That’s the cost of the war in Iraq, according to a Nobel Laureate economist. He went on to explain what that money could be doing instead, which seems a bit silly to me; it would be easier to list what you couldn’t do. And right now I can’t think of anything for that list.

One of the classic responses to this at the moment seems to be to point out the cost of not taking action. Putting aside the slight problem of logic involved (no Al Qaida in Iraq before the war, WMD, blah blah), I’m actually ready to concede this point, if well made. But for all the accounts I’ve seen making the point, none have actually then actually stated that cost.

It’s time for another episode of ‘The Objectively Game’. For those of you not familiar with the rules… well I guess you’re not a Republican. The idea is to take some tangential element of an event, subtly (or not) twist it, then point out that your target is objectively pro-{something you don’t like}.

This time we look at the news that Prince Harry is serving in Afghanistan, although now he isn’t because the news has been leaked. The story had been kept secret for 10 weeks by the media to allow the Prince to serve without endangering himself or his soldiers (except in the normal sense of being in a war zone, of course). Now I’m not generally in favour of ‘nod and a wink’ agreements between the press and, well, pretty much anyone, but in this case you’ve got a young man wanting to do something honourable with a minimum of fuss, so I don’t see the harm.

Here’s where the game starts. Not only do I not see the harm, but it’s actually a good thing because it shares the risk of being in Afghanistan across one more person. Exposing the news, therefore, deprives the Army of the use of one officer, an exhaustible (in both senses) resource. And so, by revealing the news The Drudge Report* has weakened our Army, proving that it/he is objectively pro-Al Qaida.

(*Not that Drudge was in any way bound by the voluntary agreement, except perhaps by common decency)