According to the Washington Post, the cost of the war in Iraq now exceeds $3 billion a week. Amongst the multitude of other potential ways to use this money, imagine the following foreign policy alternative: pay every Iraqi resident seven times their average income.

Here’s the math: $3 billion divided by 27 million (Iraq’s population) is $111, per week. That’s $5,800 per year, seven times more than Iraq’s estimated per capita income of $800. Note that Iraq’s population and income estimates are very rough, considering the limited data and rapidly changing situation. Given the country’s stagnating economy, increasing death rate, and increasing out-migration, the population and income levels are likely lower. This means that the payoff could amount to even more than seven times per capita income.

A higher per capita income would likely decrease Iraqis’ desires to leave the country, help quell the anger and frustration that fuel violence, reduce poverty, and even generate the prosperity necessary to survive as a democracy.

Of course, the pundits might fear that just handing every Iraqi $111 a week would be an overly simplistic and politically unpopular policy, one that could spin out of control and lead to a whole new set of problems. (Not that such fears would deterthis White House…) As an alternative, the $3 billion could be transferred through more governable economic development programs: new public jobs, small business investments, food and health care credits, etc. Regardless, if our goal is to help build a more developed and democratic Iraq, could passing on funding for Iraq to Iraqis possibly do worse than the US government’s other strategies?