$314 Billion And Rising -- Many question long-term cost (Bush's Wars)

[not systems]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/17/IRAQCOST.TMP

James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writer

Sunday, July 17, 2005

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have already cost taxpayers $314 billion, and the Congressional Budget Office projects additional expenses of perhaps $450 billion over the next 10 years.

The could make the combined campaigns, especially the war in Iraq, the most expensive military conflicts in the last 60 years, causing even some conservative experts to criticize the open-ended commitment to an elusive goal. The concern is that the soaring costs, given little weight before now, could play a growing role in U.S. strategic decisions because of the fiscal impact.

"Osama (bin Laden) doesn't have to win; he will just bleed us to death," said Michael Scheuer, a former counterterrorism official at the CIA who led the pursuit of bin Laden and recently retired after writing two books critical of the Clinton and Bush administrations. "He's well on his way to doing it."

The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a nonpartisan Washington think tank, has estimated that the Korean War cost about $430 billion and the Vietnam War cost about $600 billion, in current dollars. According to the latest estimates, the cost of the war in Iraq could exceed $700 billion.

...

Edward Luttwak, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington and a former military consultant to both Republican and Democratic administrations, said the unexpectedly high costs showed inappropriate military priorities in Iraq. He said too much was being spent on operating high-tech weaponry, such as jet fighters and naval battle groups, and not enough on troops, which are best at fighting elusive insurgents. That just further proves that the U.S. military, Luttwak said, is the best on earth at fighting conventional wars, but one of the worst at policing and counterinsurgencies.

For example, he noted that heavy Air Force fighters, such as the F-15E, were being used for aerial reconnaissance, when cheaper aircraft might work better. He questioned why a huge Navy battle group, including an aircraft carrier, was stationed near Iraq, when it offered little help in fighting a largely hidden insurgency in Iraq's towns and cities.

"It's quite important to look at the costs of the war, quite apart from counting the money, which is substantial," Luttwak said. "It is a good way to assess what is going on. It's not worth the price of what we're paying."

[cliss]

1. Now, there's a lie for you.

Notice the figure of $450 billion for the next 10 years. That means $45 billion per year.

Now compare this with how much the war has cost us taxpayers. We've been hemorrhaging for 2 years, at a cost of $314 billion. That's $157 billion per year. Why would they assume the cost will drop to about 1/3 of the current cost? What do they base their assumptions on? That the insurgency will go down? Fat chance.

Oh, I know. They're planning on the Iraqis aiming their guns at each other. Again = lunacy because if we're going to train 160,000 Iraqi troops, it's going to cost $$BILLIONS$$$. We've got to rebuild a country which we broke.

We haven't really started on that yet (right, George?).

Lies, fantasies, conjecture. Don't believe a word of it.

[MisterP]

6. 'coz we're going into Iran! whee, it's fun!

[geckosfeet]

22. Well at least Cheney and the Halliburton CEO's and their families

will be set up for generations to come. Thats is the nation being built.

Shit. This is not looking good.

[bvar22]

33. Its MUCH worse than these figures!

The Republicans are putting the Bush* War on the country's credit card, so you can DIRECTLY ADD IN the cost of financing the debt on the already spent $314 Billion!

An additional factor:
Since the republicans have shifted the tax burden to the Middle Class and Poor with:

1)tax cuts targeted for the top 1%

AND

2) The elimination of the Inheritance Tax (also only benefits the top 1%)

The Middle Class will be paying much more of the Bush* War cost than the previous generations! No wonder these greed driven assholes are in such a hurry to "make the tax cuts permanent". They don't want to pay for their stupid little war, they just want to make profits from all the death and destruction. Let the stupid Middle Class pay for it!

Have I told you how much I HATE these assholes?????

http://www.bushflash.com/ihr.html

[Oversea Visitor]

2. Hmm lots of bills still to pay hey

OBL not bleeding US hey Zee president doing great on this

Lots of longterm bills sign and approve by Zee president better go check that out.

Oh and the repair cost for Iraq hey not calculated
Compensation to the Iraqies people ... properties, lifes, damages etc woah big big bills.

:crazy: Wonder how US is going to avoid this :crazy:
Facts is War on Terror wont end until debt acknowledge and paid

[Mandate My Ass]

3. Luttwak is a neocon

He has written several books about how ethical it would be for the US to fight resource wars in the ME. Luttwak wrote a book saying you could take out a ME country, particularly Iraq, with minimum troops because Saddam was hated and the Iraqi men wouldn't have the stomach to stand up to our superior firepower, particularly when they would realize it would be in their best interest to serve rich white American interests. :eyes:

Luttwak's most famous book details what is required to pull off a bloodless coup d'etat which sounds like it was followed to the letter during the Florida 2000 debacle.

He was over in Europe during the 2004 campaign hollering through the Murdoch outlet over there that if Europe thinks Bush is scary, Kerry would ratchet up the militarism and aggression exponentially. While the Swift Boat liars were over here saying Kerry was a wimp, the neocons were saying the exact opposite about a Kerry presidency where they thought it would do the most harm.

[Miss Chybil]

5. But, here he is saying it's not worth the price we're paying. Which side

is he on?

[Mandate My Ass]

11. Israel's

If Bushco loses support of this war he would turn on them in a heartbeat but he's not denigrating the war, only the way it's being waged.

[DemInDistress]

4. let me see if I have these numbers right

in less than 3 years wars in afganistan and iraq cost over 314 billion dollars and projects it will take an additional 430 billion dollars over 10 years. my take,it will consume 430 billion more dollars in just 5 years or less.That would total about 750 bill.in less than 8 years of total war.Keep in mind Talibanners seem to be resurging,wasn't it 10 years for the Russians to realize it was hopeless and expensive worst still the Soviet Union soon collapsed. Today's illegal war in Iraq has cost America dearly I dont see this war continuing at the present rate of death and destruction unless,America is attacked the bush crime family calls Martial Law.ExecutiveOrders have been signed,FEMA is in standby currently maintaining 800 Prison camps fully staffed..

[Journeyman]

15. "800 Prison camps fully staffed". . .

Got a link to that?

[DemInDistress]

18. Journeyman no links but

google FEMA prison camps....I was being generous when saying prison camps...google lists them as "American concentration camps"

[Journeyman]

23. I Googled it. Most sites listed struck me as very unreliable. . .

a lot of far right conspiracy theorists, paranoid anti-Zionists, and message boards with no links.

Maybe I read it wrong. But I think I'll pass on worrying about American concentration camps. I remember this same conversation back in the '60s. Didn't believe it then and time justified my unconcern.

[DemInDistress]

26. Journeyman try this site

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/01/307315.shtml

hope that link works i was just there ...how come my link didn't turn blue like other posted links? My pc, skills are young but growing each day.
That story at indymedia is lengthy and and links as well as corrorboration..please check it out

[Journeyman]

27. Thanks. I'll check this a little later. . .

Sometimes the link isn't blue if you've recently viewed it.

I'm working on a project this evening, but once I finish it I'll check out this new site.

[barb162]

7. what a waste

[sam sarrha]

8. Check out this Official auditor of the GAO .... BAD NEWS..!!. LINK>>

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/printer_7041.shtml

[daleo]

9. I expect Iraq/Afghanistan to hit $1 trillion U.S.

If they go on for another administration after Bush, which is quite likely. I don't see any great victory at the end of it either. Everyone will just be exhausted and another 100K+ innocents will be dead.

[okoboji]

10. $1 trillion U.S.

just think how many other ways that $1 trillion dollars could be used, other than war......

- universal health care
- universal education plan
- saving Social Security (that supposedly will collapse at any moment)
- maintaining and upgrading our infrastrucure (new roads, bridges, etc)
- cleaning up the environment (fat chance here, since * is attempting to kill the environment)


I would hope that more sleeping Americans would wake up and see this shame before it's too late....

[krkaufman]

14. Iraq alone will easily become the Trillion Dollar War...

... given the way this Idiot is being allowed to wage it.

A sudden change of course, like withdrawal of a large number of forces prior to the 2006 US mid-term elections, would help cut the financial costs.

[wookie294]

21. More like $3.5 trillion

Yale economist William Nordhaus predicted a long conflict in Iraq might cost up to $1.9 trillion. Economist Warwick McKibbin, a board member of the Australian central bank, said a conflict lasting to 2010 could cost more than $3.5 trillion. See link for more....

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0128-33.htm

[DanCa]

12. Imagine if all that money went to the poor or the sick.

or better yet if they considered the cost of human life and decided that one american's life wasn't worth it before we got into this quagmire. Stay safe guys please stay safe.

[Zorra]

13. More of that amazing mythical republican fiscal conservatism I've

heard about for my entire life but have never seen practiced.

Republicans are the borrow and spend party.

[Mountainman]

16. dupe

[Mountainman]

17. The cost is the reason we are fighting these wars. The money goes to the

neocons and their friends.

They need wars to be in business. All other reasons are bogus. This is a means to give tax money to corporations such as Halliburton and Exxon.

That is why there is no exit strategy or no planning. Just endless war to siphon money from your pockets to Bush's friends. You wonder why they want other nations to join the fight? It is so they can get their greedy hands on money from Europe too!

Wake up and smell the coffee. They don't want the war to end and they don't care who gets killed or how much money it costs. It is good business for daddy warbucks.

[saigon68]

19. So True

Kick

[glitch]

29. Thanks for all the cash, love Halliburton. PS Sorry about your kids.

Freeway blog says it all. Perhaps we should call bush baby warbucks.

[wookie294]

20. The high price of our supreme military technology will defeat us

The reason this war has fewer American KIAs than previous wars is because of the expensive military technology that protects the troops. Ironically, the high price of protecting the troops will kill America.

[Strelnikov_]

24. For What We Are Spending On Iraq, What Could We Buy?

So this comes to, what, $2.6 B/wk

$2.6 B/week In Iraq / 7 = $371 M/dy
US oil imports ~ 10.8 M bar/dy

Therefore, $34.3/bar being spent on Iraq alone, to secure foreign oil supplies, in a (so far) losing cause.

Alternately, we could be getting a good head start on energy self sufficiency. Also, we are simply be fighting over something that will be running out in 20-40 years anyway.

What could we buy for our $300 B spent on the ‘Catastrophic Success’ so far?

U.S. Energy Consumption by Source

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0103.html

2000 data, all in Quadrillion Btu (Quads)

.....................Quads...% Total
Coal.................22.65....23.1
Natural Gas (Dry)....23.92....24.1
Petroleum............38.40....38.8
Nuclear Electric......7.86.....7.9..103 plants
Renewable.............6.16.....6.2
......................====....====
.....................98.99...100.0

For nuclear, to replace the energy from petroleum (would have to be converted to a carrier for transportation), we would need 503 addl. plants to replace the 38.40 Quads of petroleum based energy. In the 70’s, I seem to remember them costing $1-2 B, so let’s say $4 B/ea. Therefore, we would need $ 2,012 B (I recognize that next gen nuclear plants would be smaller than the current high pressure water plants of today, but for the purpose of this exercise, it should get us in the ballpark).

How about wind? Per Heinberg, wind power potential in the US is 60 Quads. Let’s say we install 24 Quads of wind power to replace the 23.9 Quads of natural gas. This would require 667,000 turbines at $600,000/turbine, or $400 B. For wind, lets throw in $150 B of pumped hydro to store the wind power.

Also, we probably need to figure in $300 B in power grid improvements.

So, from the above, we spend $2,012 B + $ 400 B + $150 B + $ 300 B = $2,862 B to build the energy generation capacity to replace the energy from petroleum and natural gas.

So for $300 B, we could replace 10% of our petroleum and natural gas energy, or 30% of our imported petroleum energy. Not a bad start.

For the $450 B to be spent over the next 10 years, we could take another 45% bite out of imported petroleum.

And Boosh wants to spend $2,000 B to ‘reform’ social security over the next 10 years.

How’s that for leadership.

(Note: I am not suggesting the above energy 'policy', too unbalanced. It is just a back of the envelope calculation to illustrate how badly the GOP is squandering our money).

[krkaufman]

34. Not to mention the boost to the economy those infrastructure....

... investments would provide; rather than the money slipping away into the pockets of the no-bid contractors and unknown other recipients.

[Barkley]

25. And Hillary wants to add more troops to Iraq!?!?!

She won't get my vote in 2008

[Imagevision]

28. And still the msn keeps reverting to the 200 billion figure!!!

[wookie294]

32. Well

We've spent $200 billion of the $300 billion that was authorized by Congress. So, there are two numbers to consider: the amount spent so far ($200 billion) and the total amount authorized by Congress ($300 billion). Once the military blows thru that remaining $100 billion in the next 18 months, they'll be back in Congress asking for another $80 billion. Also, there's probably another $100 billion in a secret budget being spent on Iraq.

[leesa]

30. Well, Double Duh! Of course the greedy assholes that rationalized

that Iraqi oil profits should have to pay for the illegal, immoral invasion of their country are pissed off, eh? You mean we will have to pay for our own foolishness?

[snot]

31. [Deleted--duplicates other posts]