Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
CASH FOR PEACE.
You know, it really shouldn't have taken us this long to come up with a jobs program in Iraq. And it really shouldn't be limited to a couple thousand Sunnis. For all the talk of the military impacts of the surge, we're increasingly seeing that security gains are less about our efforts and more about internal political decisions by indigenous actors -- see, for instance, Petraeus's fulsome praise of, yes, Moqtada al-Sadr, for helping out with the security environment. But, for whatever reason, our politicians seem achingly incapable of simply leaving Iraq. So it's worth asking if a military deployment is really the most cost-effective way to spend billions and billions in Iraq.
This site, in fact, asks the question well. "The US budget for Iraq in FY 2006 comes to $3,749/Iraqi. This is more than double their per person GDP. It's like spending $91,000 per person in the US. Why not just bribe the whole country?" But seriously: Why not just bribe the whole country? If we're determined to commit an enormous amount of resources to the Iraqi people, why not let the Ghost of Milton Friedman take over and simply design some sort of program that offers enormous economic benefits in exchange for reductions in violence? Given that the administration is already signaling its belief that you can reduce violence by paying off Sunni youths, and given that transferring large sacks of cash to tribal leaders was a major force behind the Anbar Awakening, why not keep spending flat, begin to withdraw troops, and convert those funds into simple cash payments? Seems likelier to work than anything we're doing now, less likely to get our troops killed, and far more likely to give disparate portions of the population a reason to enforce peace. How you'd end such a program might prove tricky down the road, but so too is ending an increasingly permanent occupation.
COMMENTS (10)
Bear in mind that "$91,000 per person in the U.S." could also be phrased as "$364,000 for a family of four," which, IMHO, drives the point across even more strongly.
Posted by: Julian Elson | December 10, 2007 10:22 AM
Because now we are 'spending'
that $3749 per Iraqi on paying
US soldiers and US contractors
so that the money is recycled in the US - it ain't foriegn aid, and IS NOT intended to be foreign aid, but internal spoils, as usual.
The US government is designed to spend money in the US, not to dispense foreign aid.
Why this is not obvious to Ezra is somewhat puzzling.
The US budget for Iraqi reconstruction has all been spent,
(about $20 billion) and NO MORE is forthcoming. Check out the Brookings Iraq status reports.
Posted by: catclub | December 10, 2007 10:31 AM
...our politicians seem achingly incapable of simply leaving Iraq.
And you are incapable of understanding what the politicians, *both* parties, know what will happen if we just pack it up and leave. What do they know that you can't grasp?
Posted by: Anonymous | December 10, 2007 10:32 AM
Posted by: MLE | December 10, 2007 12:51 PM
Hi Ezra,
Best of luck to you at The American Prospect.
Count me as a new AP daily visitor.
I hope they are paying you a lot and I hope AP is making a lot also.
Posted by: jharp | December 10, 2007 12:55 PM
Anonymous's faith in our elected officials' greater knowledge would be touching were it not that absolutely no evidence exists that they have any such knowledge. I recommend his or her going back to reading the words of our Founders who warned about putting such trust in those who have spent their lives seeking and wielding power.
Good luck at the American Prospect!
Posted by: Gus diZerega | December 10, 2007 1:15 PM
One of the problems is distributing it. One of the points of Global Guerillas theory is that these criminal/terrorist networks will become siginificantly more dangerous through the large infusions of American cash.
Posted by: Aaron | December 10, 2007 1:18 PM
catclub I have been against the idiot Bush's war from the beginning but I am sure that his goal was to make the world a better place for the people of the middle east and for Americans. They thought that they could quickly establish democracy in the relatively affluent and well educated Iraq and that it would spread through the Middle East.
He and his people are bubblers not evil geniuses.
He and his people are bublers not evil gevioues.
Posted by: Floccina | December 10, 2007 1:32 PM
Oh lord, Ezra - there are so many ways that reconstruction would be better than military peacekeeping. But hell, in deference to those who really think that US troops in Iraq are holding back the deluge (a point of view for which I see no evidence), let's just cut half of the spending on the military, and use the balance for reconstruction. We could do it in lovely socialist fashion, creating a Social Capital fund for the creation of state-owned industries (which would be in keeping with the Iraqi economy before the invasion - and thus in keeping with their expectations). We could do it in a lovely Free-Market way, creating a Social Development Fund for budding capitalists at low-low interest rates. The only way we shouldn't do it is the way we've been doing it - cutting the Iraqis themselves out of the process in order to enrich KBR. But since it's Bush in charge - I won't even accept a bet on the likelihood of the first two occuring.
Posted by: Padraig | December 10, 2007 1:59 PM
Giving every man, woman and child in Iraq a cash payout sounds appealing, but think about the near-term result: dramatic price inflation that would erase the windfall in no time. Not to mention, since it's a cash economy, a boon in burglaries, kidnappings for ransom, and all sorts of scams aimed at prying the money loose from its recipients.
We should be putting our money into productive use in Iraq, but direct payouts are not the way.
Posted by: Lisa | December 11, 2007 11:24 AM