Weapons of Destruction

When one considers the impacts of the allegations that Iraq possessed or at minimum was soon to possess WMD’s I am fortunate to have hindsight for my assessment.

Given the benefit of hindsight I can clearly state the proof behind those allegations was both non-existent and manufactured to support an agenda that clearly was beyond the final justification of bringing democracy to the Middle East. No further proof other than the enormous financial cost (As of February 2010, around $704 billion has been spent based on estimates of current expenditure rates, which range from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimate of $2 billion per week to $12 billion a month, an estimate by economist Joseph Stiglitz)[1] borne by the citizens, the polarization of citizens supporting those in favour and those opposed, and the geopolitical tensions caused by the attack of a sovereign state by those hellbent on achieving whatever was achieved by the attack on Iraq by the U.S.A. and their chief ally Great Britain.

Indeed it may be appropriate using foresight to suggest that the resultant effect was the beginning of the financial destruction of those whose leaders initiated this direction. Simultaneous to this WFD’s were well on their way to impacting the sovereign ability of other nations and further jeopardizing the current and future wealth of the citizens of the U.S.A. and Great Britain. In comparison the U.S.A.’s combined budget deficits between 2000 and 2007 were $397,130,927,169 and in 2008 was $803,424,990,821[2]. In 2009 the deficit increased to $1,410 billion[3] while the deficit is forecast to decline to $1.17 trillion in 2010[4]

Interestingly during this period a third type of weapons WED’s (best known as causes of global warming) had been widely advertised as the greatest risk to humanity and although the theory of Global Warming and it’s causes may or may not exist, considerable financial support to combat its potential has already begun. Finding a cost on the battle related to WED’s is not easy but “the cost of the Kyoto Protocol is estimated to cost each of the developed countries involved billions of dollars.”[5] Of course to what extent finances have actually been spent remains difficult to know, but a further estimate to fight the battle of WED’s “could run to $9 trillion and it warns there is only a small window of 10 to 15 years to address the problem.”[6]

For many of us the current disaster in the gulf caused by BP is of great interest. Quite apparent is the impacts of this disaster will dwarf that which occurred when the Exxon Valdez tragically emptied its cargo around Prince William Sound. To date Exxon claims to have spent “an estimated $2 billion cleaning up the spill and a further $1 billion to settle related civil and criminal charges, and contends that 25 million would be an appropriate punitive damage level after initially being ordered to pay 5 billion.”[7] (an interesting side note is that “was equal to a single year's profit by Exxon at that time. To protect itself in case the judgment was affirmed, Exxon obtained a $4.8 billion credit line from J.P. Morgan & Co. This in turn gave J.P. Morgan the opportunity to create the first modern credit default swap in 1994, so that J.P. Morgan would not have to hold so much money in reserve (8% of the loan under Basel I) against the risk of Exxon's default.)[8]

Although the stock market reaction to the future of BP indicates concern it seems easy to conclude they understand that the devastating effects that will result from this tragedy will have relatively minor implications on a company who in 2009 “suffered a 45% fall in profits to $14bn.”[9] Sadly, Exxon’s clean-up around the 10.8 million gallons of crude spilled[10] around Prince William Sound was “According to most observers, too little and too late. The action to contain the spill was slow to get going. Just as significantly, the company completely refused to communicate openly and effectively.”[11]

BP’s behaviour seems all too familiar if one reviews what occurred with the Exxon Valdez tragedy. Moreover it appears the same fate that has affected the citizens of a small community called Prince William Sound will affect as a minimum the citizens of the gulf cost of the U.S.A. Perhaps most tragic is the elected officials who talk so tough have in the past done so little and today’s successors seem have no apparent inclination to act in a meaningful to get action.

When one considers the penalty to Lord Conrad Black for the courts judgment of crimes against shareholder’s (allegations of which most were never proven) I can not help but wonder why Tony Hayward, who apparently wants his life back, as a minimum, if not the VP of project development, and other senior staff members are not immediately incarcerated for the crime of negligence. If for no other reason it would serve the purpose of shaking up BP’s organization to act in a more aggressive way to not only contain the oil leak, but engage as many tankers as possible to pump the oily watery mixture aboard before it further spreads.

What can we learn from the moral hazard created by the governments limited response to the Exxon Valdez crisis, the bank bailout of AIG, etc. and the toxic asset slush fund? Government’s lack of action, be it criminal or civil against perpetrators who benefit massively from acts which often result in far more serious impacts to far more people than Lord Black could ever dream of taking responsibility is indicative that financial motivation remains substantially more important than social good including those which dramatically negatively impact the environment.

More importantly are what I consider the real weapons to which our society should direct their concern. The first weapons are those I would call WHD’s (weapons of humanities destruction) and even moreso are the real weapons of WMD’s that act as the actuators for WHD’s I would call weapons of mass deception.