PDA

View Full Version : Iraq costs US $12B per month


potter
March 11th, 2008, 02:57 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080309/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_war_costs

Studies: Iraq costs US $12B per month

By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent Sun Mar 9, 5:02 PM ET

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.
ADVERTISEMENT

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.

In a Jan. 30 report to Congress, the GAO observed that the U.S. will be committing "significant" future resources to the wars, "requiring decision makers to consider difficult trade-offs as the nation faces an increasing long-range fiscal challenge."

These numbers don't include the war's cost to the rest of the world. In Iraq itself, the 2003 U.S.-led invasion ? with its devastating air bombardments ? and the looting and arson that followed, severely damaged electricity and other utilities, the oil industry, countless factories, hospitals, schools and other underpinnings of an economy.

No one has tried to calculate the economic damage done to Iraq, said spokesman Niels Buenemann of the International Monetary Fund, which closely tracks national economies. But millions of Iraqis have been left without jobs, and hundreds of thousands of professionals, managers and other middle-class citizens have fled the country.

In their book, "The Three Trillion Dollar War," Stiglitz, of Columbia University, and Bilmes, of Harvard, report the two wars will have cost the U.S. budget $845 billion in 2007 dollars by next Sept. 30, end of fiscal year 2008, assuming Congress fully funds Bush administration requests. That counts not just military operations, but embassy costs, reconstruction and other war-related expenses.

That total far surpasses the $670 billion in 2007 dollars the Congressional Research Service says was the U.S. price tag for the 12-year Vietnam War.

Although American military and Iraqi civilian casualties have declined in recent months, the rate of spending has shot up. A fully funded 2008 war budget will be 155 percent higher than 2004's, the CBO reports.

The reasons are numerous: the "surge" of additional U.S. units into Iraq; rising fuel costs; fattened bonuses to attract re-enlistments; and particularly the need to "reset," that is, repair or replace worn-out, destroyed or damaged military equipment. Almost $17 billion is appropriated this year for advanced armored vehicles to protect troops against roadside bombs.

Looking ahead, both the CBO and Stiglitz-Bilmes construct two scenarios, one in which U.S. troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan drop sharply and early ? to 30,000 by late 2009 for the CBO, and to 55,000 by 2012 for Stiglitz-Bilmes ? and a second in which the drawdown is more gradual.

Significantly, the two studies view different time frames, the CBO calculating possible costs met in the next 10 years, while Stiglitz and Bilmes also include costs incurred during that period but paid for later, such as equipment replaced in post-2017 budgets.

This factor figures most in the category of veterans' medical care and disability payments, where the CBO foresees $9 billion to $13 billion in costs by 2017. Stiglitz and Bilmes, meanwhile, project $422 billion to $717 billion in costs over the lifetime of soldiers who by 2017 are wounded or otherwise mentally or physically disabled by the wars.

"The CBO is only looking 10 years out on everything," Bilmes noted in an interview.

For its part, a CBO critique suggested that Bilmes and Stiglitz might be overstating the expense of treating veterans' brain injuries, a costly category.

The two economists say their calculations are conservative, because they don't encompass many "hidden" items in the U.S. budget. Their basic projections also exclude the potentially huge debt-service cost ? on which CBO approximately agrees ? and the cost to the U.S. economy of global oil prices that have quadrupled since 2003, an increase analysts blame partly on the Iraq upheaval.

Estimating all economic and social costs might push the U.S. war bill up toward $5 trillion by 2017, they say.

Their book already figures in the stay-or-leave debate over Iraq.

When Stiglitz testified on Feb. 28 before the congressional Joint Economic Committee, the ranking Republican, New Jersey's Rep. Jim Saxton, complained that such projections are too imprecise to help determine relative costs and benefits of the Iraq war.

Saxton said a rapid U.S. pullout could lead to full-scale civil war and Iranian domination of Iraq, "enormous costs" that he said should be weighed in any calculation.

MountainJeep
March 11th, 2008, 07:01 AM
ugh

Loki
March 11th, 2008, 07:17 AM
What would it cost to be fighting the Insurgents/Terrorists here???

:shrug:

bsaunder
March 11th, 2008, 07:42 AM
and the solution is?

Budman
March 11th, 2008, 07:46 AM
What would it cost to be fighting the Insurgents/Terrorists here???

:shrug:

We all know that that would never happen. If we would just leave them alone, they would leave us alone. Come on man quit with the "the sky is falling routine".

OrangeCrush
March 11th, 2008, 07:49 AM
This is absolutely ridiculous we should cease spending on domestic aide programs in order to increase spending over there.

Loki
March 11th, 2008, 08:01 AM
We all know that that would never happen. If we would just leave them alone, they would leave us alone. Come on man quit with the "the sky is falling routine".

My Bad. :rolleyes:

:flipoff2:

Budman
March 11th, 2008, 08:03 AM
My Bad. :rolleyes:

:flipoff2:

I see you are onto me, but don't tell "Them" I was hoping to throw them off. :beer:

Loki
March 11th, 2008, 08:28 AM
Ok, Gotcha won't give you away...:D

:beer:

sames
March 11th, 2008, 09:39 AM
of the 12B some of that would be spent anyway. If you want a real $ cost of the war, you would have to break out the money DOD would have spent anyway. Also DOD might be using the war to fatten their coffers. The first rule of any govt agency is ask for more than you want or need.

Steve
March 11th, 2008, 09:41 AM
of the 12B some of that would be spent anyway. If you want a real $ cost of the war, you would have to break out the money DOD would have spent anyway.

Shhhhh. That's called facts and the oh-my-God-we're-going-broke-only-because-of-the-war crowd doesn't want to hear it. :tisk:

scottycards
March 11th, 2008, 09:55 AM
of the 12B some of that would be spent anyway. If you want a real $ cost of the war, you would have to break out the money DOD would have spent anyway. Also DOD might be using the war to fatten their coffers. The first rule of any govt agency is ask for more than you want or need.

Actually, I'd like to see the data to back up the presumptions made in the above post.

While the money would be spent, it's now been moved "off budget" into the war category that is not included as part of the federal budget.

And they're still spending all the money that's in the regular budget.

So I would think that if anything, this amount is over and above the normal "money that would be spent anyway".

Any attempt to minimize the effects of the costs of this war, and the long term implications for our economic future are truly like a child "whistling in the dark" to keep his spirits up............

Ford Prefect
March 11th, 2008, 03:51 PM
Actually, I'd like to see the data to back up the presumptions made in the above post.

While the money would be spent, it's now been moved "off budget" into the war category that is not included as part of the federal budget.

And they're still spending all the money that's in the regular budget.

So I would think that if anything, this amount is over and above the normal "money that would be spent anyway".

Any attempt to minimize the effects of the costs of this war, and the long term implications for our economic future are truly like a child "whistling in the dark" to keep his spirits up............



Actually it is common to use the overall budget for the military an factor that into the "cost of the war" figure. These people very rarely take that normal expenditure into context when they write these things. It is kind of like saying X number of Army died today, when in actuality less are dieing now that we are in Iraq than did in our "at peace" times.

scottycards
March 11th, 2008, 03:53 PM
If you have any data to back that up, ford, I'd love to see it. Both points- the money and the mortality rates, if you can produce them.

Call me a skeptic.

Loki
March 11th, 2008, 07:04 PM
Call me a skeptic.

You're kidding right? :confused:

;)

Navajo1
March 11th, 2008, 08:41 PM
You also have to remember that A LOT of that money is not directly going to Iraq or the people of Iraq, it goes into the pockets of ordinary Americans who build and produce the products that the military uses. Everyone from the guy in the steel foundry to the welder making the parts for the tanks and Humvees. Everyone from the farmer to the grain elevator operator who bring the commodities to the manufacturers who pay the folks making and shipping food to the soldiers. War is not a good thing, but pretending all the spending is just thrown out of the country is proving how simple minded the media thinks the population is as a whole, who then think "the sky is falling, all we are doing is throwing money away". Grasp the bigger picture of the US military industrial complex, it is real and it does put food on millions of American citizens tables.