The wages of war: A "lose-lose" proposition
Armed conflicts have been around for as long as there have been arms and human societies on earth. The scale of these conflicts and their potential for imparting widespread and indiscriminate death and destruction have grown exponentially in modern times. The threat posed by modern warfare raises the following question: What keeps parties in a political disagreement from making the obviously rational and preferable choice of avoiding military conflict and maximizing the combined outcome to both?
Nobel laureate Ronald Coase, Professor Emeritus of Law and Economics at the University of Chicago has proposed the “Coase Theorem.” According to this idea, two parties have an incentive to reach an agreement that maximizes the combined outcome for both. Furthermore, it is in the interest of the party who benefits the greatest to provide sufficient compensation to the other party to make the exchange worthwhile. Clearly war does not offer such an outcome to the warring parties. As such, it is cannot be considered a rational activity.
The development and stockpiling of modern weapons by bureaucratic governments is usually justified on the basis of appeals to defense and national security. A compelling argument can be made, however, that the existence of such weapons generally, and armed conflicts in particular, contribute to political instability, making nations willing to resort to such barbaric tactics less secure. The argument advanced during the cold war that the threat of mutual annihilation is a deterrent against the use of nuclear weapons no longer seems plausible in a world inhabited by a seemingly unlimited supply of extremists whose fondest wish is for a glorious “martyrdom” in the name of their God.
In the aftermath of the U.S. led invasion of Iraq, pro-war apologists began announcing the advent of a “better world” resulting from Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s ouster from power. Although few long for the days when Saddam was free to exploit and terrorize the Iraqi people and his neighbors in the Middle East, one has to wonder if war was the best alternative for containing him or removing the threat represented by his brutal regime.
While it was certainly heartening to see the Iraqi citizens casting their votes in the recent election, the cost of this achievement cannot be overestimated. To date over 1,400 America soldiers are reported killed in Iraq and over 150 civilian contractors, missionaries, and civilian workers have died. Over 40 international media workers have also been killed. The economic cost to the U.S. continues to spiral, and is expected soon to top $300 billion U.S.
According to The New England Journal of Medicine, 1 in 6 soldiers returning from war in Iraq showed signs of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depression, or severe anxiety. A study by the Institute for Policy Studies and Foreign Policy In Focus reported between 12,800 and 14,843 Iraqi civilians had been killed as of September 2004 as a result of the U.S. led invasion and occupation, while an estimated 40,000 Iraqis have been injured. Between 4,895 and 6,370 Iraqi soldiers and insurgents were killed during “major combat” operations, according to this report. The Iraqi infrastructure is in shambles.
Top U.S. national security officials testified before the U.S. Congress last week that the Iraq war and U.S occupation has had the unintended result of providing a powerful stimulus for the recruitment of “holy warriors” for Islamic extremist organizations who are outraged by U.S. and other unwanted Western influences within Muslim societies. Was the war a mistake? The decision makers will never admit it.
The parties responsible for launching the 9-11 attacks are losers as well. The hijackers lost their lives, and those who inspired them have lost a major political stronghold in Afghanistan. Although a few high profile leaders remain at large, there are hefty bounties on their heads. They will clearly need to remain in hiding and at risk for capture or death for the rest of their lives. Rather than achieving their dream of reducing foreign influence in the Middle East, we now find Western troops occupying two Moslem countries with no end in sight.
Clearly, all sides have experienced a net loss since 9-11. Is war a rational enterprise? I would think the answer is resoundingly “no.”
On the question of what keeps parties from making the rational choice of avoiding conflict and maximizing the combined outcome to both, Professor Douglass North, Nobel laureate and Professor at Washington University in St Louis has some thoughts on the subject.
Dr. North was scheduled to speak at Asian University on Friday, March 4, 2005, however was forced to cancel due to illness. We are disappointed that will not be able to be with us on Friday, and wish him a speedy recovery. We are pleased to present the transcript of his speech which he sent us in advance.
Nobel laureate Ronald Coase, Professor Emeritus of Law and Economics at the University of Chicago has proposed the “Coase Theorem.” According to this idea, two parties have an incentive to reach an agreement that maximizes the combined outcome for both. Furthermore, it is in the interest of the party who benefits the greatest to provide sufficient compensation to the other party to make the exchange worthwhile. Clearly war does not offer such an outcome to the warring parties. As such, it is cannot be considered a rational activity.
The development and stockpiling of modern weapons by bureaucratic governments is usually justified on the basis of appeals to defense and national security. A compelling argument can be made, however, that the existence of such weapons generally, and armed conflicts in particular, contribute to political instability, making nations willing to resort to such barbaric tactics less secure. The argument advanced during the cold war that the threat of mutual annihilation is a deterrent against the use of nuclear weapons no longer seems plausible in a world inhabited by a seemingly unlimited supply of extremists whose fondest wish is for a glorious “martyrdom” in the name of their God.
In the aftermath of the U.S. led invasion of Iraq, pro-war apologists began announcing the advent of a “better world” resulting from Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s ouster from power. Although few long for the days when Saddam was free to exploit and terrorize the Iraqi people and his neighbors in the Middle East, one has to wonder if war was the best alternative for containing him or removing the threat represented by his brutal regime.
While it was certainly heartening to see the Iraqi citizens casting their votes in the recent election, the cost of this achievement cannot be overestimated. To date over 1,400 America soldiers are reported killed in Iraq and over 150 civilian contractors, missionaries, and civilian workers have died. Over 40 international media workers have also been killed. The economic cost to the U.S. continues to spiral, and is expected soon to top $300 billion U.S.
According to The New England Journal of Medicine, 1 in 6 soldiers returning from war in Iraq showed signs of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depression, or severe anxiety. A study by the Institute for Policy Studies and Foreign Policy In Focus reported between 12,800 and 14,843 Iraqi civilians had been killed as of September 2004 as a result of the U.S. led invasion and occupation, while an estimated 40,000 Iraqis have been injured. Between 4,895 and 6,370 Iraqi soldiers and insurgents were killed during “major combat” operations, according to this report. The Iraqi infrastructure is in shambles.
Top U.S. national security officials testified before the U.S. Congress last week that the Iraq war and U.S occupation has had the unintended result of providing a powerful stimulus for the recruitment of “holy warriors” for Islamic extremist organizations who are outraged by U.S. and other unwanted Western influences within Muslim societies. Was the war a mistake? The decision makers will never admit it.
The parties responsible for launching the 9-11 attacks are losers as well. The hijackers lost their lives, and those who inspired them have lost a major political stronghold in Afghanistan. Although a few high profile leaders remain at large, there are hefty bounties on their heads. They will clearly need to remain in hiding and at risk for capture or death for the rest of their lives. Rather than achieving their dream of reducing foreign influence in the Middle East, we now find Western troops occupying two Moslem countries with no end in sight.
Clearly, all sides have experienced a net loss since 9-11. Is war a rational enterprise? I would think the answer is resoundingly “no.”
On the question of what keeps parties from making the rational choice of avoiding conflict and maximizing the combined outcome to both, Professor Douglass North, Nobel laureate and Professor at Washington University in St Louis has some thoughts on the subject.
Dr. North was scheduled to speak at Asian University on Friday, March 4, 2005, however was forced to cancel due to illness. We are disappointed that will not be able to be with us on Friday, and wish him a speedy recovery. We are pleased to present the transcript of his speech which he sent us in advance.
posted by Michael | Sunday, February 27, 2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home