation?
As everyone has already mentioned, this war does not make economic sense from any standpoint. I believe we should have never gone there in the first place nor should we have stayed there for so long. I do however believe that we owe it to the Iraqi people to fix the societal probelms that we have caused. Unfortunately we are at the point where we can't even (realistically) afford to pay for these damages... So why are so many of our troops still there?
From a political science standpoint, since the US's aim is stability and peace in Iraq then the US should work towards reconstruction of the country and this would be a great step towards it. However, from a plainly economic perspective, since the US public no longer favors increases in international aid and donor programs, this would be against the public desire and welfare function. It would hence be inefficient for the government to spend money when the people have revealed their preferences through polls and other qualitative surveys.
ReplyDeleteI agree with J.J. When we started this "so called" war on terror about 10 years ago we were supposedly helping "liberate" the Iraqi people. If this is really what we are/were after then without a doubt we should be paying for the reconstruction of the city. As J.J. pointed out however, this wouldn't make much sense form an economic standpoint. But if we were going to look at this from an economic standpoint then why did we begin the war in the first place? It doesn't make much sense to me.
ReplyDeleteThe middle east is such an expensive mess, this article exasperates me. I believe that we went in and caused much more long term harm then good. To be accountable we have to pay for it. As JJ said, whether we have that money is an entirely different issue.
ReplyDeleteagreed... we've invested so much into this war already. It does not make much economic sense to invest another billion dollars into this unfavorable war, but by not doing so, we would be taking a step back in the goal for piece that we set out to obtain so long ago
ReplyDeleteJJ best articulated my view of this situation. I wonder how the local people would react if the US pulled out of Baghdad, just stop the damage that has occurred?
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like the American military has severely damaged the infrastructure and aesthetics of the city, but it seems like these blast walls and some other destruction have been necessary in maintaining the protection and safety of the military and the Iraqi people. I'm sure the US government will end up paying for the damages even though our country doesn't really have the money to do so.
ReplyDeleteWe did it after WWII, so why not now? Last I heard, we started it anyways. I agree with JJ to a point when he says that "since the US public no longer favors increases in international aid and donor programs, this would be against the public desire and welfare function." However, that is the prevailing opinion now. When we invaded the Afghanistan the public was squarely behind the war save for a few. I dont think we get to just blow up a country and walk away because it hasnt turned out the way we want to and now we are against the war. Seems like we would stand to lose more credibility and make more enemies that way.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, its a billion dollars. The government talks about that like its pocket change. We coughed up 700 times that amount in a matter of weeks to save a bunch of banks that have been much more harmful to this country than the Taliban, so why not fork over quick billion under the table for blowing up an entire nation?
As everyone has already mentioned, this war does not make economic sense from any standpoint. I believe we should have never gone there in the first place nor should we have stayed there for so long. I do however believe that we owe it to the Iraqi people to fix the societal probelms that we have caused. Unfortunately we are at the point where we can't even (realistically) afford to pay for these damages... So why are so many of our troops still there?
ReplyDelete