Economics of wars

"All war is a symptom of man's failure as a thinking animal," John Steinbeck. Wars are dangerous, costly, destructive and inhuman. Yet history shows how they are a political indulgence many politicians find irresistible. Power and superpower are the main political attractions and the route to this power at all costs goal is normally through controlling more and more land, resources and people. The shortest route to control obsession is war. While in the past, the brutal and naked desire for such battles was considered political norm, post-World Wars they are not the norm, yet we see the world at war, be it military or hybrid warfare.

War hysteria that still dominates the fight between superpower and the other powers, or to be precise, the superpower and the powerless is difficult to explain when you see that most wars that the US has fought have not led to take over in the literal war sense of ruling the country. Since 1945, the US has very rarely achieved any meaningful victory. It has fought five major wars - Korea, Vietnam, Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan - and have lost nearly all except perhaps the Gulf War in 1991 that can be classified as a nominal success.

There are many patterns that have emerged in these losing battles:

1. Geographical concentration - Most of these wars are based in Asia and particularly the Middle East. The Vietnam War was a resounding defeat for the US and has gone down in history as a scar on human face. Thereafter the focus on the Middle East and later on South Asia.

2. Oil Focus - Another very visible theme has been the pursuit of scarce resources like oil. The Iran-Iraq war was US-backed and the attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan also had oil and other natural resources as a target. The assassination of Iran's Maj-General Soleimani in Iraq by the US is again fuelling oil prices and creating price hikes that may benefit many US allied countries.

3. Elections - Most US Presidents need some big ticket items especially to make US look super powerful at election times. Donald Trump who is now facing impeachment and an economic slowdown is doing exactly what he blamed Obama for doing in 2011. He tweeted, "Our president will start a war with Iran because he has absolutely no ability to negotiate - he's weak and ineffective.So the only way he figures that he's going to get re-elected, and as sure as you're sitting there, is to start a war with Iran."

When wars are costly and the countries that the US tries to occupy fight till US departs, why does US indulge in such costly losing battles? Many experts think that US does gain economically in the medium term. In his book "Confessions of an Economic Hitman," John Perkins, who himself was an economic hitman reveals how US feeds its huge multinational conglomerates through demand based on destruction. After the success of his first book he further elaborated how US economy benefited by wars in a number of follow-up books. He gives disturbing accounts of the American government wreaking havoc around the world in support of American business. In Perkins's view, American presidents willingly comply with their CEO masters, distributing foreign aid to corrupt Third World leaders who keep a share and return the rest to US business for major projects, leaving their nations poor and massively in debt, and requiring more loans and slavish obedience to US policy. If any leader objects, the CIA destabilises this government, by assassination if necessary.

The fact that the superpower controls multilateral institutions through voting power and is also able to disable opposing moves, policies, individuals and nations, has made war an easy route to money, military and political might. However, the long term impact of war has eroded US ability to retain its might. That was evident in the 2007 financial crisis and the dilemma that US finds itself in Afghanistan of to leave or not to leave trap. While the world has changed dramatically, US strategic strategies have not adapted to this change that well. The emergence of hybrid warfare and technology has reduced the difference between weapon accumulation and direct wars and proxy wars. Many lesser nations have used social media platforms and software penetration to create difficulties for US and other nations to win ground and air battles.

Pakistan has strategic importance in the region and can play a part only after keeping its national interests a priority. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister have made a very clear policy statement that Pakistan will not be part of this war as it will only facilitate peace in the region. This policy statement will be followed up by the visits to Iran, Saudi Arabia and the US. In this regard, Pakistan and other influencers like NATO countries need to focus on the following:

1. Persuade US to see the impact it will have on US economy and the government. Already Iran has shown its military reach by targeting US bases in Iraq. One point to focus will be the growing support from Iraq and other groups in the region to fight US battle. This attack will make them united and this unity will make it very difficult for the US to fight a battle that has geographical, political and military spread in a region that has a history of lost battles for the US.

2. Connect it to the peace process in Afghanistan. For Trump to win the elections Afghan peace dialogue must have a conclusive result. With Iran and many groups uniting to fight against the US, the Afghan dialogue will be seriously affected. This could be a very potent point to dissuade Trump from further escalation of conflict.

3. The cost factor still counts. American taxpayers have spent $6.4 trillion since 2001 on post-9/11 wars and military action in the Middle East and Asia, according to a new study. That total is $2 trillion more than the entire federal government spending during the recently completed 2019 fiscal year. The US government spent $4.4 trillion during the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, according to the Treasury Department.

According to a report, from the Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs at Brown University, more than 801,000 people have died as a direct result of fighting. Of those, more than 335,000 have been civilians. Another 21 million people have been displaced due to violence. Tragically the human cost is the most ignored in the battle to be the superman of the superpower. (The writer can be reached at [email protected])