In my book and on my blog I've written about the impact collapsing economies could have on global security, and how we can see historical parallels to what we are experiencing today with what happened in the 1930s. It's not pretty. But it doesn't seem to matter.
The Europeans, who should know better - and who have taken steps to rein in some of the stupidity - nonetheless have embraced their own blind alley of debt. Meanwhile, in the United States income inequality, wealth gaps, and personal debt loads continue to grow. America's financial mandarins, however, are doing just fine, which is part of the problem.
All of these developments, as unfortunate as they are, were pre-conditions to the frivolity and stupidity that preceded the global calamities of the 1930s and 1940s.
Those of you who've read my book, or taken my classes, understand what's happening. Even the global institutions that were designed to help avoid these situations are in trouble. But no one seems to be able to piece any of this together. There is no sense of urgency, or instruction. Which is strange, because we've done this before.
As I pointed out in my book, and on this blog, history is now whispering in our ear.
This is why this piece from Market Watch is so interesting. I'm not so much concerned that it's advocating higher taxes on those who got us into - and are now profiting from - our market mess. Nor does it discuss the international implications with any depth. Still, the article is important because it points out how our domestic situation is on a path to blow up in our collective faces. The date the author is point to (2012) isn't as important as the parallels he discusses.
Apart from growing impatience domestically, the author points out that there “are two remarkable similarities in the eras that preceded" 1929 and the market collapse of 2008. Both eras "saw a sharp increase in income inequality and household-debt-to-income ratios” and in each case “as the poor and middle-class were squeezed, they tried to cope by borrowing to maintain their standard of living.” The end results was a market crash. The serpents of Nazism were unleashed, and economic warfare followed.
It's a short but good read. But don't get too caught up in the tax the super rich stuff (as much as I agree with the argument). Your focus should be on tying what's happening today to what happened 80 years ago.
Missouri Senator Kit Bond (Republican) makes the argument that President Obama's handling of terror suspects is making us less safe. You be the judge as to strength of Senator Bonds' argument.
What's clear is that Senator Bond needs to familiarize himself with some of the bigger Supreme Court cases surrounding the issue of prosecuting enemy combatants, and what's been happening in recent cases (he also looks a bit lost from time to time, but I'll leave that for another day).
Both Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) make it clear that (1) U.S. citizens classified as enemy combatants (Hamdi) can not be held indefinitely without due process protections, which include the right to counsel, (2) the executive branch can't control all aspects of a trial concerning enemy combatants (evidence gathering, prosectution, appeal, etc.) with military commissions not sanctioned by Congress, and (3) Geneva Convention protections apply to enememy combatants.
While Hamdi v. Rumsfeld has little to do with one of the cases Sen. Bond discusses - the Christmas day bomber - it is instructive for what it tells us about the rule of law in America, even when it comes to enemy combatants. Primarily, Hamdi suggests that we don't lose our heads because a group of crazies attacked us. It also tells us that we can follow the rule of law even when the going gets tough.
At the heart of Senator Bonds' remarks is his concern that the Christmas day bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, will use civilian courts as a soapbox from which to recruit other would-be terrorists in America (because we all know how effective the Charlie Manson trial was in furthering his Helter Skelter delusion). Senator Bond seems to forget that our court forums aren't at the heart of what drives the al Qaeda nut jobs. There are a ton of books and articles written that make this clear.
Worse is Senator Bond's claim that reading Abdulmutallab his Miranda rights made him clam up. This, according to Senator Bond, makes America less safe. If we are to accept the FBI's account of things - which I'm inclined to do - Senator Bond is not telling the truth. Put another way, he's lying. According to FBI Director Robert Mueller, who testified in front of Congress, the FBI agents who interrogated Abdulmutallab didnot advise him of his Miranda right until after he made it clear that he wasn't going to cooperate with any more questioning.
Just as significantly, Abdulmutallab began to testify after his relatives talked to him and convinced him to cooperate. They did this not because they feared that Abdulmutallab would be tortured. Rather, according to a senior administration official, they helped investigators because they had faith in the U.S. legal system:
One of the principal reasons why his family came back is because they had complete trust in the US system of justice and believed that Umar Farouq would be treated fairly and appropriately ...
Look, if Senator Bond is concerned about Miranda rights, interrogation techniques, and how we go about securing information, he needs to refamiliarize himself with the Shoe Bomber case of Richard Reid (among others). He was convicted and sentenced to life in prison by a civilian court on the intelligence he offered up after he was was read his Miranda rights. Reid's conviction happened during the Bush administration. Hundreds more have been prosecuted under similar circumstances in civilian courts as well (during the Bush administration).
At the end of the day, we need to remember that there are terrorists and other criminally crazy thugs who don't want to be captured in or by the United States. This happens for a reason. Drug kingpins (like Pablo Escobar) and others undertand how competent and tough our legal system is, and they make extraordinary efforts to avoid capture and extradition to the United States. Republicans don't seem to appreciate this, which is puzzling for many. But not me.
In my view the Republicans fear using our civil court system to try suspected enemy combatants not because of traffic jams and the expenses tied to a trial, as they claim. These are red herrings. Rather, they understand that the more success we have in civilian courts, the more people will understand that their militarized position and fear mongering doesn't always hold water. This makes them less relevant. The fact that they can't scare America into being afraid like they are, quite frankly, scares them.
Unfortunately, President Bush and his administration – and not liberals or the media – have drawn a new moral line in the sand for America. The issue of whether to charge and prosecute Bush administration officials who participated in torturing prisoners raises, once again, the issue of what America represents.
On one side, we have those who believe we are a City on a Hill, a shining beacon for humanity. On the other side are those who believe the ends justify the means.
Respect for “inalienable rights” and the belief that the rule of law is driving force in human history . . . or chaining naked and soiled prisoners together, then waterboarding them . . . which route best promotes American ideals? This used to be clear.
My friends, America represents an ideal as much as it is a country. And only America can live up to it's ideals.
We simply cannot persuade the world that we wear the White Hat when we embrace acts that are morally repugnant as a matter of policy. Let me give you an example how this works. After WWII the U.S. was faced with a dilemma: What do we do with captured Nazis? We had every excuse and – many thought – every right to seek reprisals against those who acted on behalf of a cruel, vile, criminal state. At the time many wouldn’t have cried foul if we had summarily executed, tortured, or even forced labor on those suspected of working with the Nazis.
In the end, however, this wasn’t the route Franklin D. Roosevelt took. Presented with two policy paths – one well known to human history, the other less recognized – FDR followed the lead of Frost’s fictional character, and took “the road less traveled”. And as history has demonstrated, the choice he made “all the difference” in the world.
Let’s take a look at what FDR – and Harry S. Truman – ultimately rejected.
In 1944, with victory over the Axis powers on the horizon, FDR asked the War Department to devise a plan for bringing war criminals to justice. But before he received it Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, sent his thoughts on the matter. His “eye-for-an-eye” proposal called for shooting prominent Nazi leaders on sight, and advocated banishing others to distant corners of the world. Under the Morgenthau Plan German POWs would be cast as modern slave labor, and forced to rebuild Europe. According to noted historian, Walter LaFaber, the treasury secretary's goal was to destroy Germany's remaining industrial base and turn the country into an agricultural, pastoral economic wasteland.
And then there was the Secretary of War’s proposal.
Henry Stimson saw things differently. Recalling how the serpents of Nazism crawled out from the rocks of national humiliation, economic depression and the tattered remnants of Versailles, Stimson was convinced that an economically healthy and vibrant Germany was necessary for European recovery.
The proposal Stimson endorsed called for trying responsible Nazi leaders in court. The Stimson Plan would label war time atrocities as war crimes and categorized the Nazi regime as a criminal conspiracy.
FDR was faced with a decision that many believed allowed for and justified punitive measures. After initially endorsing Morgenthau’s plan – vengeance is a difficult emotion to control – FDR supported the Stimson Plan.
In the process humanity won out. The significance of forgoing the enslavement and brutal treatment of captured Nazis cannot be overestimated.
Because of FDR’s decision the West was able to focus on discrediting a vile movement, their leaders, and their ideas. We established the Nuremberg Trials, which showcased Nazi ideals. This allowed the world to judge Nazi party hacks and their deeds on the merits. No martyrs were created. Nazism was exposed as a wretched idea, with those on trial exposed as humanity's backwash. The world saw how false nationalism and fear mongering, combined with a lack of conscience, had pushed the human experiment in the wrong direction.
By exposing the acts of ideologically driven zealots the United States not only showed how civilized societies function, but demonstrated that certain “inalienable rights” are a gift for the ages that can be shared with the rest of the world.
An added benefit was the imprint our actions left on the Germans who had lived through the excesses of Nazism. They – many of whom cheered Hitler’s tactics and his goons – saw with their own eyes how their POWs had returned. Family and friends had returned healthy and whole. This generation became admirers of America, and ambassadors of the American ideal.
The Nuremburg Trials served to transform Germany’s understanding of justice and human dignity. An ugly set of ideals was disgraced for generations. Today Germany stands as a lesson in democracy.
Over two hundred years the U.S. has experienced revolution, civil war, two global conflicts, and endured a divisive painful civil rights movement. Though the ugliness of war and racial conflict, what emerged was a set of ideals that legitimized America’s moral standing. We lost this moral ground over the past 8 years.
The Bush administration’s initial wink and a nod policy on torture, and Bush and Cheney’s now clear embrace of these disgusting policy tactics are once again pitting those who understand the American ideal against a group of zealots who had no problem sacrificing America's moral authority to the Alter of Fear.
Prosecuting those in the Bush administration who designed and participated in this ugly moment in American history would go a long way in rebuilding America’s moral authority around the world. We should bring culpable Bush administration officials up on charges.
As if screwing up in Iraq were not enough, the Bush administration continues to demonstrate they don’t know what the hell they’re doing in the world. But let me get this out of the way first ...
Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice was/is considered an expert on Russia and the Soviet Union. What’s going on in Georgia (a former state in the USSR) should not be hard to figure out ... and could have been prevented. But just in case you’re not in tune, here’s a brief overview of Georgia’s history from the BBC.
What’s happening in Georgia is, in part, a product of larger on-going issues between George Bush’s failed positions in the region, and the administration's continued inability to see or anticipate events.
Specifically, the Bush administration has been meddling in Russian affairs, and getting in Russia’s face for the better part of six years. So when the Bush administration decided to warn Russia on Georgia, you can imagine Moscow's response. To be sure, Russia has genuine interests in Georgia, but President Bush’s actions have not helped improve conditions, or our hand, in the region.
STUPIDITY IN THE BALTICS
President Bush visited Moscow in 2005 to observe the 60th anniversary of the Allies' victory over Nazi Germany in World War II. In the process he irritated old WWII wounds in the region by bringing up a past that is better left alone. Here’s a brief review of a past he should have left alone.
The Russians believe they should be thanked for “liberating” the Baltics from the Nazis during WWII. They also feel they are being polite to the Baltic states (Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia) for not mentioning large scale collaboration on their part with the Nazis. The Balts, however, do not feel the Russians liberated them because the Russians turned around and occupied their land and, in the process, wiping them from global maps for 50 years.
On the other side of this mess, the Baltic want to forget how eager many of them were to help Germans kill Jews, with the Riga Ghetto being one of the largest in Europe. To counter this, many Balts remind the Russians that many of their countrymen fought in the Red Army, and are not shy about reminding Russia about the Russian soldiers who defected to the Nazis (these soldiers were executed on the spot when captured by Russian troops).
At this point it should be pretty clear why it might be a good thing to “let sleeping dogs lie,” right?
Enter our President, the Idiot Prince, to make sure that all of this gets revived. Rather than simply saying he’s in Moscow to celebrate the end of WWII he wrote a letter to the three Baltic heads of state stating the end of World War II "also marked the Soviet occupation and annexation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and the imposition of Communism." Nice.
The letter arrived in the Baltic states right before Bush arrived in Moscow for the WWII ceremonies in Spring 2005. As you can imagine Putin was ecstatic.
But just to show that President Bush really has no idea what he’s doing, he didn’t back off. Instead Bush told a Lithuanian reporter that he confronted Mr. Putin on how he needs to work on democracy in Russia and to remind him that "the remembrances of the time of Communism [for the Baltic states] are unpleasant remembrances.”
Reminding a people of two occumpations. Digging to uncover old Nazi wounds. Insulting prospective hosts on the eve of arriving in their nation. A trifecta in dimplomatic incompetence.
To Mr. Putin’s credit, in a May 4 interview with the CBS program "60 Minutes" (which aired May 8, 2005) Mr. Putin said that America should not be lecturing him about rollbacks on democracy when "four years ago your presidential election was decided by the court." Ouch.
Score one for Putin.
STUPIDITY IN THE CAUCUSES?
OK, back to the present dispute ...
Just last month Condaleeza Rice was in Georgia telling Georgia’s president Mikhail Saakashvili one thing, but sending Russia another set of signals.
Specifically, while asking President Saakashvili (who has a law degree from Columbia University) not to antagonize the Russians by using Georgia's military force to settle the separatist movements in issue (specifically in Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Ajaria), it appears that the Bush administration had been going out of its way to, well, antagonize the Russians. They did this by: (1) sending military advisers to bolster the Georgian military, including an exercise last month with more than 1,000 American troops (aren’t they needed in Iraq?); (2) working hard to bring Georgia into NATO, while providing few assurances to Russia; (3) providing material support for the 2003 Rose Revolution, which replaced President Eduard Shevardnadze, a former communist party man, who had ruled Georgia for more than 30 years, and (4) loudly proclaiming support for Georgia’s territorial integrity at the same time Russia was making clear their concerns over Georgia’s separatist enclaves.
With these developments in the background you can imagine how the Russians felt after Condaleeza Rice provocatively told the press (and Putin) on the eve of her July 2008 visit to Georgia, “I’m going to visit a friend and I don’t expect much comment about the United States going to visit a friend.”
Score one for arrogant, child-like, hubris.
As you can imagine, after all this, Moscow was in no mood to be lectured by the Bush administration after they began bombing Georgia on “behalf” of Russians and Ossetians. It also helps to explain why the U.S. is virtually absent from the on-going cease fire dialog. Russia is in no mood to listen to President Bush.
Making matters worse, we now have John McCain trying to score cheap political points off of this disaster by attempting to make it appear that he knows what's going on ... while clumsily reading from a prepared script (no doubt prepared by the same foreign poliy aide who was a lobbyist for Georgia, and whose firm is still being paid by Georgia).
There’s more. But it doesn’t get any better. In real simple terms, President Bush will go down as an historic incompetent on many levels. The man is a fool.
With all the carping about patriotism and wearing flag pins, you would think the media - or the Republican Party - would have it in them to call attention to the fact that Americans are NOT patriotic enough to enlist and fight in Iraq or Afghanistan - Wars with ends the Bush administration has tried hard to compare to World War II, the Civil War, and just about anything else that allows them to hype and sell their Blundering Wars Project.
Once again, because the Republican Party thinks draping their rhetoric in the flag makes them men (and absolves them from enlisting), the U.S. Army has to involuntary extend the enlistment terms of our soldiers to prevent them from leaving the military. Unfortunately - and this may come as news to the False Patriots - flag pins can't be taught to fire guns.
While Conservative Chickenhawks continue to call for more war, while cowering behind their flag pins, there appears to be some grumbling about extending tours of duty.
... many soldiers subjected to the stop-loss policy consider it a backdoor draft. Critics argue that once soldiers have completed the enlistment period they agreed to, they should be allowed to return home. The involuntary retention program is so unpopular that it helped inspire a recent movie called "Stop-Loss" ...
You would think that forcing others to "Stand and Die" for the political blunders of the Bush administration might compel President Bush, or John McCain, to support something like the GI Bill working its way through Congress. Think again.
Both Bush and McCain understand if our fighting men and women had more options (like leaving to get an education after serving their country) the "stop-loss" numbers would be far worse than this ...
The number of soldiers held in the Army under the stop-loss program reached a high in March 2005 of 15,758. That number steadily declined through May 2007, when it hit 8,540. But since then, the number of soldiers subjected to stop-loss orders began to increase again, reaching 12,235 in March 2008.
At the end of the day, this is what happens when you combine incompetence, moral cowardice, and false patriotism. And republicans want four more years of this?
As I noted a few weeks back, from time to time I will post snippets from my book project, The Roots of Markets and Wealth, here on my blog. The goal is to have the book finished and shipped off to the publisher by the end of this month. The photo to the left is Juan Peron, president of Argentina from 1946 to 1955, and from 1973 to 1974.
... Soon after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 “Argentina blatantly obstructed efforts by the United States to persuade the Latin American nations to break relations with the Axis” powers. Because of this and other Argentine activities, throughout World War II many in the United States believed Argentina’s war time neutrality was little more than political cover for deeper pro-Nazi sympathies. In line with these sentiments, statements made by Secretary of State Cordell Hull during WWII suggested Argentina was hiding German spies and escaping Nazis. U.S.-Argentine relations took a turn for the worse after 1946 when, in an effort to undermine Juan Peron’s presidential bid, the State Department issued a “blue book”. The book detailed collaboration and links between successive Argentine governments, the military, and the Axis powers.
Later, in 1948, the United States decided Marshall Plan dollars could not be used to purchase Argentine goods. The U.S. effectively punished Argentina by mandating American Marshall Plan dollars only be used on U.S. farm products and those of favored allies. The Agricultural Act of 1948 cemented these policy goals. Specifically, America’s “federal government would increase grain production by subsidizing American farmers and would finance grain sales in Europe” through the Marshall Plan. The impact was both immediate and devastating for Argentina. By 1952 Argentina’s share of world wheat markets dropped from 23 percent to 9 percent while the United States’ share of wheat markets grew from 7 percent to 46.1 percent. By the early 1950s not only were American grain exports to Europe eight times greater than before the war, but its global share of corn markets grew from 9 percent to an astounding 63.9 percent!
Denied access to “Marshall Markets” Argentina was forced to sell to smaller markets, which deprived them of needed dollars. While Argentina’s post-war problems were no doubt compounded by Peron’s populist policies, the decision to shut Argentina out led to lost market share, compounded their dollar shortage, and helped precipitate a balance of payments crisis. These dynamics undermined Argentine development and fomented civil unrest. Both would help force Peron from power and bring military dictatorship by 1955. Today, many will argue competitiveness and the logic of the market are sufficient to explain America’s post-war agriculture fortunes. The reality is quite different. Expanded market share after WWII also depended on U.S. military victories and the subsequent divvying up of the spoils of war – which speaks as much too economic nationalism as it does to free market competition.
The five year anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq is fast approaching (March 20, 2003). I have a few thoughts ...
Whatever happened to the dire comparisons between the war on terror and the threat levels represented by World War II and the Soviet Union? As it turns out, in spite of what he has claimed about the war on terror (WOT), President Bush’s dramatic declarations have turned out to be more political theater than substance. Even the very conservative CATO Institute found the time to point out that Bush’s WOT-WWII comparison “ignores history” and conflates reality.
The point is, if we really are a country at war on the magnitude of World War II we need to ask ourselves a few questions. For example, Why haven’t we raised taxes to pay for this great and decisive national moment? Why aren’t we making sacrifices like we did during WWII? (And, No, yellow magnets and flag lapels don’t equate sacrifice or patriotism). Why have we not implemented, or even considered, a draft?
Instead, we are treated to the folly of those who claim that serving as an aide to a conservative war monger, or that toiling on the front lines of the “culture war”, are significant personal contributions to the "war effort" (let’s be blunt, these people are cowards and probably need help).
On another level, if we were living in such "perilous times" one would think that our national press might actually be dedicating some time to covering the current two great wars of historic importance. Even if we whittle the WOT down to just Iraq, we have to ask why the “central front in the war on terror” is only given casual references in our national news outlets today – and usually only when the president needs to scare up a vote for his domestic spying initiatives.
Instead our national media highlights sharks off the Florida coast, or feels compelled to cover the "dramatic" outing of Prince Harry in Afghanistan.
However, we do need to acknowledge the following. Our military is at war. The families of our military personnel, with the burdens they are forced to endure, are also at war. When it suits his political agenda, our president is also at war. And, because President Bush is “paying it backward” (as it were), our grandchildren’s financial future is also at war.
As a country, however, I find it difficult to say we are a nation at war.
The war in Iraq will cost more than World War II, according to economist and Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz. Making matters worse, the gains many economists say we should expect from waging war will not appear.
In Stiglitz’s new book, The Three Trillion Dollar War, he and co-author Linda Bilmes argue that the real costs of the war in Iraq are $3 trillion. World War II, adjusted for inflation, cost the United States $5 trillion. Stiglitz said the $3 trillion figure is "conservative” and was made deliberately low to offset political criticism that, as a former Clinton adviser, he might be motivated to exaggerate the costs. And the effects of the spiraling war costs are already being felt.
In an interview with the NY Times Stiglitz said, "To offset that depressing effect, the Fed has flooded the economy with liquidity and the regulators looked the other way when very imprudent lending was going up"
Initial comments on the news from the Military.com forum is not good for President Bush ...
For that cost back in the 40's, we thrashed three global powers, in a war fought all over the world, and forced them into unconditional surrender. And, in about half the time. Today, we've overthrown two regimes in two relatively insignificant countries and can't even consolidate those gains or ensure that equally evil regimes don't come along and replace them. Not much to show for all that, is it?
And the commentary at Military.com only gets worse.
Like the Civil War, the War on Terror and our "wink and a nod" torture policy is pitting America against herself and creating a great divide ...
It’s creating a divide between people who, as our Founding Fathers wrote, believe we are a City on a Hill, a shining beacon for all of humanity, and those who believe we need to hide what we do ... It's creating a divide between those who believe respect for “inalienable rights” is part of America's value system, and those who think water boarding and chaining prisoners in a fetal position until they urinate & defecate on themselves are the best America can do ... It's creating a divide between those who think torture makes us stronger and contributes to our security, and those who believe torture undermines our values and make us weaker by forcing us into the morally bankrupt defense that “At least we’re not as bad as the Nazi’s” ... It's creating a divide between people who believe human dignity and the rule of law are driving forces in American history, and those who believe human dignity is negotiable and the ends justify the means.
America is an idea as much as it is a country. Only America can live up to its ideas. Let me give you an example of how this works ...
During and after WWII the West was faced with a dilemma: “What do we do with captured Nazi’s and their sympathizers?” We had every excuse in the world to execute and seek reprisals against people who acted as extensions of a cruel and vile criminal state. And, at the time, not many would have cried foul if we had decided to summarily execute, torture, or compel forced labor for everyone involved in the Nazi machine. There were not many willing to stand up for the Nazis. In fact, execution, torture, and forced labor were among the choices given to President Roosevelt and President Truman. In the end, it was not the choice either took.
On the program we'll discuss those options, and how the choices America made then helped create the moral authority that facilitated American leadership throughout the cold war, and helped the United States shine like a City on a Hill.
OK, it's official. Water boarding and/or torture techniques were approved by the Bush White House. But fortunately for us, according to former CIA officer John Kiriakou, when the “enhanced interrogation” techniques were practiced on captured al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah we were able to secure useful information. So that makes it OK, right? Not exactly.
There are several problems with the evolving narrative. As former CIA officer Larry Johnson points out,
1) John Kirakou, did not participate in the water boarding of Abu Zubaydah (i.e. he can’t say what else was done).
2) The information provided by Abu Zubaydah did not cover areas inside the United States (which raises questions about national security).
Then we have these technicalities.
1) The U.S. Supreme Court held in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) that detainees captured in the war on terrorism are protected by Art. 3 of the Geneva Conventions.
2) Water boarding also falls under the descriptions outlined in the 1987 “Convention Against Torture ...” which tells us that water boarding is ILLEGAL.
3) (For the Christians) Unless you’re partial to the Old Testament, I’m not sure Jesus would approve.
But wait, there’s more. Apparently the U.S. has a history of pursuing convictions against military personnel for conducting water boarding on U.S. soldiers, and against the enemy.
1) We convicted Japanese soldiers for using water boarding on U.S. servicemen during WW II. Seitara Hata received 25 years of hard labor for his acts.
2) Larry Johnson tells us after the accompanying photo was shown by the Washington Post in 1968 an investigation was conducted by the U.S. Military and a court martial followed.
At the end of the day, while I’m not a fan, I have to agree with John McCain on this: It “is not about who they are. It’s about who we are.”
This report has the details about stop-loss damage. 
The five year anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq is fast approaching (March 20, 2003). I have a few thoughts ... 
The war in Iraq will cost more than World War II, according to economist and Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz. Making matters worse, the gains many economists say we should expect from waging war will not appear.
