The success or failure of the Iraq mission has to hang on whether Iraq can establish a stable economy and provide jobs and money sources outside of the terrorist infrastructure. As you say, even though the numbers are still bad (and may be worse than are being reported by Maliki, can't say without seeing the sources), they are at least moving in the right direction and I think that's really the only important thing at this stage of the game.
Running with the loveable-loser come-from-behind storyline we talked about earlier, the bosox's winning strategy was "one out at a time, one inning at a time, one game at a time," and I think you could definitely come up with a worse view for progress in Iraq.
there's an article I remember reading arguing that too much economic protection, job protection, welfare, etc. can produce such a risk-averse marketplace that economies stagnate (viz. france).
The problem with job protection is that if it's too stable then nobody wants to give it up to try the self employment thing. It's bad enough here, but with the tax system in europe, there's no point. Here the self employed work harder but have a shot at big money. There they just work harder, so why bother? Hence everybody plays it safe and innovation is stifled.
Dave- I agree in principle, but the sample period is by necessity very short. At a mere ~231 years old, america is the oldest democracy. It's still in its infancy compared to some of the historical governments (i.e. Rome, persia, etc) It's only about 10 generations from its founding, which isn't a lot of time for things to settle out. And every other democracy is younger than america. We still haven't seen what happens in times of extreme peace, since we haven't had it yet. It strikes me that military readiness will steadily decline until somebody thinks war is worth a shot. So I think that Democratic Peace will eventually fail.
Dave- I agree in principle, but the sample period is by necessity very short.
Shorter even than you think -- America has only been a liberal democracy since around the turn of the century (universal suffrage is a requirement) and has been over $9,000 GDP per capita even less time.
Still, between them the liberal democracies have something like 9,000 combined years of continuity (I could be off on the #, citing from memory).
It strikes me that military readiness will steadily decline until somebody thinks war is worth a shot.
It seems pretty unlikely. I mean, the U.S. could easily invade Canada or Mexico. We don't, because they have nothing we want that badly, given how rich we all are.
One thing I've learned reading Hayek is that Hitler's rule was largely the result of a society that had already abandoned liberalism for the promise of socialist planning, and was suffering the consequences. They put him into power because they thought he was someone who could get things done.
Still, between them the liberal democracies have something like 9,000 combined years of continuity
But all in the same 100 year space. They've all existed under nearly the same geopolitical conditions. What we haven't seen is what happens when the world is all democratic. It's the cynic in me that expects things to fall apart.
I'm not so sure it is a fair question. Regardless of where the money is coming from it is a real investment in a real economy that is reaping real dividends.
The best numbers I could find were from the CIA factbook which claimed 33 billion pledged 2004-2007 in economic aid, with the 2006 estimated GDP as 40.6 billion. Which would put foreign aid at somewhere around 10-20% of the economy (which is ~70% oil-based according to the brookings institution pdf).
But those numbers don't really mean much. Iraq is not a functioning state and we shouldn't expect its market to perform like one. The goal is baby steps here. Get the market rolling, get the economic infrastructure in place so that the economic and political situations can improve synergistically rather than spiral downwards synergistically.
The answer is in the Iraq Index. They list how much was disbursed in 2007; it appears to be a few billion, or about what Iraq sells in oil every month.
The real question is how big Iraq's non-oil GDP is, and no one really knows for sure, but it's probably somewhere between half and a tenth of total GDP (lots of uncertainty there).
So, overall, U.S. aid is probably less than 10% but more than 2%. My guess would be around 5%.
Also, notice in the Iraq Index graph (p42 in my copy) that the amounts are tailing off (there is, as of now, only 2 billion left to disburse) so the percentage would have been much higher in 2005/2006, both because more U.S. aid was disbursed and because Iraq's GDP was lower.
I didn't mean to imply that I think it's a bad investment, however, the corruption that is a part of Arab (and Chinese, and Mexican, etc etc) culture is something that really bothers me. If we're spending our children's future money on these people, it better not be going into the Swiss bank accounts of corrupt individuals.
As I understand, the democrats pulled the plug on south vietnam partly because they wanted money more than they wanted freedom/democracy. If Iraqis are the same way, and I'm not saying they are, then we should pull the plug on them too.
It's sad when I consider how corruption is the norm in most of the world. It reminds me of a line from the movie Syriana (an unrealistic movie): "Corruption? CORRUPTION? Corruption is the reason WE win!"
11.1.2007 1:15pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
Ryan
Running with the loveable-loser come-from-behind storyline we talked about earlier, the bosox's winning strategy was "one out at a time, one inning at a time, one game at a time," and I think you could definitely come up with a worse view for progress in Iraq.
Ryan
there's an article I remember reading arguing that too much economic protection, job protection, welfare, etc. can produce such a risk-averse marketplace that economies stagnate (viz. france).
Ryan
Shorter even than you think -- America has only been a liberal democracy since around the turn of the century (universal suffrage is a requirement) and has been over $9,000 GDP per capita even less time.
Still, between them the liberal democracies have something like 9,000 combined years of continuity (I could be off on the #, citing from memory).
It seems pretty unlikely. I mean, the U.S. could easily invade Canada or Mexico. We don't, because they have nothing we want that badly, given how rich we all are.
One thing I've learned reading Hayek is that Hitler's rule was largely the result of a society that had already abandoned liberalism for the promise of socialist planning, and was suffering the consequences. They put him into power because they thought he was someone who could get things done.
Well, oil, but who cares about that?
Can you really conceive of a situation where we would invade Canada for oil, short of economic collapse?
But all in the same 100 year space. They've all existed under nearly the same geopolitical conditions. What we haven't seen is what happens when the world is all democratic. It's the cynic in me that expects things to fall apart.
A fair question.
I'm not so sure it is a fair question. Regardless of where the money is coming from it is a real investment in a real economy that is reaping real dividends.
The best numbers I could find were from the CIA factbook which claimed 33 billion pledged 2004-2007 in economic aid, with the 2006 estimated GDP as 40.6 billion. Which would put foreign aid at somewhere around 10-20% of the economy (which is ~70% oil-based according to the brookings institution pdf).
But those numbers don't really mean much. Iraq is not a functioning state and we shouldn't expect its market to perform like one. The goal is baby steps here. Get the market rolling, get the economic infrastructure in place so that the economic and political situations can improve synergistically rather than spiral downwards synergistically.
The answer is in the Iraq Index. They list how much was disbursed in 2007; it appears to be a few billion, or about what Iraq sells in oil every month.
The real question is how big Iraq's non-oil GDP is, and no one really knows for sure, but it's probably somewhere between half and a tenth of total GDP (lots of uncertainty there).
So, overall, U.S. aid is probably less than 10% but more than 2%. My guess would be around 5%.
Zach, I agree with you.
I am certain everything will work well.
I didn't mean to imply that I think it's a bad investment, however, the corruption that is a part of Arab (and Chinese, and Mexican, etc etc) culture is something that really bothers me. If we're spending our children's future money on these people, it better not be going into the Swiss bank accounts of corrupt individuals.
As I understand, the democrats pulled the plug on south vietnam partly because they wanted money more than they wanted freedom/democracy. If Iraqis are the same way, and I'm not saying they are, then we should pull the plug on them too.
It's sad when I consider how corruption is the norm in most of the world. It reminds me of a line from the movie Syriana (an unrealistic movie): "Corruption? CORRUPTION? Corruption is the reason WE win!"
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.