The War In Iraq: Costing The USA $12 Billion a MONTH

This is from the Associated Press March 9, 2008:

The flow of blood may be ebbing, but the flood of money into the Iraq war is steadily rising, new analyses show. In 2008, its sixth year, the war will cost approximately $12 billion a month, triple the "burn" rate of its earliest years, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and co-author Linda J. Bilmes report in a new book.

Beyond 2008, working with "best-case" and "realistic-moderate" scenarios, they project the Iraq and Afghan wars, including long-term U.S. military occupations of those countries, will cost the U.S. budget between $1.7 trillion and $2.7 trillion — or more — by 2017.

Interest on money borrowed to pay those costs could alone add $816 billion to that bottom line, they say.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has done its own projections and comes in lower, forecasting a cumulative cost by 2017 of $1.2 trillion to $1.7 trillion for the two wars, with Iraq generally accounting for three-quarters of the costs.

Variations in such estimates stem from the sliding scales of assumptions, scenarios and budget items that are counted. But whatever the estimate, the cost will be huge, the auditors of the Government Accountability Office say

Any and all comments are welcomed, but PLEASE keep it on thiis topic only, the cost of the War
thank you

...and those costs would be dwarfed if the U.S. took on a war on Iran, which event would really be the logical outcome of the neo-con "secure foreign policies" of the Bush Jr presidency (an outlook which is deeply grounded in much of the Republican party).Yikes.

I don't think it's very likely that the US would pull out all military presence from Iraq in two years even if there is a Democrat President from next January; the country matters too much, both economically and strategically - neighbour of Iran, Syria and the Russian Caucasus fringe - to give up control. And even though imo it's an illegal occupation following a war that was illegal and misguided from day one, I'm not sure a sharp pull-out now would be that good. Surely it wouldn't solve many problems? With almost 100% certainty it would leave Iraq spiralling further into civil war, and that in itself would help breed new terrorist groups. When you've taken the Devil into your boat you have to row him ashore! It seems to me one has to bring new partners into this,. possibly the UN or the Arab League but neither will be easy of course. Iraq will likely remain a burning wound for a long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gagged_Louise

...and those costs would be dwarfed if the U.S. took on a war on Iran, which event would really be the logical outcome of the neo-con "secure foreign policies" of the Bush Jr presidency (and which is deeply grounded in much of, mainly, the Republican party).Yikes.

I don't think it's very likely that the US would pull out all military presence from Iraq in two years even if there is a Democrat president from next January; the country matters too much, both economically and strategically (neighbour of Iran, Syria and the Russian Caucasus fringe) to give up control. And even though imo it's an illegal occupation following a war that was illegal and misguided from day one, I'm not sure a sharp pull-out now would be that good. Surely it wouldn't solve many problems? With almost 100% certainty it would leave Iraq spiralling further into civil war, and that in itself would help breed new terrorist groups. When you've taken the Devil into your boat you have to row him ashore! It seems to me one has to bring new partners into this,. possibly the UN or the Arab League but neither will be easy of course. Iraq will likely remain a burning wound for a long time.

---

Thank you for your reply

The cost is no surprise, the surprise is that America is surprised. With Afghanistan it was fairly obvious from the Russian experience, not to mention the British, that it wasn't going to be a quick in and out affair. Likewise with Iraq, the belief that after ousting Saddam the Iraqis would be showering the troops with kisses and flowers like the liberation of France was a dream. There is no stable, friendly democratic government anywhere in the region and for good reason. Why did the US think it would be simple to set up good governance in Iraq, especially given the sectarian problems. Most independent experts predicted problems, it was only the military and US government agencies that predicted otherwise. I suspect it was similar to the WMD myth where the decision to invade had already been made and it was just a case of massaging the truth to justify and win support for the decision.

The post is about cost but how much profit are the oil companies and military contractors making. That so many subcontractors seem to be employed in Iraq is strange. I wonder if the costs are being inflated by handing out lucrative contracts to companies. I am highly suspicious of the whole Iraq war. It would not surprise me in the least if the Presidents men were running around saying help us go to war and we will help you make money out of it. I know nothing about Vietnam so I may very well be wrong but aren't facts coming to light now to suggest that the war was started and escalated at least in part to military contractors drumming up business.

Mistakes cost money, and big mistakes cost big money. Who is surprised?

Moonraker,

I think your point is well-taken and I think you are completely right. We are not allowed to know what the real costs are and the contractors, specifically Kellog, Brown and Root; Blackwater and a few others the costs are astronomical. And most of the projects they were hired to do were either never completed, done so shoddily that they will ahve to be redone or, in the case of Blackwater, caused the deaths of good AMerican soldiers becasue of the ill-will engendered by these contractors.

I think most Americans know now that as someone much more clever than me said, "we won the war and Lost the peace." And Bush and Company keep the contractors in money while raping the AMerican people.

And regarding Afghanistan. If we kept our eye on the ball and just kept the war in Afghanistan going we might have been successful. But we gutted the forced in that country to occupy Iraq. Now Afghanistan is falling back into Taliban control.

It is a sad state of affairs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John56{vg}

Moonraker,

I think your point is well-taken and I think you are completely right. We are not allowed to know what the real costs are and the contractors, specifically Kellog, Brown and Root; Blackwater and a few others the costs are astronomical. And most of the projects they were hired to do were either never completed, done so shoddily that they will ahve to be redone or, in the case of Blackwater, caused the deaths of good AMerican soldiers becasue of the ill-will engendered by these contractors.

I think most Americans know now that as someone much more clever than me said, "we won the war and Lost the peace." And Bush and Company keep the contractors in money while raping the AMerican people.

And regarding Afghanistan. If we kept our eye on the ball and just kept the war in Afghanistan going we might have been successful. But we gutted the forced in that country to occupy Iraq. Now Afghanistan is falling back into Taliban control.

It is a sad state of affairs.

---

we will never know the real oosts or facts about this or anything else til a change is made in november

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonraker

The cost is no surprise, the surprise is that America is surprised. With Afghanistan it was fairly obvious from the Russian experience, not to mention the British, that it wasn't going to be a quick in and out affair. Likewise with Iraq, the belief that after ousting Saddam the Iraqis would be showering the troops with kisses and flowers like the liberation of France was a dream. There is no stable, friendly democratic government anywhere in the region and for good reason. Why did the US think it would be simple to set up good governance in Iraq, especially given the sectarian problems. Most independent experts predicted problems, it was only the military and US government agencies that predicted otherwise. I suspect it was similar to the WMD myth where the decision to invade had already been made and it was just a case of massaging the truth to justify and win support for the decision.

The post is about cost but how much profit are the oil companies and military contractors making. That so many subcontractors seem to be employed in Iraq is strange. I wonder if the costs are being inflated by handing out lucrative contracts to companies. I am highly suspicious of the whole Iraq war. It would not surprise me in the least if the Presidents men were running around saying help us go to war and we will help you make money out of it. I know nothing about Vietnam so I may very well be wrong but aren't facts coming to light now to suggest that the war was started and escalated at least in part to military contractors drumming up business.

Mistakes cost money, and big mistakes cost big money. Who is surprised?

---

i posted what information i was able to find. not much deal detail to it but unfortunetly this was all i could find, or maybe all they want the pubilc to know about i do not know i will see if i can locate more details

As an aside, I think the US needs exchange of ideas, people and projects regarding Iraq with other countries - in Europe and in the Middle East, first off - not just to clear up the bloody mess that Iraq has turned into but also to come to terms with it and move out a bit of the moral and intellectual bunker where the combination of 9/11, the Bush leadership and the Iraq war has landed so much of a great nation.

Some people will always think the Iraq war was the right response to 9/11, that Saddam had close links with al-Qaeda and was building a huge stockpile of chemical weapons and possibly nukes, that the rest of the world betrayed you and that the US has a right to stay around as long as needed. Okay - it's easy to understand the shock that 9/11 meant (we were appalled too, and many people who have opposed the war effort still know "those attacks can happen again, and it could happen here") but as long as it's just stuck in these "was Saddam a good guy or a bad guy? Are you gonna fight'em or wheedle with'em?" tracks nothing at all is going to happen politically or morally and the carnage will continue,.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gagged_Louise

As an aside, I think the US needs exchange of ideas, people and projects regarding Iraq with other countries - in Europe and in the Middle East, first off - not just to clear up the bloody mess that Iraq has turned into but also to come to terms with it and move out a bit of the moral and intellectual bunker where the combination of 9/11, the Bush leadership and the Iraq war has landed so much of a great nation.

Some people will always think the Iraq wars were the right response to 9/11, that Saddam had close links with al-Qaeda and was building a huge stockpile of chemical weapons and possibly nukes, that the rest of the world betrayed you and that the US has a right to stay around as long as needed. Okay - it's easy to understand the shock that 9/11 meant (we were appalled too, and many people who have opposed the war effort still know "those attacks can happen again, and it could happen here") but as long as it's just stuck in these "was Saddam a good guy or a bad guy? Are you gonna fight'em or wheedle with'em?" tracks nothing at all is going to happen politically or morally and the carnage will continue,.

---

thank you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mkemse

I also firmly believe the only reason now Al Quaidi is there is because we are, they were not there prior to our invasion, all our efforts should be placed in Afghanistan after 9/11 not Iraq

---

(no need to edit this out!)

True, and outside of Iraq, the recruitment to al-Qaeda and other terrorist networks is helped along by the US military presence. There has been a stepping up over time of the network of US bases and military in the region, sometimes of economic control too, but that's rarely mentioned, it doesn't make news. In August 1990, just after Iraq invaded Kuwait, Dick Cheney and a delegation of American cabinet people and advisers, including Dick Clarke, then Asst. Secr. of State for Politico-Military Affairs) went to see the Saudi King Fahd and his cabinet to offer US protection (and to get the right to operate from Saudi Arabia). One of the main points against it, from a Saudi perspective, was voiced by one Prince/cabinet member: "They will never leave". Cheney granted that the troops would not remain after the war, and pledged this on behalf of Predident Bush.

The King gave his yes, because the threat from Iraq was building steadily - it's a huge difference what kind of threat Iraq was in 1990 and after the mid-1990s I think - but he reminded Cheney "I have the word of the President that they will be moved out as soon as this is over" (Richard Clarke, Against All Enemies, p.57-58). Almost twenty years later, there are still thousands of U.S. troops and permanent bases in Saudi Arabia, and to anyone with the right kind of militant islamist mindset, that's proof positive that America has taken the Holy Land of Muslims hostage. Sure enough this has helped recruit people to al-Qaeda type outfits.

Adding my two cents. Iraq was indeed a diversion from the conflict in Afghanistan, which is where 9/11 was planned. The real public enemy number one( Bin Laden) is still on the loose, and in my opinion being protected by in Pakistan.

During his recent visit to Afghanistan Obama, as well as some military leaders have recognized the peril which the Taliban and Al-Quida presents.

In my opinion, I believe the US and it's allies should gradually pull out of Iraq and concentrate on Afghanistan, and put some pressure on Pakistan. Of course the military contractors, with the help of their ally in the White House wouldn't like that. And Dick Cheney's company(Haliburton) would definitely scorn that idea, because they have too much to gain by staying in Iraq...But then again, Afghanistan doesn't have any oil, does it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DungeonMaster6

But then again, Afghanistan doesn't have any oil, does it?

---

No, but the second largest untapped mineral mine (iron, copper, uranium and also rarer minerals that are highly needed for catalysators or cell phones) in the world, a fact that can shine a different light on the American intervention in Afghanistan following 9/11.

Afghanistan has long since been the playball of resource politics, be it Russia, Pakistan, India or America who tried to broaden their influence there and get access to the mines. Currently there's an international chess play going on, where all the "piece troups" from different countries aren't only spread out to maximize efficiency, but moved strategically to prevent all others from getting exclusive access.

This is a very bad starting point for building a stable democratic government in Afghanistan, but hope that a change in the U.S. government may put an end to this futile competition and brings all the participants back to their original aim - to protect people and to allow freedom, hope, wealth and stability to grow.

What a bloody irony if a war on Iran (which McCain might clearly consider) would wreck the economy, shoot up the oil and fuel prices and add an even heavier burden on the US armed forces. The first things Iran would do if they are attacked over the nuclear issue woudl be to a)prepare some kind of retaliation and b) close the Ormuz strait, which would block the oil shipping that way. Splendid!

just wanted to point out that obama ( and hillary as well) has also publicly stated on many occassions the same considerations as his opponent conserning iran and its possible invasion, he is just much a political rat as any other politician

in fact quite recently obama has propossed in a serious of one up man ship the will to go to even further extremes as he attempts to look more hawkish for the center in the ussual political flip flop,

though i think many are looking in the wrong direction, it is pakistan that has just had the US fire missiles into it a couple days ago and a running fire-fight accross its boarder with afganistan

i belive iran will do as N.korea and that the iranian president is in fact mostly saber ratteling to apease the totalitarian religious leadership, he consetantly shouts out such things publically and then reaches under the table with an open hand to apeal for diplomacy, just like Korea did through China with the west, (btw national geographic has an excellent article on Iran this month).

i would also like to point out that if america really gave a shit about afganistans mines, it wouldnt have pulled all its finacial support aftering defeating the soviets from the US backed Afgan resistance to its occupation back in 89

why didnt the US move right in and take the mines etc? because it didnt care about the mines, it only gave a toot about f ing the soviets up.

as for iran blocking the strait they may try but i dont see them not learning from suddams mistake where as US military might is conserned, a few small pt boats isnt going to stop a fully armed carrier group.

the real reson the price of oil keeps going up is because its running out, plain and simple, any other excusess made by the gov or the oil companies is just an obsfucation

why else has no one bothered to build any more refineries? could it be that the oil companies analysts have determined that an oil refinery that doesnt have any oil to refine in the next thrirty years isnt cost effective?

Not sure anything will change in November, even if you do not count the above comments about Obama's attitude to Iran. Its been my experience that most new governments, even ones from opposing parties to the previous regime, seem to spend most of their term(s) either supporting or apologising for the previous regime's mistakes rather than actually changing them. The time it takes to get any changes in policy made in any (so called) democracy is just too long for any sudden reversals to be plausible or desirable.

I say 'so called' democracy BTW out of a personal belief that no government in existence today is an actual true democracy because the needs of the few in all cases seem to outweigh those of the many.

I agree that pulling out of Iraq now will cause more problems than it will solve. It was better to never go there in the first place. However, it is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation as the dissident groups will keep kicking up a fuss so long as you stay and if you leave they will tear the country apart.

I do wonder if what is needed is some very neutral mediator - someone with no islamic connections and no connections to western europe or north america. I wonder if such a person exists?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

i would also like to point out that if america really gave a shit about afganistans mines, it wouldnt have pulled all its finacial support aftering defeating the soviets from the US backed Afgan resistance to its occupation back in 89

[...]

why else has no one bothered to build any more refineries? could it be that the oil companies analysts have determined that an oil refinery that doesnt have any oil to refine in the next thrirty years isnt cost effective?

---

I think the situation in 89 was quite different from today. Back then, iron and other metals weren't that short. Here in Germany, one had to pay to dispose of a wrecked car, while nowadays junk dealers pay a good sum of money just to get at the metal. Not caring for the mines then might now seem a bit short sighted, but nobody in the world really thought that China and India would suddenly start such a rapid economic growth.

Very true Dark Poet, but i think all the military pushing over there in Afganistan is costing us way more than the usa will ever gain back in resourse revenues, especially when the usa still has emense ore resources that are un exploited here in the states

one cant deny the real reson we were in Afganistan in 89 was simply to oppose the soviets, just like today its to seeek vengence on the terrorists that attack the western way of life,,,,,,also for stategic reasons, note since the afganistan and iraq invasions the usa has not been attacked directly, why come here to kill us when we are over there in your perverbial faces

, in a chess game if i come over to your side of the board with a queen , rook and two knights, you arent going to have the pleasure of keeping tempo and continuing to attack my king when yours is in jepardey are yu?

i am not saying economic gains are not sought by the greedy opertunisers in this war
because economic gains in those regions are far outwieghed by the cost of opperations there (thus making the economic motivation a spurious corelation)

i am saying that economics is not the primary focus of such military endevors

it is more about security and ideas

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
that´s just crazy...
the things you find on the intarweb..