The (financial) costs of the war

We hear plenty of talk about what the war in Iraq is costing us in “blood and treasure,” and given that dynamic, I always feel a twinge of caution before focusing on the latter half. Obviously, the lives of U.S. troops are more important than money.

But financial costs do matter, and this war’s price tag is just staggering.

The war in Iraq could ultimately cost well over a trillion dollars — at least double what has already been spent — including the long-term costs of replacing damaged equipment, caring for wounded troops, and aiding the Iraqi government, according to a new government analysis.

The United States has already allocated more than $500 billion on the day-to-day combat operations of what are now 190,000 troops and a variety of reconstruction efforts.

In a report to lawmakers yesterday, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that even under the rosiest scenario — an immediate and substantial reduction of troops — American taxpayers will feel the financial consequences of the war for at least a decade.

It’s sometimes difficult to predict how the right will respond to news like this; I suspect they’ll say something about how expensive the Marshall Plan was and how it was obviously worth the investment.

But if that is the argument, let’s remember that we’re spending $1 trillion on a war that has produced the opposite of its intended result, has destabilized the region, and has made the United States less safe.

As for the “surge,” the administration said the policy would cost an additional $5.6 billion. The Bush gang was only off by a factor of seven.

Today, Tony Snow took a stab at defending all of this.

I haven’t seen today’s press briefing yet, but here’s what Tim Grieve reported:

Asked today about a new Congressional Budget Office report that puts the price tag of the war on Iraq at more than $1 trillion, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said: “Well, if you take a look at what happened on September 11th, 2001, it’s estimated that the aftershocks of that could have cost up to $1 trillion.”

It’s quite nauseating to see Snow get this pathetic. The attacks of 9/11 cost $1 trillion, so we’ve responded by spending another $1 trillion on a war that made our attackers stronger? Bush screwed up to a historic degree by failing to take terrorism seriously before 9/11, and he screwed up again by launching a disastrous war. The two tragic errors of judgment have cost $2 trillion — and according to Snow, one somehow justifies the other.

And as long as we’re on the subject, remember when Lawrence Lindsey, one of Bush’s top budget advisers, estimated in 2003 that the entire undertaking could cost as much as $200 billion — and was fired for coming up with a number that was far too high for the president’s liking?

Good times, good times.

Its madness, I tell you – MADNESS!

  • The cost of the war should be shared equally among the jackasses who pushed it. It would be nice to see Paul Wolfowitz’s words (the invasion will pay for itself in oil revenue) thrown back in his fired face along with a bill for his share of the Trillion dollar bill.

  • For a trillion dollars we could have bought Iraq. Now we’re just renting it.

  • Wasn’t the Bush/Cheney WH original “guesstimate” in the $50-60 billion range?

    I have read Pentagon spend-a-thon add-ups that suggest the annual “real numbers” the Pentagon/Homeland/CIA/Atomic War biz plus finance costs of Pentagon “charge card” funny money gaming work out to around the $1 trillion level a year these days.

    So…of course the American Not So Excellent Adventure In Iraq ( also known as the American Debacle in Iraq) may range out to $1 trillion before all the killing and mayhem in Iraq comes to an end?

    So…at this point with all this money– which again– remember –is in large ways just funny money (borrowed today,next generations will pay) being burned through by Pentagon for American ME militarism/hegemonism by the Bush/Cheney Gang what do they also do?

    Cut taxes,cut taxes and cut taxes.

    Any Pay For War Taxes put in anywhere? …No.

    Meanwhile the USA is headed straight for a date with aging population costs and social payout rise factors that have really big $$$ numbers.

    So…invade Iraq based on full BS/GWOT premise. Mushroom Clouds!!! Fear!!! Fear More!!! Must Invade Now!!!

    Blow through funding at burn rates the original cost estimate becomes only a fraction of.

    Cut top tax brackets,cut some more.

    No War Taxes.

    Borrow Lots. Spend Lots More. Borrow More. Spend More. Repeat.

    Dick Cheney tells us “the right decisions” are made because Bush/Cheney has the innate talent to see and make such “right”decisions.

    George W. Bush? Already talking about where his “presidential library” will be built…thinking about where he will be in “history”…fully convinced someday Americans will really understand him…meanwhile..he has GOD.

    Well…this all really will end up just swell…yup…just swell…

    G.W.Bush and Dick Cheney…two “great” Americans…

  • Oh fine, blame America why don’t you. Besides, if they hadn’t spent it in Iraq, they’d just have figured out a way of getting an even bigger slice back to their cronies, blackmailers, and bribers. At least this way some of the money went to our troops. I’m sure Snow will be making that argument any day now.

  • Not saying everyone has a price but still, lets look at the math.

    According to the UN, in 2003, the median annual household income in Iraq was $255 US.

    The population of Iraq is estimated in 2007 to be 27,500,000.

    So if my math is correct, we could have given every man, woman and child in Iraq (or, in lieu of the children, we could have bought off foreign troublemakers) over $36,000 US. Given that prewar the life expectancy in Iraq was 66.5 years, if you assume 50 years of that is income productive the one-time US payment to do what we want, disarm, vote how we want, and go play nice would have been well over 2 1/2 times the average total lifetime income for a couple in Iraq.

    It would have been a lot easier and cost a lot less blood.

  • I suspect they’ll say something about how expensive the Marshall Plan was and how it was obviously worth the investment.

    Another thing to keep in mind is that the Marshall Plan was money for reconstruction, which was implemented after the war, not during it.

  • “We hear plenty of talk about what the war in Iraq is costing us in “blood and treasure,” and given that dynamic, I always feel a twinge of caution before focusing on the latter half. Obviously, the lives of U.S. troops are more important than money.”

    Actually the distinction between blood on the one hand, and treasure on the other is not so clear.

    The huge sum spent on this war is money that will not be spent on healthcare, medical research, renewable energy, disaster relief, foreign aid or any of a host of things that can save lives.

    The cost in treasure also has a blood price which is incalculable.

  • Alex Higgins nailed it in #9.

    Add up the cost of the war and compare that to the money Republicans refuse to spend on health care.

    3,000 dead American citizens and 4,000 dead soldiers would be a drop in the bucket compared to the number of lives that could be extended by the proper allocation of all that money.

    And of course the next terrorist attack, which will no doubt be inspired at least in part by the atrocities Bush has committed in Iraq, will add to the lives lost.

    Someone on the Democratic leadership team needs to explain why impeaching Bush is still a bad idea.

  • And who can forget that the original estimate of the cost was $1.7 Billion?

    I’ll tell you who: The “watchdog media”. Here’s an interview they should be referring to often, but of course they never do:

    Nightline: Project Iraq
    Wednesday April 23, 2003

    TED KOPPEL
    (Off Camera) Well, it’s a, I think you’ll agree, this is a much bigger project than any that’s been talked about. Indeed, I understand that more money is expected to be spent on this than was spent on the entire Marshall Plan for the rebuilding of Europe after World War II.

    ANDREW NATSIOS
    No, no. This doesn’t even compare remotely with the size of the Marshall Plan.

    TED KOPPEL
    (Off Camera) The Marshall Plan was $97 billion.

    ANDREW NATSIOS
    This is 1.7 billion.

    TED KOPPEL
    (Off Camera) All right, this is the first. I mean, when you talk about 1.7, you’re not suggesting that the rebuilding of Iraq is gonna be done for $1.7 billion?

    ANDREW NATSIOS
    Well, in terms of the American taxpayers contribution, I do, this is it for the US. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries who have already made pledges, Britain, Germany, Norway, Japan, Canada, and Iraqi oil revenues, eventually in several years, when it’s up and running and there’s a new government that’s been democratically elected, will finish the job with their own revenues. They’re going to get in $20 billion a year in oil revenues. But the American part of this will be 1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this.

    http://www.fas.org/sgp/temp/natsios042303.html

    Apparently the media is like Cheney and Gonzales, they can forget almost anything. The original estimate is going to be off by a factor of 1,000, and that fact is only known to the bloggers.

    And Natsios? He’s the “special envoy to Sudan”.
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/natsios-bio.html

  • Comments are closed.