David Sanger looks at the costs of 9/11 -- quite apart from the enormous cost in human lives, here and abroad.
In a nutshell:
A survey by The New York Times, detailed in the accompanying chart, puts a stark price tag on the cost of reacting — and overreacting — to the defining event of the past decade. America’s bill for fighting a 21st-century “asymmetric war” comes to at least $3.3 trillion. Put another way, for every dollar Al Qaeda spent to pull off the Sept. 11 attacks, the cost to the United States was an astonishing $6.6 million.
Astonishing indeed. One fifth of our total debt. We overdid it and we can't overdo it again. Endless war really isn't an option.
... The real model for a new approach — one that avoids $3.3 trillion price tags — was evident in Libya. To Mr. Obama, this was the test of the thesis that there is an alternative approach to bringing about regime change. Like Saddam Hussein, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi was a vicious dictator with a history of terrorism and nuclear ambitions. While Mr. Obama decided to intervene in Libya — over the objections of his defense secretary — he insisted that there be no ground troops, that NATO allies take the lead and that the United States offer only “unique capabilities.” Even with those restrictions, American operations cost more than a billion dollars, and critics like Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican, charged that the “halfway in” approach prolonged the conflict and cost untold Libyan lives.
Whether he is right or wrong, Libya was an example of what countries with real restraints — fiscal, political and strategic — have to do. Because even a hyperpower, as the French called the United States just before 9/11, cannot absorb more than one bill for $3.3 trillion.
Senator McCain hits the nail on the head -- inadvertently, I'm sure. If you want "prolonged conflict and untold costs in lives," you need look no further than Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't think we know how many lives those two adventures have cost. I don't think the sponsors of those wars want us to know, including JohnMcCain.
And how about this for a casual approach to war?
... At least two-thirds of the 9/11 response can be traced to a few lines in the 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States, which declared the United States had to pre-empt any credible, emerging threat. For years, there was no talk of a “minimal deterrent,” proportionate response or balancing defense against other priorities. As one White House official asked me scoldingly, who applies cost-benefit calculations to national security?
I dunno, Mr. Gubment Official. While we're on the subject, though, tell me: Who applies cost-benefit calculations to the unneeded subsidies major oil companies receive? Oh, right! The benefits go to members of Congress so whatever it costs us it's okay.
By the way, that $3.3 trillion is what economist Joseph Stiglitz predicted as the total cost of the wars way back during the Bush administration. The right scoffed. Oh, nonsense! What would you expect from a liberal economist!
