|
Iraq War Could Cost the US $1 Trillion
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Renegade |
Just posted all this in the Aussie forum. Let's try again:
| quote: | April 20, 2006 — There are many uncertainties about the progress made by coalition forces and the future prospects for stability and democracy in Iraq, but there is at least one indisputable fact: The Bush administration vastly underestimated the costs of the Iraq war.
Not only in human lives, but in monetary terms as well, the costs of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq far exceed the administration's initial projection of a $50 billion tab. While the number of American casualties in Iraq has declined this year, the amount of money spent to fight the war and rebuild the country has spiralled upward.
The price is expected to almost double after lawmakers return to Capitol Hill next week when the Senate takes up a record $106.5 billion emergency spending bill that includes $72.4 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The House passed a $92 billion version of the bill last month that included $68 billion in war funding. That comes on top of $50 billion already allocated for the war this fiscal year.
Poor Planning Could Push War Costs to $1 Trillion
ABC analyst Tony Cordesman, who also holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, says the exorbitant costs come down to poor planning.
"When the administration submitted its original budget for the Iraq war, it didn't provide money for continuing the war this year or any other. We could end up spending up to $1 trillion in supplemental budgets for this war."
According to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, the United States spent $48 billion for Iraq in 2003, $59 billion in 2004, and $81 billion in 2005. The center predicts the figure will balloon to $94 billion for 2006. That equates to a $1,205 bill for each of America's 78 million families, on top of taxes they already pay.
Bill Will Linger Long After Withdrawal
Analysts say the increases can be blamed on the rising cost of maintaining military equipment and developing new equipment. As the cost of military equipment escalates, the cost of the war escalates. In fact, developing state-of-the-art weapons to defeat insurgents and their roadside bombs will hit the wallets of American taxpayers for years to come.
"The Department of Defense has increased its investment in new equipment from $700 billion to $1.4 trillion in the coming years," Cordesman said.
Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker recently warned lawmakers that the cost of upkeep and replacement of military equipment would continue even after U.S. forces withdrew from Iraq. To fully reequip and upgrade the U.S. Army after the war ends will cost $36 billion over six years, and that figure assumes U.S. forces will start withdrawing from Iraq in July, and be completely out of the country by the end of 2008. |
http://abcnews.go.com/International...=1866779&page=2
Let's put this in perspective. The amount of money the US has already spent on Iraq ($250 billion give or take) already excedes the amount of money (in adjusted dollars) spent on their involvement in WW1 and is about 3 times more than was spent on the first Gulf War. If the expenditure does hit $1 trillion, it will make this war about twice as expensive as Vietnam (who said that the Vietnam comparisons weren't justified?) and 3 times more expensive than Korea, making this the second most expensive war the US has ever been involved in, behind only WW2.
Oh and speaking of WW2 comparisons, remember the Marshall Plan? The greatest (if not necessarily the largest) outlay of foreign aid ever tendered by the US government?:
| quote: | The United States provided Germany with a total of $29.3 billion in constant 2005 dollars from 1946-1952 with 60% in economic grants and nearly 30% in economic loans, and the remainder in military aid. Total US assistance to Japan for 1946-1952 was roughly $15.2 billion in 2005 dollars, of which 77% was grants and 23% was loans.
[...]
The Congressional Research Service estimates the total cost of aid [sic] US aid allocations (all grant assistance) for Iraq appropriated from 2003 to 2006 total $28.9 billion. It estimates that $17.6 billion (62%) went for economic and political reconstruction assistance, while $10.9 billion (38%) was used to aid Iraqi security. A higher proportion of Iraqi aid was spent on economic reconstruction of critical infrastructure than in the case of Germany and Japan. Total US assistance to Iraq through March 2006 was already equivalent to total assistance provided to Germany -- and almost double that provided to Japan -- from 1946-1952. |
http://www.csis.org/component/optio...id,3140/type,1/
Did you get that? It has cost as much money to rebuild Iraq as it cost to rebuild Germany and twice what it cost to rebuilt Japan. The best part? The reconstruction of Iraq still hasn't finished yet!
Does anyone - anyone - want to have a go at rationalising all this to me? |
|
|
| skot_e |
| George Bush thought it was a good idea??? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Did you get that? It has cost as much money to rebuild Iraq as it cost to rebuild Germany and twice what it cost to rebuilt Japan. The best part? The reconstruction of Iraq still hasn't finished yet!
Does anyone - anyone - want to have a go at rationalising all this to me? |
well, the US didnt have german or japanese partisans blowing up repaired infrastructure or US personnel when they were carrying out the rebuilding. would be difficult making a house if someone was shooting at you the whole time- thats gotta be a costly enterprise. i know that wasnt quite the point of your question but i thought id include it anyway.
yes, the US has fvcked up pretty badly in a myriad of ways re iraq, but its not the american forces targeting civilians and destroying vital services which is hampering the reconstruction effort. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
what can we say! when we go, we go balls to the wall! i'm kidding.
in perspective, we [the US] are getting much more efficient. not just from a monetary standpoint either.
for example, WW2 cost us around 54% GDP. over the life of the conflict.
Korea we knocked down to around 31% GDP
Vietnam = 19% GDP
1st Gulf War was, i think, 8%
Iraqi Freedom is around 4%
flame away |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Does anyone - anyone - want to have a go at rationalising all this to me? |
it's called inflation:D hey, you said lets put it in perspective.
you should find this interesting. it's from your Parliament.
>The Cost of War< |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
well, the US didnt have german or japanese partisans blowing up repaired infrastructure or US personnel when they were carrying out the rebuilding. would be difficult making a house if someone was shooting at you the whole time- thats gotta be a costly enterprise. i know that wasnt quite the point of your question but i thought id include it anyway. |
Granted, but even taking into account the on-going attacks on infrastructure by the "insurgency" how can it cost more to rebuild Baghdad than cities like Dresden and Nagasaki that were completely obliterated in WW2? Is it just inefficiency or is there something else going on?
To be honest I think that this sort of thing may be more common than we'd like to think:
| quote: | American contractors swindled hundreds of millions of dollars in Iraqi funds, but so far there is no way for Iraq's government to recoup the money, according to US investigators and civil attorneys tracking fraud claims against contractors.
Courts in the United States are beginning to force contractors to repay reconstruction funds stolen from the American government. But legal roadblocks have prevented Iraq from recovering funds that were seized from the Iraqi government by the US-led coalition and then paid to contractors who failed to do the work.
A US law that allows citizens to recover money from dishonest contractors protects only the US government, not foreign governments. |
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0416-02.htm
This is also something, incidentally, that the president doesn't seem to know a whole lot about :
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Q5aoElE0rkc
(Watch this video. It is both funny and distressing.)
| quote: | | yes, the US has fvcked up pretty badly in a myriad of ways re iraq, but its not the american forces targeting civilians and destroying vital services which is hampering the reconstruction effort. |
I understand that the US isn't directly undermining reconstruction efforts, but that doesn't mean that the US administration shouldn't be shouldering the brunt of the blame for this. The war was poorly planned and there clearly weren't enough troops to maintain security. If Rumsfeld sent over 150,000 troops knowing that twice that many would be needed to maintain security, then he should be fired for misleading the public. If Rumsfeld sent over 150,000 troops not knowing that twice that many would be needed to maintain security, then he should be fired for incompetence.
For me, no matter how all these -ups are justified post hoc, the Iraq war should not have happened.
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
1st Gulf War was, i think, 8%
Iraqi Freedom is around 4%
flame away |
Where are you getting these figures from?
1st Gulf War - $76 billion / $5,916 billion GDP = 1.4%
2nd Gulf War - $250 billion / $12,400 billion GDP = 2.0%
2nd Gulf War - $1 trillion / $12,400 billion GDP = 8.0%
No matter which way you try to fit the square peg into the round hole, the US is clearly not getting "more efficient" at all.
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
it's called inflation:D hey, you said lets put it in perspective.
you should find this interesting. it's from your Parliament.
>The Cost of War< |
Erm, it should go without saying that all those figures are already adjusted for inflation. Also, I'm not sure what that link is meant to prove other than how badly the costs of war were underestimated by everyone concerned? |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
And that guy is the commander in chief for the world's most powerful nation :nervous:
Although it was pretty hillarious :stongue: |
|
|
| priveye03 |
| The point is he has no clue what the fvck is going on, so he has to "delegate" to people like Rumsfeld or Condi.......oh irony |
|
|
|
|
