Iraq Is the Wrong Enemy and It Is a Costly Mistake

Voters have rejected President Bush’s plan for Iraq, described to supporters on October 28, 2006 as designed “to protect the homeland” by first seeking to “find the enemy and defeat them overseas."

The problem is: wrong enemy and serious collateral damage.

Wrong Enemy

The President made a case that terrorists were in Afghanistan, but made no such case in Iraq. The mistake was costly. The annual average cost of the Iraq war is about 2 percent of U.S. GDP, according to new estimates by Nobel Prizewinner Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard Professor Linda Bilmes.

Iraqis themselves have lost $24 billion in 2005 income. Their incomes were 40 percent lower, partly because the destruction of infrastructure that hasn’t been rebuilt – compared with what they might have earned in the absence of war. This estimate by Iraq expert Professor Colin Rowat of the University of Birmingham (UK) is a per-person income loss by Iraqis of roughly 20 times the cost to U.S. residents.

Collateral Damage I - Enemies among U.S. Allies

The war in Iraq has made new enemies among our allies by deceiving them. U.S. credibility among British voters has dwindled over Iraq and the staunch ally of the last two U.S. presidents, Tony Blair, is stepping down.

Collateral Damage II - Draining of U.S. National Guard Resources

The war in Iraq has overtaxed the National Guard, depriving governors of these resources for homeland emergencies like Katrina. No wonder the Democrats picked up Governorships on November 7.

Collateral Damage III - Resistance and New Terrorists

The war in Iraq has created civilian casualties in overseas battlegrounds, generating fury among survivors and a breeding ground for new terrorists. An estimated 2 percent of the Iraqi population has been killed, according to three researchers at Johns Hopkins University and a professor at Baghdad's Al-Mustansiriya University. This number, higher than previous U.N. estimates, was published in the peer-reviewed UK journal Lancet. It is about the same percentage as the overall proportion of civilians killed in World War II in affected countries as a percentage of the pre-war populations of these countries.

HEALTH CARE | Spending ≠ Longevity

Most Americans are now very dissatisfied with the high cost of medical care, and the percentage expressing this view has been rising rapidly.

Yet how much people spend on health care seems to have little to do with how long they live. Hawaii has longest-lived residents at 80 years life expectancy, whereas Washington, D.C. residents have a life expectancy of only 72 years, a gap of eight years.

The major differences are not in infant mortality or the life expectancy of elderly people, but in the number of people who die as youths or in middle age.

• Longest life expectancy: Asian-American women in Bergen County, N.J. live the longest with an average life expectancy of 91 years.
• Shortest life expectancy: Native Americans in several rural counties in South Dakota have a life expectancy of 66.6 years. 
• That is a 24.4-year difference between the two county groups.
• New York State ranks a surprisingly poor 19th, with an average life expectancy of 77.7 years. 
• Connecticut does better at 4th place with an average life expectancy of 78.7 years. 
• New Jersey ranks in 23rd place with a life expectancy of 77.5 years.

The research was by the Harvard University Initiative for Global Health and the Harvard School of Public Health, led by Dr. Christopher J. L. Murray. They conclude that life expectancy is primarily determined by the prevalence of chronic illnesses – for example, heart disease, cancer and injuries from alcohol-related traffic accidents. The found little relationship between life expectancy and income, infant mortality rates, violence, or lack of health insurance.

My sources were a Business Week article and the September issue of the medical journal of the Public Library of Science, PLoS Medicine.