Re: The Pentagon and Poverty

[Clifford Poirot <cpoirot@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sven,

Surely you can contextualize the Pentagon's interventions abroad. Even a
staunch anti-communist like me sees the picture as much more complicated.

 Remember, Iraq received significant military transfers in the late 1980's
from the U.S. , even as Saddam Hussein was gassing the Kurds.

I'm willing to concede that the invasion of Afghanistan was a sad
necessity-thought it appears that the reconstruction is being botched and
the Taliban is regathering strength.

I'm willing to go so far as to believe that there was a moral justification
for invading Iraq (though I am not willing to credit Bush and the Pentagon
for acting on that basis). Perhaps something other than a new Shiite
fundamentalist state will emerge from the rubble-but I am not willing to bet
on it.

The U.S. may have spent the Soviets into bankruptcy, but the Russian economy
still remains worse off in many ways than it was under Communism. At any
rate, poverty and economic deprivation are actually at much higher levels.
And add to this Putin's war in Chechnya and the near desperate state of many
former Soviet Republics.

I see no success stories for world development due to Pentagon spending.

What bothers me most about your post however, is that you don't take into
account the opportunity costs of a) the Pentagon's actions and b) the
immense drain on development resources at the global level of military
spending-both U.S. and foreign.

Let's take the stated goals of the neocons-to bring democracy and economic
prosperity to the Middle East. Actually, this is a goal I share, and I agree
with some of the neocon critiques (e.g. that of Bernard Lewis) of Middle
Eastern regimes. The U.S. could pursue this goal through a variety of
mechanisms that do not require invading Iraq. We could start with promoting
democracy in our chief ally-Egypt, while making new funds available for
economic development in Egyp-equivalent say to what we spent on the war in
Iraq. We could offer a Marshall Plan for the Palestinians, contingent on
their agreeing to a few premises. We could encourage the Saudis to stop
sponsoring Wahabi extremism.

None of this requires invading Iraq and none of this would drain resources
from development.

All that said, how will development take place if the Oil revenues are not
plowed back into the basic needs and infrastructure of the Middle East
Countries? Of course, the plan of the Pentagon to privatize Iraq's state
assets (since dropped) does not focus on using Iraqi oil revenues to sponsor
Iraqi development.

It is really too bad Hussein was a psychopath. In the late 1970's Iraq
scored some real development successes. Had Hussein not channeled resources
into war with Iran, Iraq could have become a real model of development.

So Sven, I find your analysis just far too simplistic.

-----Original Message-----
From: Sven R Larson [mailto:slarson@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 5:15 PM
To: Harry Veeder
Cc: post keynesian thought
Subject: Re: The Pentagon and Poverty


And how should the Pentagon go about doing that? I know! They could
oust oppressive dictators that steal billions from their country's
resources and rob their people... wait, they already did that in Iraq.
Or maybe they could end terror rule that is based on medieval
anti-civilization doctrines and keeps women from working and men from
starting businesses... wait, they did that in Afghanistan. But here's
one: why not try an arms race with a Communist regime that deprives
its people of freedom and prosperity... oh, darn it - they did that
with the Soviets!

/srl

Harry Veeder wrote:
>
> It is too bad the Pentagon isn't planning a global war on poverty.
> (I am not kidding). The civilian arm of government hasn't been very
> successful. The military arm of a government has the command and control
> structure to ensure it gets done.
>
> Harry
>
> > Key findings of the Pentagon
> >
> > Sunday February 22, 2004: (The Observer)
> >
> > · Future wars will be fought over the issue of survival rather than
religion,
> > ideology or national honour.
> > · By 2007 violent storms smash coastal barriers rendering large parts of
the
> > Netherlands inhabitable. Cities like The Hague are abandoned. In
California
> > the delta island levees in the Sacramento river area are breached,
disrupting
> > the aqueduct system transporting water from north to south.
> >
> > · Between 2010 and 2020 Europe is hardest hit by climatic change with an
> > average annual temperature drop of 6F. Climate in Britain becomes colder
and
> > drier as weather patterns begin to resemble Siberia.
> >
> > · Deaths from war and famine run into the millions until the planet's
> > population is reduced by such an extent the Earth can cope.
> >
> > · Riots and internal conflict tear apart India, South Africa and
Indonesia.
> >
> > · Access to water becomes a major battleground. The Nile, Danube and
Amazon
> > are all mentioned as being high risk.
> >
> > · A 'significant drop' in the planet's ability to sustain its present
> > population will become apparent over the next 20 years.
> >
> > · Rich areas like the US and Europe would become 'virtual fortresses' to
> > prevent millions of migrants from entering after being forced from land
> > drowned by sea-level rise or no longer able to grow crops. Waves of
boatpeople
> > pose significant problems.
> >
> > · Nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable. Japan, South Korea, and
Germany
> > develop nuclear-weapons capabilities, as do Iran, Egypt and North Korea.
> > Israel, China, India and Pakistan also are poised to use the bomb.
> >
> > · By 2010 the US and Europe will experience a third more days with peak
> > temperatures above 90F. Climate becomes an 'economic nuisance' as
storms,
> > droughts and hot spells create havoc for farmers.
> >
> > · More than 400m people in subtropical regions at grave risk.
> >
> > · Europe will face huge internal struggles as it copes with massive
numbers of
> > migrants washing up on its shores. Immigrants from Scandinavia seek
warmer
> > climes to the south. Southern Europe is beleaguered by refugees from
hard-hit
> > countries in Africa.
> >
> > · Mega-droughts affect the world's major breadbaskets, including
America's
> > Midwest, where strong winds bring soil loss.
> >
> > · China's huge population and food demand make it particularly
vulnerable.
> > Bangladesh becomes nearly uninhabitable because of a rising sea level,
which
> > contaminates the inland water supplies.
> >
> > © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

--
Dr. Sven R Larson
Department of Economics
Skidmore College
815, North Broadway
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
(518) 580-5278