Le vrai prix de la guerre en Irak

Dans la vie, les choses les plus importantes, comme la vie elle-même, n'ont pas de prix. Mais cela ne signifie pas que les questions impliquant la préservation de la vie (ou d'un mode de vie), comme la défense, ne doivent pas être passées au crible de l'analyse économique froide et rigoureuse.

Peu avant la guerre d'Irak actuelle, lorsque Larry Lindsey, l'économiste de l'administration Bush, a suggéré que les coûts pourraient se situer entre 100 et 200 milliards de dollars, d'autres fonctionnaires haut placés ont rapidement élevé des objections. Par exemple, le directeur du Budget et du Management, Mitch Daniels, estimait quant à lui ce chiffre à 60 milliards de dollars. Il apparaît aujourd'hui que les estimations de Lindsey étaient grossièrement sous-estimées.

Inquiet à l'idée que l'administration Bush puisse être en train de berner tout le monde sur le coût de la guerre en Irak, comme elle l'a déjà fait sur les armes de destruction massive et sur ses liens avec Al Qaida, je me suis associé à Linda Bilmes, experte du budget à Harvard, pour examiner le problème. Même nous, qui sommes opposés à la guerre, avons été atterrés par ce que nous avons découvert : nos estimations, de modestes à modérées, varient d'un peu moins d'un billion de dollars à plus de 2 billions.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Registration is quick and easy and requires only your email address. If you already have an account with us, please log in. Or subscribe now for unlimited access.


Log in

  1. An employee works at a chemical fiber weaving company VCG/Getty Images

    China in the Lead?

    For four decades, China has achieved unprecedented economic growth under a centralized, authoritarian political system, far outpacing growth in the Western liberal democracies. So, is Chinese President Xi Jinping right to double down on authoritarianism, and is the “China model” truly a viable rival to Western-style democratic capitalism?

  2. The assembly line at Ford Bill Pugliano/Getty Images

    Whither the Multilateral Trading System?

    The global economy today is dominated by three major players – China, the EU, and the US – with roughly equal trading volumes and limited incentive to fight for the rules-based global trading system. With cooperation unlikely, the world should prepare itself for the erosion of the World Trade Organization.

  3. Donald Trump Saul Loeb/Getty Images

    The Globalization of Our Discontent

    Globalization, which was supposed to benefit developed and developing countries alike, is now reviled almost everywhere, as the political backlash in Europe and the US has shown. The challenge is to minimize the risk that the backlash will intensify, and that starts by understanding – and avoiding – past mistakes.

  4. A general view of the Corn Market in the City of Manchester Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

    A Better British Story

    Despite all of the doom and gloom over the United Kingdom's impending withdrawal from the European Union, key manufacturing indicators are at their highest levels in four years, and the mood for investment may be improving. While parts of the UK are certainly weakening economically, others may finally be overcoming longstanding challenges.

  5. UK supermarket Waring Abbott/Getty Images

    The UK’s Multilateral Trade Future

    With Brexit looming, the UK has no choice but to redesign its future trading relationships. As a major producer of sophisticated components, its long-term trade strategy should focus on gaining deep and unfettered access to integrated cross-border supply chains – and that means adopting a multilateral approach.

  6. The Year Ahead 2018

    The world’s leading thinkers and policymakers examine what’s come apart in the past year, and anticipate what will define the year ahead.

    Order now