« The Benefits of Trade | Main | Be Very Scared» Don Boudreaux
October 24, 2007
The War and Wildfires
Don Boudreaux
This morning I heard a report on the radio of Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) complaining that the war in Iraq interferes with government's ability to fight the wildfires in southern California. No doubt. But.....
I oppose the war in Iraq; I always have done so. But this war, while it does interfere with efforts to extinguish wildfires, does not interfere any more so than does nearly any other government program you care to name. Resources have multiple uses and are scarce. To use a worker or raw materials fighting a war is to take that worker and those materials, at least for a time, away from other potentially valuable uses.
The same is true of using workers and other resources to fight the "war on drugs" -- or using workers and other resources to administer agricultural price-support programs -- or using workers and other resources to run the Departments of Education, Transportation, Commerce, and so on -- or using workers and other resources to enforce the Endangered Species Act.
The question is not does fighting the war in Iraq reduce government's (and private persons') ability to battle the wildfires. Of course it does. The questions are, rather, are too many resources devoted to fighting the war? Will Americans likely be made better off by taking some resources away from the war effort and put instead to other uses?
My answer to these questions is yes, mostly because I believe that the war is both unjustified and counter-productive. But the fact that the war effort detracts from the ability to get other goodies is not itself a sound argument against the war.
I'm delighted that Senator Barbara Boxer is aware of opportunity costs -- that she understands that resources used to do X become unavailable to do W,Y, and Z. I hope that she'll extend this insight to ask hard questions about the desirability -- and about the costs -- of the countless government programs that she supports.
Posted by Don Boudreaux in Current Affairs, Reality Is Not Optional, War | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834518ccc69e200e54f11d24e8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The War and Wildfires:
Comments
I am not so sure that the war in Iraq is actually having such a significant effect on fighting the fires in California. Including reserves and national guard, the military is over 2 million strong but less than 150,000 of them are in Iraq. Even including total members of the military in the Middle East, there are definitely less than 300,000 members of the armed forces involved in the Iraq theater. And I do not think that any other resources that are being used in Iraq would ever have been used in fighting the fires in any significnt amount.
The real issue is that a lack of property rights on goverment owned or controlled forests means that fires are more likely to start and spread quickly and become too large to easily fight well before anyone actually responds to it.
Posted by: ZH | Oct 24, 2007 12:58:45 PM
I don't buy your argument, Don. The question is whether there are any fewer people fighting the California fires (or quality is lower) because a war is on. The answer, surely, is no if a) the war leaves the market wage for firefighters unchanged and b) the government is not constrained by the war in raising the money it need to finance the firefighting effort.
I suspect both conditions hold here, so it's not clear in what sense other government spending does interfere with the firefighting effort. As the long as the government is free in either scenario to keep hiring firefighters until the marginal benefit of the last firefighter just equals their cost then in principle you get the same numbers with or without a war.
Posted by: ben | Oct 24, 2007 1:06:04 PM
National Guard units have historically been charged with providing security inside the US.
More and more, however, they are being used as regular Army units outside of the US. (Shouldn't that be what the reserves are for?)
This shift in strategy needs to be addressed, as the absence of National Guard units (people AND equipment) here in the US - where they belong - impacts our ability to respond to serious emergencies like earthquakes, hurricanes, wildfires, and other catastrophes requiring a large-scale organized response structure.
Either the mission of the Reserves needs to be re-evaluated, or states must put in place a different emergency response system, but things cannot go on this way.
Instead of complaining and pointing fingers t each other, state and federal govt. officials might need to start working on a re-org.
Posted by: olivier blanchard | Oct 24, 2007 1:45:30 PM
I hope that she'll extend this insight to ask hard questions about the desirability -- and about the costs -- of the countless government programs that she supports.
Fat Chance!
Posted by: I-Man | Oct 24, 2007 5:11:51 PM
Well, I'm 3 miles downwind from the now renamed Santiago Canyon fire and here's what I can tell you... This fire started Sunday evening after many OC fire units deployed to help with the Malibu fire and (I think) a fire near the city of Ontario. We were left thin to deal with such a massive fire that headed WNW toward Irvine. In fact, going to grab dinner that night, I saw the sky blanketed in smoke just to the north (where the then-named Irvine fire had started burning) and thought the Malibu fire must have been some serious monster fire. I also saw our local fire station head out in the direction of Irvine. I assumed they had a routine emergency.
Because the Malibu fire and then the ones around Canyon Country happened first, they got all the local mutual aid support. Our county fire chief and local assemblyman complained about this yesterday. With a fairer distribution of ground and air resources, the Santiago Canyon fire could have been dealt with quickly on Monday rather than threatening well defended homes in Foothill Ranch and then spreading back to the canyons yesterday and today. But all these resources are coordinated by a central state office, and apparently, the only way we even had a helicopter to drop water before yesterday afternoon was because the LA County chief lent one to the OC chief outside the official system. San Diego got absolutely no air support while 1/2 million of its residents were displaced and over 1000 homes were lost.
Meanwhile, our Governator acts as cheerleader in chief praising the way all levels of government worked together successfully to handle this extraordinary emergency. Tell that to the 10 homeowners in Santiago Canyon or the 1000+ in San Diego county. I just can't believe that with a giant tinderbox to our east that we OC people even bother to participate in a statewide response system that favors where the TV stations are (i.e. LA and San Francisco).
Posted by: Brad | Oct 24, 2007 5:36:51 PM
I man said:
I hope that she'll extend this insight to ask hard questions about the desirability -- and about the costs -- of the countless government programs that she supports.
"Fat Chance!"
You are being unfair. Of course she will think about opportunity cost when she evaluates public policy, when it will improve the likelihood of her reelection of course.
Posted by: John Pertz | Oct 24, 2007 8:31:43 PM
She's right, but she doesn't go far enough. The war against drugs also interferes with government's ability to fight the wildfires. Or what about the war on poverty? All of the "wars" the government fights interfers with its ability to respond to genuine crises emergencies.
Posted by: David Johnson | Oct 25, 2007 1:36:23 AM
Is this the same country that was the deciding factor in two world wars?
Looking at the way people are cribbing about how two wars in medium sized countries are sapping the US of resources to fight a wildfire, the US does not seem the country it once was.
Hell, India has 400,000 troops committed to counter-insurgency operations in Jammu and Kashmir and in the northeastern states but you don't see people cribbing about how this is robbing the state of resources.
I don't think this is due to a lack of resources in the US - I think this is because those resources aren't being allocated fairly.
Posted by: Shaunak | Oct 25, 2007 4:56:56 AM
Qoute from olivier blanchard: "More and more, however, they are being used as regular Army units outside of the US. (Shouldn't that be what the reserves are for?)"
No, you're incorrect. Historically, the National Guard has always contained a higher proportion of combat arms units, while the Reserves have contained almost exclusively support units. The reasons for the National Guard not being sent to fight wars until recently was mainly political or operational.
Posted by: Keith | Oct 25, 2007 6:54:51 AM
As much as I dislike Boxer she may be right on this one.
Why?
Depending on the state 40% - 60% of transport and engineering equipment is apparently in theatre or awaiting overhaul or on a scrap heap.
No other government program I know of directly destroys National Guard
equipment and eats up support resources.
Related story:
Sat beside a civilian armor maintenance expert on a plane flight a few weeks ago. His company has scheduled personnel for in-theatre for at least four years (he was headed to Baghdad for a two year tour). The company is expecting 1/2 trillion dollars or so in armor repairs spread over the next decade (various contractors) just to clean up Bush's mess (doesn't count new equipment and scheduled tech upgrades). Ouch.
Posted by: save_the_rustbelt | Oct 25, 2007 10:36:53 AM
For an accurate summary of what Sen. Boxer actually said, see:
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/?last_story=/politics/war_room/2007/10/25/endorse/
Posted by: chris | Oct 25, 2007 12:29:53 PM
I think Sen. Boxer is implying that the resources of the CA guard units that are out of the country could be brought to bear directly in the firefighting effort. She is talking about a different use for resources for which there are current sunk costs. Don is talking about using the money that currently goes to those resources for other purposes, so he is a step removed what what the senator is suggesting.
Some national guard personnel have stepped up to say that very few of them are actually trained in firefighting techniques, and so they would be useless in fighting the fires. However, while they would probably not be able to fight on the front lines, they do have engineering units that could probably work in building fire breaks and in other engineering projects. Also, the national guard could help with evacuation, security in evacuated areas, crowd control, logistics, and supply. They do have training and resources that could be useful for these efforts.
In short, Sen. Boxer is probably correct when she suggests that some resources that could be employed in the firefighting effort are unavailble due to our military efforts in the Middle East.
Shaunak suggests that we have turned into a nation of whiny boobs, instead of a nation that simply steps up and does what the situation requires. Is this reality or is it media-induced perception? I'm not sure. Perhaps some of both.
Posted by: Reach Upward | Oct 25, 2007 9:03:14 PM
Considering that we are now being told that those fires were arson, I can empathize with Barbi Boxer. I mean my gosh, if the national guard wasn't in Iraq, they could be stationed 40 yards apart along all of california's roads to prevent people from setting fires in the first place! It is George Bush's fault and Boxer nails it.
Posted by: vidyohs | Oct 26, 2007 6:23:20 AM
With FEMA under the department of homeland security the resources used in war and disaster draw from the same pool more than they otherwise would.
As you point out, capital and labor have many applications, but it just so happens that the specific resources used to fight wars also work to fight fires or perform search and rescue in natural disasters. When fighting natural disasters it seems only natural to ask "If only we had more helicopters?" It also seems reasonable in the face of the fact that so many helicopters are half-way around the world fighting wars, that those wars are detracting from the better fighting of fires.
Posted by: Daniel J. D'Amico | Oct 26, 2007 6:03:34 PM
D. J. D'Amico,
I am not sure (yes I am), but military helicoptors are for military use, are they not?
I was never in the National Guard, but I have many friends and acquaintances that were, and I am pretty sure from knowing of their background that their training did NOT include firefighting but did include warfare?
I would say that wildfires are detracting from politicians speaking sensibly, as did the Katrina Hurricane and 9/11.
Barbara Boxer is a politician. How do you tell a politician is lying? Their lips are moving.
If Barbara Boxer is moved by the plight of lack of firefighters why doesn't she call for her fellow congress critters to join her on the fire line to fight fires as concerned citizens? Oh well, vidyohs, that is patent nonsense...they are important people......just bring the slaves, the poor, the uneducated, the trailer trash, and the ignorant back and let them fight the fires.
Posted by: vidyohs | Oct 26, 2007 9:40:13 PM
I believe that my poor english is the one to blame for having me come up with this site in search results for salon equipment :)
It must have been because of link pointing to salon.com, but since I'm here I must say that I agree with comment
Posted by: Brad | Oct 24, 2007 5:36:51 PM
Anyhow, this was an interesting read, definitely worth my time.
Best of luck and peace to all!
Posted by: Beauty Salon Equipment | Sep 5, 2008 9:03:24 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
