“Give the military whatever they need and more” (Cost of war, Part 2)

[Note from Kathie Malley-Morrison:  Today we continue the series by guest author Neta Crawford. Part 2 picks up on the question of why it so difficult to accurately assess the true costs of war.]

First, there is a tendency to focus on what has been appropriated by Congress specifically for the war, with the consequence that the larger costs of war in Iraq are either missed or downplayed.

Dollars and dollars and dollars
"Artwork" with 20 Dollar Bills by selbstfotografiert, used under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike Unported 3.0 license

Specifically, many tallies focus on Congressional appropriations to the Department of Defense for the Iraq war, most of which were authorized in special emergency or supplemental appropriation, not included in the regular Pentagon “base” budget appropriations.

Others rightly include war related appropriations to the Veterans Administration and the State Department and US Agency for International Development (AID).  One of the most sophisticated of these analyses, by Amy Belasco of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) totals appropriations to Pentagon, State/USAID and the VA at $806 billion from 2003-2011.

But overall Pentagon appropriations and spending increased over the war in large part due to the Congressional desire to give the military whatever they needed and more.

Winslow Wheeler, of the Center for Defense Information, estimates that the base budget increase attributable to both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is more than $600 billion over the last 10 years (whether one counts in current or constant dollars, and that matters).

If Wheeler is right or even right by half, then the share of the increase in base appropriations to the Pentagon that can reasonably attributed to the Iraq war is between $190 billion and $380 billion.

The second reason the official estimates are low compared to what the war will actually cost is the tendency to forget how the Iraq war was financed — almost entirely by deficit spending.  If one calculates the interest on debt for just the Pentagon, State, and VA appropriations, using the amount appropriated according the CRS, for the Iraq war already paid, the total is about $117 billion.

Neta C. Crawford is a Professor of Political Science at Boston University and co-director of the Costs of War study www.costsofwar.org

Effects of war on children

[Note from Kathie Malley-Morrison:  Today we welcome guest contributor Mimi Maritz, a senior at Boston University studying psychology and economics. In her free time she volunteers for the Boston Area Rape Crisis Center and practices meditation and yoga. Next year she will be working as a special education teacher in Boston as part of the Teach for America corps.]

By Mimi Maritz

Among the many devastating aspects of war is its effects on children. Far from innocent bystanders, children are often casualties of war–through death, disease, malnutrition or injury. For example, from 1985-1995, an estimated 2 million children were killed due to war*.

Botswana Defense soldier and Somali toddler during an arms raid in Mogadishu
Botswana Defense soldier and Somali toddler during an arms raid in Mogadishu (Image in public domain)

Many children in war zones become refugees due to separation from or death of their family. Orphaned children often have limited access to food and clean water and therefore become susceptible to deadly illnesses and face life-long health problems. It is estimated that such diseases account for 60-80% of the deaths of displaced children of war*.

Those that survive are not considered lucky. In many instances, vulnerable boys are brainwashed into becoming child soldiers, working with the oppressors and regularly engaging in combat. Girls can be exploited into sex trade, forced to offer sexual services, married off to rebel leaders, or even sexually mutilated.

Beyond death, injury, exploitation and displacement, children in war zones are often emotionally damaged and suffer post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). They typically lose years of education, and the level of violence that they see can alter their normal development and lead to a skewed sense of reality.

If we hope to live in a peaceful and just world, we must start with the children because they are the seeds of the change we hope to see.

To learn more about the effects of war on children, visit the following websites:

http://www.unicef.org/sowc96/ciwcont.htm

http://thechildrenofwar.org/web2/

http://www.warchild.org/index.html

References

*Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Children. (1996, August 26). UNICEF. From www.unicef.org/graca/a51-306_en.pdf
Children’s Drawings of the Spanish Civil War: A Virtual Exhibition Catalog. (n.d.). Columbia University in the City of New York.
Danziger, N. (n.d.). Children and war. The power of humanity.
Barbara, J. S. (2006, December 1). Impact of War on Children and Imperative to End War. National Center for Biotechnology Information.

War’s chance of success (Just war, part 6)

[Note from Kathie Malley-Morrison: Today we once again welcome guest contributor Dr. Michael Corgan, for the sixth in his ongoing series on just war.]

The just war principle of “chance of success” demonstrates a significant divergence between the notions of when it is “legal” to resort to war and when it is “just.” One case illustrates the point very well.

Finland Coat of Arms
Finland Coat of Arms

In 1940 The Soviet Union invaded Finland for various reasons having to do with the (well-founded) fear of a Nazi attack. By any legal standard, including international law as it was understood at the time, Finland had a right to defend itself.

But this was a war that Finland could not and did not win. Just war theory holds that Finland should not have even tried to resist such a blatant act of aggression against it. Although it was clearly the wronged party and the harm done by invading Soviet troops was immense, Finland could only add to the killing by its resistance.

Finland of course could and did contend that its resistance would later on be useful. Indeed post-war treatment of Finland by the Soviet Union was more considerate than it was to other bordering countries of the USSR. Nonetheless just war requires that war has some probability of success other than making a “statement” of resistance or defiance.

The US is involved in several war efforts now but Afghanistan is the biggest. How does it measure up to “chance of success?” We are “nation building” with a governing ruler who despises us openly and many of whose own people think is unacceptably corrupt.

Even our forces that are performing heroic and selfless efforts to help the Afghans build a national consciousness are irredeemably hampered by the fact that they are, of course, foreigners, infidels, and don’t speak the language. We can train soldiers and police but we can’t make Afghans.

Chance of success: nil.

Michael T. Corgan, Associate Chair and Associate Professor of International Relations, Boston University

Using war to stop or undo harm (Just war, part 5)

[Note from Kathie Malley-Morrison: Today we once again welcome guest contributor Dr. Michael Corgan, for his ongoing series on just war.]

Animated image comparing two columns of dots
Animation by Sbyrnes321; in public domain. From Wikimedia Commons.

The idea of proportionality is one of the more comprehensive notions in both the international laws governing war and in just war theory. Proportionality applies both to the resort to war and the conduct of a war, however justly or legally entered into.

In terms of international law, the only just or legal cause for war is self-defense against aggression. But the UN Charter in particular countenances not just the repulsion of aggression and punishment for its having been used. In just war theory, proportionality places no such requirements on those repelling aggression. War can stop or undo the harm but not be an excuse for vengeance or aggrandizement.

Instead, proportionality in just war theory implies that only war can correct the wrong suffered. The wrong to be corrected must be grave. Insults to national pride or need to maintain reputation are insufficient reasons to use war. So, too, for example would be economic harm that does not materially destroy a national economy.

Weighing scale
Image in public domain

War, even a just war, always involves the loss of innocent life and destruction of things that are simply too near the battle area. The inevitability of this so-called  “collateral damage” means that war is necessarily a blunt instrument. This reality undergirds the just war notion of proportionality.

Consider the current conflict in Libya. In your opinion, would war be justified according to the just war principle of proportionality?

Michael T. Corgan, Associate Chair and Associate Professor of International Relations, Boston University