Economists Are Not Historians

I tend to like Gregg Easterbrook's economic commentary - he happens to be one of the most aggressive and articulate opponents of the Jeff Sachs school of global economic do-goodism, which I find theoretically naive and practically ineffective. Today in the WSJ, Easterbrook does a typically fine job in getting us to put things in perspective - economically that is. Then there is this: "Of course, a long, bloody and costly war being fought for no clear purpose depresses the national mood." Savor the irony of an economist telling us to have some perspective on the economy, while exhibiting none when it comes to history. By historical standards, the Iraq war is neither particularly long nor bloody. Yes, it is costly, but mostly because aside from killing our enemies we are rebuilding infrastructure in Iraq, providing medical care to many Iraqis, and trying to incubate civic institutions. If we fought this war the way nearly every other war in history has been fought - with bloody-minded ruthlessness - it wouldn't be very costly on a relative basis (e.g. imagine how cheap the war would be if we actually stole Iraq's oil rather than let the Iraqis use it to finance their incipient democracy). Finally, I would argue that this war does have a clear purpose, but that is a legitimately debatable point and I will put it aside for the exercise here is one of perspective; is this war any less purposeful on it's face than the Vietnam War, Russia's war in Chechnya, the Korean War or a host of other modern wars? Even if you are inclined against the war, it is hard to argue that the Iraq war is significantly different in its questionable genesis than our nation's other recent wars. Actually given our most siginificant recent wartime experience - Vietnam, where we lost tens of thousands soldiers and slinked away in defeat - America ought to be relatively upbeat that this war compares much more favorably in terms of human cost and achievement of aims. So. cheer up America!