Stephen F. Hayes, staff writer
|
|
WILL THE FRAGILE U.S. ECONOMY head into a full tailspin if President Bush makes good on his promise to oust Saddam Hussein? The New York Times evidently thinks the answer to that question is "yes."
Here's their lede from yesterday: "An American attack on Iraq could profoundly affect the American economy, because the United States would have to pay for most of the cost and bear the brunt of any oil price shock or other market disruptions, government officials, diplomats and economists say."
The thrust of the Times piece--wars cost money--is obvious enough. So why publish it on the front page? As Andrew Sullivan has noted, the Times "anti-war coverage is getting really intense now. We've had the Powell puff piece, the Powell editorial, the cover-piece on why the Kurds fear a war, and now a piece on how the war will hurt the economy."
This latest effort, by Times writers Patrick Tyler and Richard Stevenson, is striking both for what it includes and what it omits. The authors focus almost exclusively on what they suggest would be the damaging consequences of war. (For that reason, the use of the soft verb "affect" in the lede is an interesting--and misleading--choice.) Any serious look at the economic impact of war would include two key issues the authors choose to ignore: First, a discussion of the disastrous economic consequences of another, larger terrorist attack--the possible result of inaction with regards to Iraq. (A GAO report out yesterday suggests that New York City
and New York state each lost $1.6 billion in tax revenues alone in 2002.) Second, what about the economic boon presented by a liberalized Iraq? The Times, however, appears less interested in a thoughtful discussion about the economic impact of war, and more interested in laying out obstacles to military intervention.
Imagine: Saddam Hussein, a man New York Times editorialists acknowledge has "hidden stocks of anthrax, botulium toxin and VX nerve gas," passes a small quantity--maybe 25 kg--of VX nerve gas to terrorists operating in the United States. The terrorists disperse the substance, among the most deadly known to man, in the air above Times Square. If Times Square is empty and the attack affects only those who live in the immediate area, ten thousand die. Thousands more suffer. The psychological impact on the country is inestimable. The economic impact, devastating. (Those numbers come from a fascinating analysis by Dexter Ingram, a numbers-cruncher at the Heritage Foundation, who used the same computer model as the Pentagon.)
That scenario contains several "ifs." And skeptics might point out that despite reports of increased coordination between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda, no one has proven conclusively that Saddam and bin Laden have together perpetrated terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. (However, author Laurie Mylroie has presented a compelling circumstantial case for Saddam's involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.) But it is no more speculative than the Times article, which quotes a Kuwaiti diplomat who warns that intervention in Iraq would cause a "clash of civilizations."
|
