(This is an article in 2 parts.)
Previous articles on this website have talked about how every phenomenon has a primary effect and a secondary effect. (See The Law Of Reverse Effect.) Briefly, the primary effect is the immediate, obvious one, while the secondary effect is the longer and more permanent one. The secondary effect is the exact opposite of the primary effect, and is the real and lasting outcome achieved.
Thus, for any contemplated course of action, it is wise to look beyond the immediate and obvious primary effect to see what the secondary or real effects will be.
As a virtually textbook example of this principle, I would now like to apply it to the coming invasion of Iraq. What will the effects be, primary and secondary?
The primary effect will be the elimination, rather than containment, of a brutal dictator and whatever weapons of mass destruction he may possess. To many in the United States today, in and out of government, this appears to be a desirable outcome. But let's look beyond the primary effect to the secondary ones. What will they be?
Putting aside for now the grave issues of the war's effect upon Iraq, its population and the soldiers who invade it, let's narrow our focus and ask a selfish question: How will it affect the interests, domestically and internationally, of the U.S. itself?
The first secondary effect will be a great increase in the current U.S. federal budget deficits. This war and its aftermath will be costly and prolonged. The government itself projects an initial cost of between $100 and $200 billion, and we will likely be in Iraq for the better part of a decade or more.
When we add up the initial, ancillary and continuing costs of the coming invasion, it is not difficult to forecast that the current federal U.S. deficits will dramatically increase and will continue in that mode for the foreseeable future.
That means, in turn, that the federal government will be borrowing a lot more money in the capital markets for a long and continuing period of time. This will sooner or later drive up long-term interest rates and help to drive a decline in the bond markets.
Further, since low long-term interest rates are the main thing currently holding up the real estate market, it too will begin a long and prolonged decline. The decline of the bond and real estate markets was going to happen anyway, but this will add an impetus to that process.
The second of the secondary effects will be an increase in terrorism directed at the United States and its interests. Why? Because terrorism in itself is not the problem; it is, rather, a symptom of a problem.
The actual problem is the rising anger and frustration in the Muslim world at what is perceived to be an arrogant, one-sided and imperialist U.S. foreign policy. People of good intentions can argue the relative merits of this view, but that we are currently perceived that way in the Arab-Muslim world is beyond dispute.
This anger and frustration, in turn, is the soil from which terrorism grows. For every 100,000 people who are angry and frustrated in the general population, a few will go to the extreme of becoming terrorists.
The coming invasion of Iraq will increase this anger and frustration in the Arab-Muslim world exponentially, in my estimation. This in turn will most likely fuel a dramatic increase in long-term terrorism directed at the U.S. and its interests. Our grandchildren may still be feeling its effects.
Paradoxically, the very action that we're taking to increase our sense of security will have the secondary, long-lasting effect of greatly decreasing our security.
(This is the end of Part 1. Go to Part 2.)
—jim sloman, 10/13/02 for Dec 7
|
