Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Thu 04/15/2004 View Wed 04/14/2004 View Tue 04/13/2004 View Mon 04/12/2004 View Sun 04/11/2004 View Sat 04/10/2004 View Fri 04/09/2004
1
2004-04-15 Home Front: WoT
US facing ’massive’ Iraq occupation costs
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by tipper 2004-04-15 3:53:44 AM|| || Front Page|| [11126 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#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||   2004-04-15 4:28:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-04-15 4:52:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-04-15 7:30:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-04-15 10:38:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-04-15 10:42:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-04-15 11:40:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-04-15 11:48:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-04-15 12:05:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-04-15 1:07:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-04-15 1:22:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm]  2004-04-15 1:56:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-04-15 3:16:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-04-15 4:14:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-04-15 4:17:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-04-15 4:39:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-04-15 4:42:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-04-15 4:47:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-04-15 7:05:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-04-15 7:22:10 PM|| Front Page Top

12:11 dave fitz
09:33 Chris Edwards
22:19 Raj
22:16 Raj
22:15 Not Mike Moore
22:02 Not Mike Moore
16:53 Brian the Great
09:31 W. E. Wallis
05:21 tipper
04:37 Kentucky Beef
03:48 Super Hose
03:32 Super Hose
02:42 eLarson
02:40 eLarson
02:34 Edward Yee
02:26 eLarson
01:27 Kentucky Beef
01:26 Zenster
01:12 Zenster
01:07 Zenster
00:59 Zenster
00:48 RMcLeod
00:44 RMcLeod
00:23 Evert Visser in NL









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com