IMAGE:  August 2003
 
LINK:  Also in every issue
Editor's Notes  
Letters  
Chicagophile  
 
LINK:  Features
Moment of Decision  
Chicago's Ivy League  
The Weeds of Change  
The CMS Syndrome  

Glimpses

 

LINK:  Class Notes
Alumni News  
Alumni Works  
Deaths  

LINK:  Campus News
Chicago Journal  
University News  
Uchicago.edu e-bulletin  

LINK:  Research
Investigations  
Citations  
U of C Research Organizations  
 
GRAPHIC:  University of Chicago Magazine
 
 
AUGUST 2003
Volume 95, Issue 6
 

GRAPHIC:  Also in every issueLetters

Affirmative action reminds me of a cheap magic act...

Politics, not analysis?
“War: the frugal option?”(“Investigations,” June/03) was a political statement masquerading as economics. It should never have been published in the Magazine.

Were you to consult any traditional economic analysis of a past war, you would see that premature death played a major role in the estimated costs. Death had no place in this analysis. Yet messy violent death is a fact of war. Why was it excluded?

There are other problems as well. Homeland security is a large cost in the “containment circle.” Has there been any reduction in these costs now that the war is over? No. This suggests that the $200 billion cost was pure imagination.

Why was an additional 9/11–style attack included in the containment side when there is no credible evidence to link Iraq to the first one? It could have been more appropriately placed on the war side as an act of revenge. The $380 billion military costs on the containment side assume that U.S. military forces will be reduced now that the war is over. What evidence is there that they will be?

I could continue but I trust the point is clear. The article was pure political propaganda and not economic analysis.

Robert Evans Jr., PhD’59
Acton, Massachusetts


I was “shocked and awed” by the sophomoric nature of “War: the frugal option?”—it is something I would never expect from the University of Chicago.

The “guestimations” are of such dubious nature that even a high-school student could refute them. The assumption that the “war” scenario has none of the “containment” costs deserves scrutiny. I see the war as having no indication of elimination (or reduction) in homeland security or occupation troops or 9/11–style attack costs. The economists also suggest that occupation/nation-building costs are offset by increased living standards and fewer deaths. This is preposterous. Regarding standard of living, I offer the Afghan experience as a model in which war has not produced an increased standard of living. About deaths, U.S. occupation forces currently suffer roughly one death per day and inflict unreported numbers of Iraqi deaths—it is impossible to quantify how much better this is versus hypothetical deaths under the containment scenario.

I can only conclude that the piece was not refereed in an academic, objective sense but merely represents the Magazine’s opinion on the war.

Bruce Maison, MBA’86
El Cerrito, California


The University of Chicago Magazine welcomes letters on its contents or on topics related to the University. Letters must be signed and may be edited for space and clarity. We ask readers to keep correspondence to 300 words or less. Write:

Editor, University of Chicago Magazine,
5801 S. Ellis Avenue
Chicago, IL 60637

E-mail: uchicago-magazine@uchicago.edu

 

 


Google
Search WWW Search magazine.uchicago.edu

Contact Advertising About the Magazine Alumni UChicago Views Archives
uchicago 2003 The University of Chicago Magazine 5801 South Ellis Ave., Chicago, IL 60637
phone: 773/702-2163 fax: 773/702-0495 uchicago-magazine@uchicago.edu