What A Waste
On the 20-year anniversary of 9/11, it's easy to view the war on terrorism as a colossal waste of blood and treasure. It's also been a fundamental failure of the nation's politics.
I'm Michael A. Cohen, and this is Truth and Consequences: A no-holds-barred look at the absurdities, hypocrisies, and surreality of American politics. If someone sent you this email - or you are a free subscriber - and you'd like to subscribe: you can sign up here.
As you might have already guessed, there won’t be a Zoomcast today. Indeed, I’m on a plane right now to Michigan where I will be attending a) the Dead and Company show tonight b) the University of Michigan’s home game against the University of Washington on Saturday night, and c) the Detroit Lions’ home opener. Pray for me.
Treasure Squandered
A couple of years ago, my friend Micah Zenko and I wrote a book about how the United States inflates foreign threats and ignores the far greater dangers to Americans that exist here at home. There is truly no better example of this phenomenon than the post-9/11 war on terrorism, which turns 20 this weekend.
As we noted in a piece for the Boston Globe from 2019, the United States “spent $819 billion in direct costs on the invasion, occupation, and reconstruction of Iraq.” That decision did nothing to make the United States safer from jihadist terrorism or weapons of mass destruction, which as it turned out, Iraq did not have. As of 2019, the United States had spent — in direct and indirect costs close to $6 trillion in fighting the war on terrorism. According to the Watson Institute at Brown University, which calculates the costs of America’s wars, that number is now closer to $8 trillion — $2 trillion of which includes veterans’ health care. The US will likely be paying for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan into the 22nd century.
But here’s where things really get depressing. There’s another number to consider: $97 million. “That’s the amount of money that Congress appropriated in 2002 to defray the costs for airlines to replace flimsy cockpit doors and simple latches with hardened, bulletproof doors.”
That change did more to prevent another 9/11-style attack than anything the US did in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The same goes for the post-September 11th requirement that US intelligence agencies start sharing information. Had the CIA informed the FBI about the presence of al Qaeda terrorists in the United States before 9/11, there’s good reason to believe that that the attacks could have been thwarted.
There are other numbers too. For example, rather than spending more than $800 billion on the war in Iraq, America could have provided every American with health care coverage and prevented tens of thousands of premature deaths every year.
The money spent on fighting terrorists could have been used to repair American infrastructure, create a paid family leave program, invest in drug rehabilitation programs, enroll millions of students in Head Start programs, and buy every American child a pony (I actually looked this up and it would cost around $73 billion to buy every kid in America a pony … but it’s the stable costs that really get you).
The larger point here is that the US war on terrorism is undoubtedly the most costly misallocation of government resources in American history and against a threat that essentially didn’t exist after the Taliban’s removal from power in December 2001. At least during the Cold War, one could argue that the Soviet Union represented a legitimate threat to the economic and political interests of the United States — even if the wars we fought against Communism (in particular Vietnam) didn’t do much to make America safer.
In Vietnam, one could make the case that standing up a non-Communist South Vietnamese state was a worthwhile goal, even if it wasn’t nearly worth the cost of fighting a war in which more than 58,000 American soldiers died. But it’s a much harder, dare I say, an impossible argument to make when it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan. Twenty years after the towers fell, we can say with near certainty that the war on terrorism was a colossal waste.
Forget It, Jake; It’s Politics
The rationale for invading and occupying Iraq and staying in Afghanistan long past the point that al Qaeda and the Taliban had been dislodged was always about protecting Americans. President Bush and those around him warned of potential mushroom clouds over American cities if the US didn’t invade Iraq. President Obama talked about the war in Afghanistan as a “vital national interest.” But as the numbers above show, many of the nation’s leaders did not show the same level of concern about the threats to Americans that existed at home.
Rarely has that contrast been as stark as during the COVID-19 pandemic. The same political party that argued it was essential to send US troops halfway around the world to protect Americans from foreign terrorism has taken a laissez-faire approach to keeping them safe from COVID-19.
This chart from Dr. Ashish Jha, a public health expert at Brown University captures the dynamic well.
As Jha points out, “Nearly 3 in 10 Floridians who has died of COVID19 -- died after April 1, 2021. Only 1 in 10 in CA.”
Per capita, Florida has six times the daily deaths as California.
As Jha notes, vaccine rates in the two states are essentially the same. The difference is that California has reimposed mask mandates, while in Florida, the governor is fighting to prevent schools from imposing them. California is also doing far more testing than Florida. It’s hard to think of a starker example of why politics matters. Had Florida elected a Democratic governor in 2018, it’s quite possible that many more Floridians would be alive right now. The same goes for states like Texas, South Dakota, and elsewhere.
One could argue, as I have in the past, that this shows a near depraved indifference in Florida to the loss of life from COVID. But I’d make a more straightforward argument: it’s about politics. Politicians in red-state America, with a cue from President Trump. decided early on to minimize the threat from COVID-19 and instead rail against the disruption to the economy and our daily lives caused by public health measures. They adopted libertarian language about government overreach when it came to mask mandates, social distancing, and now vaccine mandates. And they did it because they believed, correctly as it turned out, that such language would resonate with their supporters — even as many of them were dying from a completely preventable disease.
I bring this up in the context of the war on terrorism because the political rationale that informed the decision-making around the pandemic is remarkably similar to why the US spent 20 years fighting the war on terrorism.
Might Makes Right
I don’t mean to completely minimize the threat from al Qaeda and jihadist terrorism in general. Three thousand people died on 9/11, and there was the potential for further attacks. But much of what happened after September 11 had more to do with politics than security. For decades, Republicans have been viewed by the electorate as the stronger party on foreign policy and national security. So wrapping themselves in the flag and pledging to wipe out those responsible for 9/11 was completely consistent with Republican rhetoric for years. There was an obvious political benefit in making the war on terrorism the focal point of American politics. Quite simply, it played to the GOP’s strengths.
By using black and white, good vs. evil rhetoric, Republicans made it far more difficult impossible to criticize them — in much the same way that a Democratic President, Harry Truman in 1947, depicted the fight against the Soviet Union as an existential battle between white hats and black hats.
During the 2004 election, President Bush’s campaign portrayed the president as more likely to keep them safe, depicted his Democratic opponent as feckless and indecisive, and even ran a famous ad that suggested only Republicans could keep threats to America at bay.
And it was precisely that fear of being seen on the wrong side of an issue like terrorism that led many congressional Democrats to support the war in Iraq and go along with many of Bush’s anti-terrorism policies. It certainly also contributed to Barack Obama expanding the US military presence in Afghanistan in 2009, even against his better wishes.
We’d like to believe that decisions about war and peace and responses to global health emergencies are informed by politicians taking into account the best interests of the American people — or a sober and reasoned analysis of America’s vital national security interests. Sometimes that is the case, but more often than not, politics and political considerations are what drive politicians to act.
It’s easy to look back at the last 20 years as a failure of policy, but in reality it’s far more about the inclination of American leaders, mostly Republicans but some Democrats, to play politics with our lives. Sadly, two decades after 9/11 it’s still happening with far deadlier consequences.
What’s Going On?
Interesting argument by Ron Brownstein that California’s recall election offers a useful political road map to Democrats.
David Leonhardt points out that the chances of a vaccinated individual having a breakthrough case of COVID-19 is exceptionally unlikely.
Read this magnificent piece by Anand Gopal on how the US lost the Afghan people.
Me and Pete
On Thursday, I sat down with Pete Dominick to talk about my recent piece on the Ohio Senate Republican primary, media coverage of the Afghanistan withdrawal, and Joe Manchin. Take a listen!
What A Waste
Terrific piece, Michael. Nails it.