BS: Monetary Cost Projections of Iraq

Subject: BS: Monetary Cost Projections of Iraq
From: Rapparee
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 09:31 PM

I hate to do this. I really, really hate it because it's going to bring up a fight, sure as shootin'. But I was wondering about the budget proposed by GWB -- based upon what I know of it right now via the media -- and got to wondering how the dollar costs stack up agains the Vietnam War. It's not as simple as the question would first seem.

Okay then.

Here are figures from the US Civil War Center at Louisiana State University ("Statistical Summary -- America's Major Wars"):

Conflict                            Cost in $ Billions Per Capita
                                    Current      1990s (in $1990)
The Revolution (1775-1783)             .10         1.2 $   342.86
War of 1812 (1812-1815)                .09         0.7       92.11
Mexican War (1846-1848)                .07         1.1       52.13
Civil War (1861-1865): Union          3.20       27.3    1,041.98
                     : Confederate    2.00       17.1    2,111.11
                     : Combined       5.20       44.4    1,294.46
Spanish American War (1898)            .40         6.3       84.45
World War I (1917-1918)             26.00       196.5    1,911.47
World War II (1941-1945)            288.00    2,091.3   15,655.17
Korea (1950-1953)                   54.00       263.9    1,739.62
Vietnam (1964-1972)                111.00       346.7    1,692.04
Gulf War (1990-1991)                61.00       61.1      235.00

So, in 1990s dollars the total cost of the US involvement in Vietnam was $346.7 billion, spread over a period of 8 years, or $43.34 billion per year (on the average). Note that this is adjusted to the estimated worth of the dollar during the 1990s -- I'm trying to compare apples and apples, so to speak.

Now for Iraq. This is from a letter sent by the Congressional Budget Office to Kent Conrad, ranking member of the Committee On The Budget of the US Senate:

CBO also estimated the cost of three scenarios for the occupation of Iraq and GWOT operations using assumptions about the length of each operation and force levels specified in the request letter from Senator Conrad. Under the first scenario, the occupation force in Iraq would increase to 190,000 servicemembers for the 2005-2006 period and then decline so that all U.S. forces would be removed from Iraq by 2009. At that point, the only troops deployed overseas in support of the GWOT would be those stationed in and around Afghanistan. CBO estimates this scenario would require about $64 billion in budget authority in 2005, declining to about $10 billion a year from 2009 through 2014. Budget authority associated with this scenario would total about $266 billion over the 2005-2014 period.

Current force levels would be maintained in Iraq and other GWOT locations through 2006 under the second scenario. After that, the force levels would gradually decline to a steady-state level of about 69,000 deployed personnel by fiscal year 2010. Budget authority required for scenario two would total about $392 billion over the 2005-2014 period, CBO estimates.

Finally, the third scenario assumes that troop levels in Iraq would steadily decline beginning in 2005, so that by 2010 about 15,000 personnel would be deployed overseas in support of the GWOT. CBO estimates that budget authority under that scenario would total about $179 billion over the 2005-2014 period.

This is a nine-year period, and the averages are: $29.56 billion per year for scenario one, $43.56 billion per year for scenario two, and $19.89 billion per year for scenario three. Please note that this does NOT include the monies already spent.

If you want to read the entire letter from the CBO, here it is. The data from LSU can be found here.

Also, there are the costs ONLY FOR THE US. The UK, etc. aren't included.

Make of this what you will, but please please please be civil.

Subject: RE: BS: Monetary Cost Projections of Iraq
From: Peace
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 09:54 PM

A few billion here and a few billion there--pretty soon it adds up to real money.

Subject: RE: BS: Monetary Cost Projections of Iraq
From: GUEST,Dubya
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 10:01 PM

dammit, Ray-Pierre, there's a lot of good peoples doing a lot of hard work to keep freedom on the march. and freedom is not exxss-accly free Roy- Pair. a lot of good money is needed to pay for the hard work of freedom. we will pay any price to lead in this hard freedom work that is on the march and put evildoers on the run. make no mistake, this money will NOT be on the budget projections and there are a lot people doing the hard work of making sure this stuff is off-budget so my numbers don't look as bad as they really are. so you see, now that we have saved iraqis from the evil dictator and things are going so well for them now, i've got some numbers for social security reform i'd like to show ya.

Subject: RE: BS: Monetary Cost Projections of Iraq
From: GUEST,, , Dubya
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 10:33 PM

I forgot to mention- we work hard. Hard..    Sometimes some of the folks even come in on Sunday, or they would, if I let 'em. We work hard.

Subject: RE: BS: Monetary Cost Projections of Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 09:16 AM

Related to the budget Bush submitted to Congress, in which he cut education programs and increased defense spending, what he meant when he said "no child left behind" was "...when it comes to drafting warm bodies to fight and die in Iraq."

Subject: RE: BS: Monetary Cost Projections of Iraq
From: artbrooks
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 09:32 AM

Rapaire, it seems that this it limited to direct costs.   There is no indication that these figures include the cost of servicing the tremendous debt caused by the war. At least half of the budget deficit is the direct result of the increase in military and "reconstruction" spending (without any balancing increase in revenue inputs), and deficits can only be accounted for by increased government borrowing and the resulting interest payments.

The human and moral costs are uncalculatable.

Subject: RE: BS: Monetary Cost Projections of Iraq
From: Rapparee
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 06:29 PM

I couldn't find figures for the first, Art, and I have absolutely no way of finding out or calculating the second.

I've always been leery of folks who are deeply in debt and then, because it has to be paid back, cut their income.

Subject: RE: BS: Monetary Cost Projections of Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 07:46 PM

You've got to take into account the $8.8 billion of Iraqi money diverted by the US authorities during 14 months of the Coalition Provisional Authority 2003 to 2004; and the "$800m...handed out to US commanders without being counted or even weighed."

This piece in the Guardian sums it up And it is largely drawn from a report carried out by Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the US federal reserve, and a report by the US inspector general for Iraq reconstruction.

"The biggest source of illegal funds to Saddam Hussein was approved not by officials of the UN but by officials in the US.

And once Saddam was out of the picture the financial jiggery pokery continued:

"Auditors at the Pentagon...allege that, in the course of just one contract, a subsidiary of Halliburton overcharged it for imported fuel by $61m. This appears to have been officially sanctioned. In November, the New York Times obtained a letter from an officer in the US Army Corps of Engineers insisting that she would not "succumb to the political pressures from the ... US embassy to go against my integrity and pay a higher price for fuel than necessary". She was overruled by her superiors, who issued a memo insisting that the prices the company was charging were "fair and reasonable", and that it wouldn't be asked to provide the figures required to justify them."

Subject: RE: BS: Monetary Cost Projections of Iraq
From: Rapparee
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 09:26 PM

That's right, McGrath. As I noted, the CBO estimate was from 2005 onwards -- it does not take into account monies already spent, stolen, misappropriated, diverted, etc.