How many Iraqi civilian casualties are acceptable?

[Kuciwalker]

It's one way to try to measure the monetary value of a life, which is an essential component of the equation whose solution is the answer to the poll.

[loinburger]

I don't see what you'd gain by determining the average monetary value of an Iraqi civilian - you'd still need to determine the monetary gain of having a relatively stable democracy in Iraq compared to the monetarn value of having a relatively stable dictatorship in Iraq.

[Kuciwalker]

This shouldn't be too hard to compute, with a few assumptions and some statistics I don't have available. Assume the counterfactual is indefinite continuation of a regime similar to Saddam Hussein's*, specify e.g. linear improvement between the time of invasion and 2022, fix the economic prosperity in 2022 exactly (70% of 2002 US GDP/capita?), assume constant GDP growth matching the historical average for developed countries, fix the monetary value of a life, etc. and you can easily find the difference in present value between the two.

*at least far enough into the future that the discount factor renders anything afterward negligible.

.

[loinburger]

Which is insufficient if Iraqi quality of life or American security or power projection are used as justifications for war.

[Kuciwalker]

What?

Look, we've got two options: indefinite continuation of the 2002 status quo, or X loss of life + eventual indefinite status as "a poorer United States". We are trying to solve for the value of X that gives those two options equal value. By fixing the monetary value of a life, and then calculating precisely the difference in present value between the income streams of the two options, we can solve this equation easily.

[loinburger]

Yes, ignoring the complicated parts of an equation does tend to simplify it. What is the monetary value for the increased or reduced median quality of life in a democratic Iraq? What is the monetary value to the political capital gained or lost by having a democratic Iraq?

[SlowwHand]

The correct answer to the thread question is 28,945,657 (July 2009 est.).

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/iz.html

[loinburger]

The correct answer to the thread question is 28,945,657 (July 2009 est.).

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/iz.html

The question then becomes how. We can't exactly nuke them, we'd lose all that oil.

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, ignoring the complicated parts of an equation does tend to simplify it. What is the monetary value for the increased or reduced median quality of life in a democratic Iraq? What is the monetary value to the political capital gained or lost by having a democratic Iraq?

...

The monetary value of increased GDP is obviously the increase in GDP.

The monetary components of the equation are already measured in dollars, so the only question is how to convert the other components into dollars too.

[loinburger]

The monetary components of the equation are already measured in dollars, so the only question is how to convert the other components into dollars too.

What is the monetary value for the increased or reduced median quality of life in a democratic Iraq? What is the monetary value to the political capital gained or lost by having a democratic Iraq?

[Kuciwalker]

What is the monetary value for the increased or reduced median quality of life in a democratic Iraq?

Obviously, GDP/capita is being used as a stand-in for quality of life.

What is the monetary value to the political capital gained or lost by having a democratic Iraq?

What the **** does this even mean? You aren't using "political capital" in the normal sense of the term.

[loinburger]

Obviously, GDP/capita is being used as a stand-in for quality of life.

And obviously GDP/capita has little if anything to do with e.g. crime rates or the propensity for the leaders to torture the peasants.

What the **** does this even mean? You aren't using "political capital" in the normal sense of the term.

People on this forum and elsewhere are fine with sacrificing X1 Iraqis in order to save X2 Americans from future terrorist attacks, and people on this forum and elsewhere are fine with sacrificing Y1 Iraqis in order to prevent Y2 Iraqis from being tortured or murdered in the future. There's also the idea that a relatively stable democracy in Iraq will somehow create relatively stable democracies in neighboring countries, all of whom may be more or less willing to engage in terrorist activities as a result and all of whom may charge more or less for their oil as a result. You're absolutely convinced that an Iraqi's worth (and therefore the number of them that can be killed) can be computed from the Iraqi's contribution to GDP and I'm just not buying it - somebody who wants to prevent Iraqis from being tortured or somebody who wants to prevent Iraqis from terrorizing us does not care one bit what the affected Iraqis' GDP contributions are.

Now, if the question had been "How many Iraqis should be killed to maximize Iraq's future GDP" then your tangent would be spot on.

[Kuciwalker]

And obviously GDP/capita has little if anything to do with e.g. crime rates or the propensity for the leaders to torture the peasants.

This is incorrect.

People on this forum and elsewhere are fine with sacrificing X1 Iraqis in order to save X2 Americans from future terrorist attacks,

Irrelevant. The expenditures and benefits under consideration in your problem accrue only to the Iraqis.

You're absolutely convinced that an Iraqi's worth (and therefore the number of them that can be killed) can be computed from the Iraqi's contribution to GDP

No. You are not reading this thread very carefully.

Now, if the question had been "How many Iraqis should be killed to maximize Iraq's future GDP" then your tangent would be spot on.

You are not reading very carefully at all, and I'm of half a mind you don't even understand the question you asked.

[loinburger]

This is incorrect.

Okay, so each peasant tortured lowers the GDP by what, a thousand dollars? Two thousand?

Irrelevant. The expenditures and benefits under consideration in your problem apply only to the Iraqis.

Since when? I didn't specify that in the OP.

I'm of half a mind you don't even understand the question you asked.

I asked how many Iraqi civilian casualties are acceptable to bring about a relatively stable US-style democracy. I didn't ask you to turn this into a GDP optimization problem.

[Zevico]

The question of 'how many Iraqi civilian casualties are acceptable' depends on how one assesses the threat posed by Iraq pre-invasion. This shortly descends into another argument as to whether the invasion was necessary.

As to your hypothetical, the correct answer is 0. There would be no reason to invade Iraq if it were a mini-US. Without any threat to counter there would be no reason to take military action of any kind against Iraq.