- Published: September 18, 2022
- Updated: September 18, 2022
- University / College: Texas A&M University
- Level: Doctor of Philosophy
- Language: English
- Downloads: 7
Lewis and Goldin approach Introduction One of the contemporary conflicts in the US is the War on Terror. The country’s aim for participating in this war is to curb terrorism not only in the country, but also in all other parts of the world. This implies that the country has to use it resources in the war. Critiques of the war claim that the country will have to spend a lot in the war or terror. This essay will analyze the cost incurred by the country during the War on Terror using the approach used by Lewis and Goldin in the Civil War.
2. Background
i. Lewis and Goldin approach of measuring cost of Civil war
The economic impact of the US civil war attracted public attention. The cost of the Civil War was measured by estimating two types of war cost that include the direct and indirect cost. The direct estimation involves the computation of the total actual expenses incurred by both sides. The indirect estimation alone could not be used to give an accurate cost of the war. Lewis and Goldin also used indirect estimation in order to overshadow the limitations of direct estimation. By using the indirect estimation, they assumed that the country would still incur some expenses in the absence of the war. The difference between the consumption stream in the absence of the war and the actual expenses is the indirect cost. The direct cost of the war to the north as estimated by Lewis and Goldin was 3, 365, 846 dollars (Lewis & Goldin 308), while the total indirect cost in this region for the natives was 49, 950 dollars (Lewis & Goldin 317).
3. Research questions
1. How are the Lewis and Goldin approach used in measuring cost of contemporary wars?
2. What are the disadvantages of using the Lewis and Goldin approach used in measuring cost of contemporary wars?
3. What is the cost of contemporary wars in Afghanistan and Iraq based on the Lewis and Goldin approach?
4. Literature review
I. The cost of war on terrors
Since the historical times, the US has been actively participating in the fight against terrorists. The contemporary US acts of war on terror include the US war in Afghanistan and Iraq. The US has been sending its troop to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq in order to eliminate terrorism. This is among the country’s strategy to end terrorism in other countries before the US is affected. The cost of this war could be computed using Lewis and Goldin method. It means that the both direct and indirect costs of the war on terror have to be calculated for the past decade. The direct costs would include the total government expenditure on the war. The indirect cost would be the cost incurred by the citizens because of the war on terror. According to researches, the direct cost of war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq was about 4 trillion dollars (DeGraw 1). The total indirect cost includes the interest on the money was 1 trillion, the medical costs of the veteran which was 32 billion, the foreign aid of about 74 billion dollars, pentagon spending of about 652 billion, security spending of about 401 billion dollar(DeGraw 1). The total indirect cost would be about 2 trillion. This means that the cost of the war on terror would be about 6 trillion.
Conclusion
The cost of war should include both direct and indirect war as proposed by Lewis and Goldin. By only computing the direct cost one would get a gross cost. When using this method to calculate the cost of war on terror in the US the cost would be above 6 trillion dollars.
Works Cited
DeGraw, David. The “ War on Terror is A 6 trillion dollars racket, exceeding the total cost of World War II. Center for Research on Globalization. 2011. Web. 26 September 2014.
http://www. globalresearch. ca/the-war-on-terror-is-a-6-trillion-racket-exceeding-the-total-cost-of-world-war-ii/25531
Lewis, Frank. & Golding, Claudia. The economic cost of the American Civil War: Estimates
and Implications. The Journal of Economic History. Vol 25 (2). 1975. Web. 26 September 2014.