| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| US facing ’massive’ Iraq occupation costs |
| 2004-04-15 |
| The United States will have to approve a "massive" new spending bill of an estimated $1083 billion to meet its obligations in Iraq, a prominent US military analyst says. "We have to face that reality, and we did not face it last night" in US President George W Bush’s prime-time news conference on Iraq, Anthony Cordesman of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies said. Taking issue with White House insistence that no new money would be needed until next year, Cordesman said with a recent upsurge in fighting and possible additional US troops, there was a need for a massive supplemental, or emergency funding bill in Congress. "Virtually everyone in Washington knows this," he told a gloomy CSIS programme entitled "Iraq: On the Precipice of Failure?" For the military budget alone, that meant "a minimum of $US50 billion. If we add aid and external costs, that supplemental will probably be $US70 billion," he said. The Bush administration has publicly ruled out sending a new Iraq spending request to Congress before January 2005, after the November presidential election. "With the information we have currently, we are still planning on coming to Congress with a supplemental request in calendar year ’05," Chad Kolton, spokesman for the White House Office of Management and Budget, said. But Cordesman said the government would have to act sometime in the next four months and that additional aid would be needed next year as well. Bush won approval from Congress last year for two war supplementals - one for $US79 billion and another for $US87.5 billion for military operations, homeland security and reconstruction efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. The wartime spending drew fire from Bush’s Democratic challengers, and analysts say the $US87.5 billion request helped erode Bush’s approval ratings in some polls as Americans suffered high unemployment and sluggish economic growth. A Republican congressional aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that even before the latest violence in Iraq, some on Capitol Hill were wondering if the administration would seek another Iraq supplemental earlier than the beginning of 2005. The White House had offered assurances that would not be necessary. "After the recent events, I would expect that the talk about the need for a new supplemental might pick up again when Congress comes back (from a spring recess next week)," the congressional official said. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #19 Coredesman is on firmer ground when he criticizes the conduct of the occupation, though it is not clear that he has a prescription for success. Here is an informed opinion of excellent account of what we have messed up so far. |
| Posted by: JAB 2004-04-15 7:22:10 PM |
| #18 Glad to see Rantburgers are economically literate and strategically sensible. Maybe OS or SH should be the ones lecturing at CSIS instead of a partisan lefty like Cordesman. Cordesman's numbers are suspect as they are unlikely to be the true incremental cost vs. a baseline of the same force structure but no war or reconstruction. And the RB commentors are correct that, even if the true cost is $1 Trillion (less than 10% of 1 year of US GDP), it may well be worth it. Iraq is the center of gravity of our enemies and being there (and not in Arabia) dramatically improves our strategic position in the region. Moving our core strength there may well create "value" in excess of $1T. Ask baby Assad, the Soddies or the Mullaz if you don't believe me. That's why they have been trying to hard to drive us out. They perceive a major 1st order military threat and an even greater 2nd order threat from unleashing liberty into the region. Cordesman would be on firmer ground if he explained why this was undesirable or unsustainable (valid arguments). The comments also correctly assess the true costs of the 'do nothing' alternative and the 'play defense, not offense' alternatives. OP is quite correct that we are trying to execute our strategy on the cheap. This is risky. We need to increase our strength at least until we can extricate ourselves from the Korean peninsula where our next war (if, God forbid, it happens) ought to be fought with strategic weapons delivered by the Navy and Air Force. Our soldiers there are hostages to an ungrateful ally. |
| Posted by: JAB 2004-04-15 7:05:49 PM |
| #17 Super Hose posted: "Now let's calculate the alternative. Can we slap a cost on: 1. Adopting a defensive footing allows jihadis to swarm the borders through Canada and Mexico instead of the Iraqi borders. Resulting attacks cut the domestic economy in half. 2. Having the entire US military camped in the desert watching the perpetual Hans Blix show while we are whacked repeatedly by boomers at home." Thanks Super Hose -- smart and concise, so I posted it twice! =) |
| Posted by: docob 2004-04-15 4:47:15 PM |
| #16 Or does the author mean that 1083 bn is the grand total of ALL spending (including Iraq?). Then it's poor wording. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2004-04-15 4:42:05 PM |
| #15 I don't understand the number 1083 billion... that's absurdly high... is there a comma lacking? In Germany: Eine Billion In America: A trillion 108,3 billion makes more sense |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2004-04-15 4:39:26 PM |
| #14 $1083 billion??? A trillion dollars? Somebody can't either type or calculate here must be thinking bytes? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-04-15 4:17:59 PM |
| #13 It differs from country to country -- in Greece for example, a billion means 1000 million. And a trillion is 1000 billion. (by that I mean the equivalent Greek words ofcourse - disekatomirio, trisekatomirio) |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-04-15 4:14:56 PM |
| #12 $1083 billion??? A trillion dollars? Actually it is, if you define 1 billion as 10^9, 1 trillion as 10^12, 1 quadrillion as 10^15, etc. That's the working definition in the States, but not so in Europe, as I recall, where 1 billion is 1 million times 1 million (10^12). |
| Posted by: eLarson 2004-04-15 3:16:34 PM |
| #11 I continue to harp on the fact that someone needs to kick George Bush and Don Rumsfeld in the ass, and get them off dead center about rebuilding the United States military to fight this damned war. We need a MINIMUM of two new active Army divisions and one new Marine division, two new Air Force fighter wings, another transport wing (or two), and a significant increase in the Reserve and National Guard. This is a WAR, dammit, not a "police action". It's time we started acting like it, and creating a military to fight it. Clinton cut too deeply, and now it's time to rectify that error. We should have started rebuilding on 9/12/01, but any time is better than never. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2004-04-15 1:56:51 PM |
| #10 First, if we were actually hemorrhaging cash, then how is our economy recovering in a much more sensible fashion that during the .com bubble? Now let's calculate the alternative. Can we slap a cost on: 1. Adopting a defensive footing allows jihadis to swarm the borders through Canada and Mexico instead of the Iraqi borders. Resulting attacks cut the domestic economy in half. 2. Having the entire US military camped in the desert watching the perpetual Hans Blix show while we are whacked repeatedly by boomers at home. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-04-15 1:22:32 PM |
| #9 The occupation of Iraq puts 100,000+ U.S. soldiers in the geographic center between Iran, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc etc. If you have ever studied Napoleon, you would recognize this as the strategy of the "central position". It allows unprecedented flexibility and is intimidating to neighboring terrorist nations. They know this and are reacting. They cannot defeat the U.S. militarily, only politically with mini versions of the Tet Offensive. |
| Posted by: Anonymous4192 2004-04-15 1:07:10 PM |
| #8 I wonder what it will take for people to understand that this war is ultimately about survival. Probably one or two more 9/11/2001 WTC events, unfortunately. And even then, there's no guarantees that everybody will be on board. (some people have rather thick skulls) Even in terms of casualties, our numbers are low - about 300 per day on average in WWII, and about 3 a day today. All the news outlets' wailing about "increasing casualties" and a "rising death toll" sure could've fooled me. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-04-15 12:05:29 PM |
| #7 #6, I'd venture to say that the GWOT is WWIV. In WWIII we stomped the Russians. (I still think we shoulda forcefed them a nuclear sandwich back in '62 and ended it sooner, but I guess this works out fine too.) :D |
| Posted by: Anonymous4021 2004-04-15 11:48:49 AM |
| #6 Given that this is essentially WWIII, it's essentially a drop in the bucket. We spent 50% of GDP annually, every year of WWII. $120B is less than 1% of our annual GDP. Even in terms of casualties, our numbers are low - about 300 per day on average in WWII, and about 3 a day today. In fact, it's been 2-1/2 years since 9/11 and we have lost less than the number of dead in those airplane attacks alone. At the 2-1/2 year mark after Pearl Harbor, we had lost 200,000 men KIA compared to about 3,000 KIA during Pearl Harbor. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-04-15 11:40:25 AM |
| #5 well - as usual, it's pay now or pay with interest later. It would have been much cheaper to keep our military and security agencies properly funded prior to 911 than it is to pay for just one day, 9-11, not to mention all of the increased security measures we are taking nationwide and abroad. It's always cheaper to do maintenance than to wait until things fall apart. |
| Posted by: B 2004-04-15 10:42:37 AM |
| #4 $1083 billion??? A trillion dollars? Somebody can't either type or calculate here. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2004-04-15 10:38:22 AM |
| #3 If we can't afford to occupy a country like Iraq, how will we ever be able to pursue a broader war against the alliance between nuclear-capable states and Islamic terrorists? The problem appears to be that people are not really afraid of terrorism, and so don't see the need to spend the money. I wonder what it will take for people to understand that this war is ultimately about survival. |
| Posted by: virginian 2004-04-15 7:30:56 AM |
| #2 Not so sure. It is my sense that most Iraqis see what is happening in Iran and ain't too happy. Did you read about the protest in Tehran yesterday? |
| Posted by: Ben 2004-04-15 4:52:40 AM |
| #1 I hate to rain on anybody's parade, but it is almost certain that the "freedom" that Bush is bringing to Iraq, will manifest itself in the election of a pro-Iran government, that will lay waste to the Kurd, Turkemen, and Assyro-Christian minorities in Iraq. Who wants to pay for that? |
| Posted by: Man Bites Dog 2004-04-15 4:28:42 AM |