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.<\/p>\n
But financial costs do matter, and this war’s price tag is just staggering<\/a>.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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<\/i><\/a>.<\/p>\n