Cost of Iraq War $291 Billion So Far

[IJ Reilly]

WASHINGTON — The war in Iraq has cost $291 billion so far and would total almost half a trillion dollars even if all U.S. troops were withdrawn by the end of 2009, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis released Thursday.

The nonpartisan CBO analysis comes after congressional debate over whether to set goals or timetables for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq. Congress declined to set a timetable, but the Pentagon hopes to start drawing down forces by the end of the year.

The CBO study estimated future appropriations based on two scenarios provided by Rep. John Spratt Jr. (D-S.C.), who commissioned the report.

The more optimistic scenario is based on the U.S. maintaining troop levels in Iraq at 140,000 through next year, but quickly dropping them thereafter and pulling out most of them by the end of 2009. Under this schedule, the Iraq war would cost an additional $184 billion for the 2007-2010 budget years.

Under a more pessimistic scenario, with a slower drawdown of troops and a continued U.S. presence of 40,000 over the long term, the Iraq war would cost $406 billion over the next decade, the CBO said.

Costs far exceed early estimates. Former White House economic advisor Lawrence Lindsey initially predicted that the war could cost $100 billion to $200 billion. Other administration officials dismissed the figure as too high, and Lindsey was fired.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-cost14jul14,0,4491254.story

[mactastic]

Yep, fire those who speak the truth and promote / give medals to those who tell you what you want to hear.

The Bushies so get governing... Nothing bad has EVER come of surrounding yourself with 'yes' people. Has it?

[IJ Reilly]

Nothing bad has EVER come of surrounding yourself with 'yes' people. Has it?

Yes. I mean no. Yes and no.

[zimv20]

so i suppose you don't go to war with the money you have, you go to war with the money you wish you had?

[Kingsly]

at that rate, it would take iraq 25 years to pay off the war (if the war was all about oil, which it isn't)

[tristan]

Actually Iraq's oil would pay for the war - they have 100B barrels, and at current prices thats $7.8T. But that oil isn't going to be the property of the American taxpayer.

Though it sure would be nice if we could get it all out of the ground before we leave and take it with us.... Mmm, black gold...

Back to the cost. Iraq's a blank check man to the defense contractors man. A blank freakin' check.

[Dont Hurt Me]

And after spending 400 billion we have.....we have......what do we have? anything? Perhaps a base to kick Irans nuclear wanting butt. Thats about it and I expect a Shiite ran Iran within 10 yrs. terrific.

[~Shard~]

"Give me the money that has been spent in war and I will clothe every man, woman, and child in an attire of which kings and queens will be proud. I will build a schoolhouse in every valley over the whole earth."
- Charles Sumner

$291B on war? Glad to see the US has its priorities straight... :rolleyes:

[tristan]

Disband your military, clothe your people, build your schoolhouses... And then I'll build a handful of tanks and take over the world! Yes! Oh, I shouldn't have told you my plan.

But Bush has the whole thing backwards anyway, the whole point in having a big military is that if its big enough, you don't have to use it. That's the "logic" of the cold war. But our military is geared towards chasing off Iraqi Republican Guard, not fighting rebels in civilian clothes.

FYI, I just read something on the Philippine insurgency in Wikipedia:

As of 1900, Aguinaldo ordered his army to engage in guerrilla warfare, a means of operation which better suited them and made American occupation of the Philippine archipelago all the more difficult over the next few years. In fact, during just the first four months of the guerrilla war, the Americans lost nearly 500 men who were either killed or wounded. The Filipino resistance fighters began staging bloody ambushes and raids. Most infamous were the guerrilla victories at Pulang Lupa and Balangiga. At first, it even seemed as if the Filipinos would fight the Americans to a stalemate and force them to withdraw. This was even considered by President McKinley at the beginning of the phase.

The shift to guerrilla warfare, however, only angered the Americans into acting more ruthlessly than before. They began taking no prisoners, burning whole villages, and routinely shooting surrendering Filipinos. Much worse were the concentration camps that civilians were forced into, after being suspected of being guerrilla sympathizers. Thousands of civilians died in these camps. In nearly all cases, the civilians suffered much worse than the actual Filipino guerrillas.

The subsequent American repression towards the population tremendously reduced the materials, men, and morale of many Filipino resistance fighters, compelling them in one way or another to surrender.

[hulugu]

Disband your military, clothe your people, build your schoolhouses... And then I'll build a handful of tanks and take over the world! Yes! Oh, I shouldn't have told you my plan.

But Bush has the whole thing backwards anyway, the whole point in having a big military is that if its big enough, you don't have to use it. That's the "logic" of the cold war. But our military is geared towards chasing off Iraqi Republican Guard, not fighting rebels in civilian clothes.

FYI, I just read something on the Philippine insurgency in Wikipedia:

A significant military has rarely, if ever, kept two nations from fighting, even the Cold War. Although the US and Soviets never came to direct conflict, the use of proxy nations throughout the Middle East and Southeast Asia created situations in which money and arms were used to try to shift the balance of power. Furthermore, Soviet advisors in Vietnam, and CIA personel in Afghanistan proved that superpowers didn't need direct conflict.
Throughout history one can see instances of large armies, massively well-funded and trained, still fighting. The Pax Americana wasn't just because of simple military power, it was because of a confluence of alliances, interests, and nuclear arms.
The US could still remain a fearsome power with just 1/4 of its current strategic abilities, the rest is simply over-kill necessary because of the military-industrial complex and its relationship with the US government.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Disband your military, clothe your people, build your schoolhouses... And then I'll build a handful of tanks and take over the world! Yes! Oh, I shouldn't have told you my plan.

But Bush has the whole thing backwards anyway, the whole point in having a big military is that if its big enough, you don't have to use it. That's the "logic" of the cold war. But our military is geared towards chasing off Iraqi Republican Guard, not fighting rebels in civilian clothes.

FYI, I just read something on the Philippine insurgency in Wikipedia:Vietnam again, brought to you by the ones avoiding vietnam and not learning the lessons from a stupid war. History repeating itself because we forgot,didnt pay attention.

[steamboat26]

Several responses:
1) Where did all that money go?!?!?
2) Considering this is a similar case as with the US attack and occupation of the Philippines, we would be looking at 20-25 years stabilizing Iraq. Who knows how much we will have spend by then? (hopefully we will have a better president by then)

[xsedrinam]

Deborah White's Liberal Politics link lists totals under "spent and approved to spend" at US$435 Billion (http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm) and itemizes statistics of loss of life and includes the misappropriation of some US$9 Billion as of July 6 '06. It's beyond a bad bowl of grits.

[CorvusCamenarum]

so i suppose you don't go to war with the money you have, you go to war with the money you wish you had?
No, you go to war with the money other people have. Money that isn't yours is far easier to spend.

We're still going to be paying for this entire brainfarted disaster when my grandchildren are ready for retirement.

[hulugu]

Several responses:
1) Where did all that money go?!?!?
2) Considering this is a similar case as with the US attack and occupation of the Philippines, we would be looking at 20-25 years stabilizing Iraq. Who knows how much we will have spend by then? (hopefully we will have a better president by then)

Well, we spent around $600 Million in military expenditures in the Philippines, adjusted for today's dollars that turns into real money, although in doing so we killed a huge number of civillians and fought for four years officially and 13 more unofficially. It actually took WWII for the Philippines to gain their independence in 1946, after they were invaded by Japan, and MacArthur fulfilled his promise.

As for today's $291 Billion, lots of money is missing, and a lot more was given to KBR and other large defense contractors, making Cheney a very rich man while helping out his former collegues. The Army is going to change the process by which contractors bids are made, forbidding large single contracts. The accounting is simply a mess and fighting a modern insurgency is expensive in a country at the edge of civil war and economic ruin.
This has been a total Charlie Flouder.

[solvs]

Deborah White's Liberal Politics link lists totals under "spent and approved to spend" at US$435 Billion (http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm)
That sounds about right. And it's just going to be climbing ever higher. I sometimes think I might have agreed with the Iraq war had it gone better. Guess we'll never know now.