Some of the worst economic analysis I have seen. The fact is that if the deaths and injuries in Iraq wre costed at the same rate as the deaths at Lockerbie the total cost would be $20 trillion, minimum. Should they be costed thusly. Absolutely. Poor people can't buy refrigerators, and the people in Iraq are certainly poorer for the invasion.

The article provides an insight into the thinking of one players, albeit one who had "loose lips" as far as the Bush "group think" administration was concerned. Lindseys analysis highlights the fundamentally flawed strategic thinking that lies behind the American system of determining foreign policy and the acolytes whose stars rise and fall, depending on the ego of the encumbent President and the self-perpetuating arrogance of an overstaffed and overfunded state department military and intelligence community, as far as foreign affairs is concerned. The issue (to me at least) is touched on by Lindsey, but is not directly addressed. To compare a stance on a world (1941-1945) or civil war (1861-1865) with the economic impact of a ... More »

The article is good only in showing the very strange mind-set bubbling away in the apologists for illegal and immoral invasions and occupations. The future cost of creating terrorists faster than you kill them is never mentioned. The costs to Iraqis of the death, destruction, displacement, and PTSD dementia seems not to have made it into his spreadsheet.

This isn't journalism but propaganda. What he does inform the reader is that the President didn't listen to his economist but to a decision he had already made. And this is born out by the writers cite of September 2002 date and the statement associated with that time of "Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill declared it was "not possible" to estimate the cost of a prospective war when the President had not yet decided to go through with it. He hadn't, but does that mean I should have waited for his decision, then made a calculation on the consequences" when the evidence available now is that the decision to invade Iraq had already been made at that time. The author states "The publicly available information indicated that if we went ... More »

This author, as an economist, has rationalized the numbers (annually) to match his projections. This is to be expected but it very biased and flawed. He gives bear lip service to cost areas that more than double his annual projections like: Continuing, in some cases lifetime, care for the 30,000 plus wounded, Our unemployment rate is understated because it doesn't include all the military personell who have returned to find no job awaiting them unless they accept being under-employed. Military suicides are at an all time high beating past war numbers by geometric amounts. The list goes on and on but it would seem the author wants to match his numbers and ignores anything that might inflate them beyond his projections.