First let me say that I am anti-war. Maybe it is just because I've changed from being purely a tech player to now owning Trust Laboratories, and so primarily being a businessman, but I see things slightly differently from the WSJ.
> <http://online.wsj.com/article_print/0,,SB104933336161333300,00.html> excerpts > Of course, the largest benefit -- a more stable Mideast -- is huge > but unquantifiable. A second plus, lower oil prices, is somewhat more > measurable. (Oil prices fell again yesterday on the prospect of > victory.) The premium on 11.5 million barrels imported every day by > the U.S. is a transfer from us to producing countries. Postwar, with > Iraqi production back in the pipeline and calmer markets, oil prices > will fall even further. If they drop to an average in the low $20s, > the U.S. economy will get a boost of $55 billion to $60 billion a > year. I don't think the stable Mideast is the largest benefit. The largest benefit comes from having a US-friendly government in the Mideast. This has several benefits the most important of which are; it provides a stable center of power for the US in the Mideast, and provides the US with priority oil. The center of power is not currently important, but with the growing disruption that the Israel-Palestine problem presents I have a strong suspicion that military force in the middle east will become increasingly necessary. The foundation for this is rather simple to find, it was bin Laden himself that said something like until the people of Palestine know safety, the US will not. To counter this we need only have a friendly country in the middle east where we can temporarily position our armaments, this will vastly reduce the cost of troop movement the next time our presence will be felt. The priority oil is not a current problem but with the world oil supply quickly becoming depleted (some estimates put us at only 30 years left) the availability of a conisistent oil supply can be economically justified rather easily. Not that this will make much difference for your average person, but military purposes of oil are many. Militarily, these end benefits are enormous. The interim general populous benfits are substantial as well, but I don't feel they are as impactual. Already the general populous is beginning to see hybrid cars, fuel-cell cars are only a few-years away, and at least GM and BMW are experimenting with internal-combustion hydrogen engines (a few years ago BMW had running experimental 7 series that used internal combustion hydrogen that travelled parts of Europe). With these advances the general usage of oil is likely to diminish over the next couple decades spurred on by the vastly increasing cost of purchasing gasoline. There will of course be the necessary, temporary, dip in oil pricing as the Iraqi oil fields are pushed into higher production. Over time though this dip will mysteriously disappear, blamed on market forces if anyone actually notices. > But perhaps the best way to look at the economics of the war has been > suggested by John Cogan. The Hoover Institution economist says the > war is an investment. The proper question then becomes what resources > are we willing to invest to achieve peace and stability, and a > diminished threat from terrorism and terrorist-supporting states. At > 1% of GDP, the war looks like a bargain. I very much agree with John Cogan, this war is an investment. I disagree though with the WSJ conclusion that this is an investment in the stability of the Middle East/ending Iraqi containment. Instead I believe that this is an investment in US stability, and military ability. As such it will pay off enormously, but I believe the costs to be far in excess of helping the middle east address the Israel problem in a diplomatic way which would cost less, undermine much of the terrorist actions, make the US look like more of a beneficial monopoly, and certainly put us in better favor throughout the Middle East. Before anyone feels free to jump on me about this, I would like to remind everyone that I am anti-war. I believe that war should only be used in situations where it is truly unavoidable. Joe Trust Laboratories http://www.trustlaboratories.com
