The Cost of Bush's Folly

“Bush Iraq War May Cost
Americans $200 Billion
By Andrew Clark
9-24-2

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. attack on Iraq could cost as much as $60 billion even if swift and successful, with any follow-up and broader economic strain perhaps pushing the final tab to $200 billion, a congressional report said on Monday.

The report, prepared by Democrats on the House of Representatives Budget Committee, comes as Congress debates President George W. Bush's recent request for authority to use force if necessary to disarm Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein.

Cost has become increasingly important in that debate, in light of the sputtering U.S. economic recovery and mounting budget woes.

Top Bush economic advisor Lawrence Lindsey last week estimated a war with Iraq could cost $100 billion to $200 billion, but White House budget director Mitch Daniels quickly stepped in to label that figure as "likely very, very high."

"When all costs are considered, Mr. Lindsey's estimate ... seems to be in the ball park," South Carolina Rep. John Spratt, the top Democrat on the Budget Committee, wrote in a letter sent to colleagues on Monday.

The report focuses on the initial costs of achieving a U.S. military victory in Iraq, drawing on the experiences of the Persian Gulf War and assumptions it terms "fairly optimistic."

These assume a conflict lasting 30 to 60 days, involving 125,000 to 250,000 U.S. troops facing light opposition and no chemical or biological weapons.

Under those conditions, a strike would cost $31 billion to $60 billion, the report said, rising to $48 billion to $93 billion if interest costs are included.

It noted, however, that an initial military victory would likely be only one stage of any action and the estimates did not include the costs of an extended U.S. occupation or other nonmilitary expenditures.

"When all of the other costs that would be incurred -- humanitarian assistance to refugees, reconstruction assistance, foreign assistance to obtain cooperation for U.S. military action and interest costs due to increased borrowing to finance these other costs -- are considered, the total would easily exceed $100 billion," the report said.

"And if the war has an adverse impact on the U.S. or global economy, or proves more difficult and lengthier than assumed, $200 billion may unfortunately prove to be a reasonable estimate," it said.


Copyright © 2002 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of Reuters Limited.”

“In light of Sharon’s vow to respond to any Iraqi aggression, I wonder what the cost would be if Iraq lobs a few dozen scuds filled with VX into Tel Aviv, the Israelis respond with chemical or nuclear weapons and other Arab nations are drawn into the conflict?”

“Violin, you are describing WWIII. I can only hope this does not happen.

I wonder if that figure assumes pay-offs to countries not to become involved in the conflict. I recently read that more money has been given to Pakistan than Afghanistan since that little war.”

“President-elect Gore pointed out that "In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, more than a year ago, we had an enormous reservoir of good will and sympathy and shared resolve all over the world. That has been squandered in a year's time and replaced with great anxiety all around the world, not primarily about what the terrorist networks are going to do, but about what we're going to do."”

“a fine headline though. how about:

bush takes on iraq alone.

richmond,va- after taking all words a face value, a 12-hour shift worker was led to believe that president george w. bush would take on the entire nation of iraq by himself. "well, the thread i first heard it from was labeled bush's folly." said the man, speaking on condition of annonymity from the bottom rung of the corporate ladder. "when i clicked on it and saw a credible article had been cut a pasted with the title that it was 'bush iraq war' i knew it must be for real. well , hell, i knew i voted for him for a reason."”

“President elect Gore?”

“Yes, Gore was elected, wasn't he?

.....voted for Bush for a reason???

Hold that thought.”

“You are making the assumption that Saddam is suicidal. History tells us that he is not. If left in power he probably wouldn't use a first strike against Israel. If anything Israel would strike first with chemicals and nukes and then swear up and down Saddam did it first. This has always been their tactic.”

“Nope. Sorry, but Gore lost. Even when they counted everything the way he wanted.”

“This could turn into a real sweet mess.

The military contractors are lickin' their chops!”

“Hmmmmm, Sonny Bush saw to that!”

“How about that speech Gore gave yesterday? Never thought I would say it but I think the man has hit on an issue that would win my vote.
Senator Byrd out of WV also gave a speech/interview to the WV Gazette that blasted Bush. I hope more of the Dems start doing this because there are a lot of people who are thinking this way and not saying anything.”

“No sol, not suicidal but terribly shrewd. Saddam knows he has no chance against the US in a one-on-one battle but if he draws his ‘Arab brothers’ into an Arab-Israeli conflict, we’d get a little distracted from our initial goal.”

“The figures seem a little high. 125K - 250K soldiers!?! Try around 70K max.

And Violin's armageddon scenario is far from a foregone conclusion!

First, Sharon would love for the U.S. to attack Iraq. He wants to extract a price for staying out of the war even if Baghdad attempts to strike Israel. That price will be American non-involvement in the Palestinian conflict. Sharon desperately wants to have a free hand in dealing with that problem. Don't pay attention to his Bluster about retalliating against Iraq. He's just playing the U.S.

Also, the Arab popular uprising argument is also not very likely. Sure, the Arab street is bellicose, but hostility does not easily convert into political effectiveness in the ME. Most Arabs don't like to take political risks, considering that most Arab regimes take heavy-handed, effective measures to quell popular rumblings.

No, the theory that an American attack on Iraq will upset the entire region and result in WWIII is far from the most likely outcome. I will admit that it's a small possibility, however.”

“Brent Scowcroft would disagree with you Mutt.”

“and your point is?”

“You said it pal.

The American people are being railroaded into this mess.

The likelihood of the Arab world joining in a HUGE jihad is very doubtful but possible.
A culture that abuses women as social norm is unlikely to take mortal risks in the face of superior military power.”

“I read an interesting article in yesterday's Christian Science Monitor about the different generations that support the war effort. The majority of Baby Boomers are pro-war, which I find interesting since they led the protests in the 60s. The Gen-Xers and the Greatest Generation are the most against the war. All the kids from elementary school thru the first few years of college are accepting of the war and are the most accepting of all the new "safety" regulations being put in place and having their civil liberties taken away. Scary stuff.”

“I wonder what the cost of 9/11 will total after factoring-in the cost to rebuild the Pentagon, cleanup and reconstruction of the World Trade Center, life insurance payoffs, etc.

I dare wonder what the cost of a next attack might be - In dollars and human lives...

The wackos did as much damage as they could with what they had access to. If Saddam were able to supply them with WMD, he would have.

George W. Bush is doing exactly what a President would be required to do in this situation. The President of the United States of America is bound by the Constitution to protect the people of this Great Land - President Bush has no other option.

"There is a peace that can only be found on the other side of war"
~King Arthur”

“That just isn’t so. He does have numerous other options, gojo.

What makes you think that Saddam would give over control of the most potent weapons he can develop to groups he has no control over.”

“There should be a question mark at the end of my last sentence.”

“Maybe it would help if instead of calling it a war we called it an economic stimulus package.”

“bacpac angling for a job on Madison Avenue? <smirk>”

“I think now that the U.N. has spoken they MUST act. I don't believe that Iraq is nearly the threat that Bush makes it out to be however, they are the easy choice to make him look tough. BUT, I think if we go in there (Not the U.N.) then we will make both Osama and Saddam look right about their assertions about America and the Arab world... and that will probably create a reason for more Osama type characters to show up...”

“I think that if 9/11 had not happened, we would be at this same place (dealing w/Iraq), excecpt it would have happened sooner. When GW was elected, I remarked to a friend, "well, looks ike we're going back to Iraq". There was unfinished biz at the end of Desert Storm. Spineless Bubba shoulda have done more when there were porblems with the inspectors. He also should have taken up the offers from the countries to turn over bin Laden. I'm not trying to pin this on Bubba, he has done that to him self and all/most of us will pay for his party days. Hell no I don't want war. A lot of kids I deal with every day will/might have to fight this one and they're scared #&%!$less. Why can't we just sweat the b@stard (Hussen) out like we've done with the former USSR and Cuba?”

“Sure, but that doesn't divert national attention from a failing economy and corrupt ties to big business like a good ole-fashioned war does!”

“Good point, donman. Former NATO military commander, Gen. Wesley K. Clark, told Congress yesterday that unilateral action against Iraq could ‘supercharge’ recruiting for al Qaeda and undermine our long term security.”

“Mutt,
You could very well be right about Ariel Sharon. But you have to remember, there are people in Israel even more reactionary than Sharon. If he wants to stay in power he might yield to pressure no matter what he told Bush. And it suits the the purpose of some in Israel very well (see below). The USA could be damned no matter what course Sharon takes.

Violin,
I still don't think Saddam would commit suicide just to bring his Arab brothers into an Arab-Israel conflict. Now Israel on the other hand IMO would do anything to draw us into an ever widening war with the Arabs/Muslims. Then with us fighting off the Arabs, they could do anything with the Palestinians up to and including expulsion into Jordan. The people who currently run Israel are in this for a greater Israel populated with ethnic and/or by religion Jews only. It doesn't matter how they do it, they just want to do it. If that takes the US down the path of perpetual war for perpetual peace, so what.”

“There is the danger of certain elements in Israel using Arab unrest over an attack against Iraq as cover to start ethnic cleansing of Judea and Samaria (their terms for the West Bank).

Do you really believe, as so many of your post have alluded to, that Zionist forces have been playing the US for years?”

“Yep and we play them also.......”

“There is more than a little hypocrisy on Bush’s part arguing that the UN must act to enforce it’s Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq when Israel has ignored them for over 35 years. Of course several Arab nations still fail to abide by the conditions of Resolution 242 that require them to acknowledge the right of all States in the region to exist securely within their borders.”

“"Israel on the other hand IMO would do anything to draw us into an ever widening war with the Arabs/Muslims. Then with us fighting off the Arabs, they could do anything with the Palestinians up to and including expulsion into Jordan."

Exactly what Arabs would we need to fight off for Israel? I can't think of any arab state that can mount a serious offensive against Israel. Arab regimes are held in check by a variety of concerns: limited military capabilities,
economic and political concerns, peace treaties with Israel, U.S. aid, etc. Syria is a remote threat at best, but it's the most likely aggressor. Well, Iraq can lob a few missiles, but that's about it.

Israel can do whatever they want with the Palestinians at any time with little or no fear of military attack from Arab nations. That they haven't done so to date is a testament to their Western values and democratic society.”

“Man I never would have believed that Trail Talk could have been taken over by a bunch of Berkley wannabes.

I bet you all believe we deserved what happened on 9/11. I bet just like Alec Baldwin your a bunch of butt puppets for the cry baby peaceniks.

Do you think now that the terrorists have found they can hit us that they will just stop if we do nothing? If we let them they will be back. It's time to stand up, it's time to kick some ASS.”

“La Rock you sound like a GOP puppet. I don't think anyone said do nothing, Iraq most probably had little or NOTHING to do with 9/11, on the other hand Saudi Arabia had LOTS to do with it, we did too.

No we didn't deserve it, we got ourselve stuck in this a long time ago and we've ignored the possibility that this terror war would hit in the U.S.

Saudi Arabia's Moderate Monarchy has made a lot of money from the U.S. and recieved a lot of power from their people. Wahabi Muslims have been recieving uncontested support from the Royal Family to open Wahabi schools in Saudi Arabia and abroad. Wahabism is the Muslim sect responsible for the majority of Arab terrorism.

Saddam is not apart of this, he's a jerk and he needs to be dealt with, but many people (military and civilian) believe that this move by President Bush is as much political as anything else.

The fact is that he put it before the U.N. (good speech) and now is going back on what he said. I don't know what will happen if and when we act on Iraq, but since we've yet to deal with Al Queda (they have proven themselves a "clear and present danger") moving on Iraq (to depose the government) will been seen by some in the Arab world as an act of aggression against a sovereign nation and a Muslim brother. This is the thought pattern of those that planned and executed 9/11. We must deal with the governments in the Middle East, the U.S. benefits greatly from the region, and we must deal with those who attacked us, not pick a fight with a loser to make our President look like he's doing something”

“Yes - kick ass! Any old ass will do. We want blood. Dead bodies piled up in mounds. Anything less would be un-American.”

“Once again, anyone who would question current administration policy is branded as being 'unamerican'.

Geeeeee, Ari was right: we all better watch what we say...”

“First off I'm sorry if I came across to strong, I'm just sick of hearing all the whining.

I guess we could just bombed a few aspirin factories. Point? It's not that uncommon of an occurrence to use the military to make a President look like he's doing something.

For me, when I look at the region in question I see that Sadam still needs to be dealt with. It would be stupid to believe he's not still attempting to create WMD. So I have no problem taking him out whether there is a direct link to 9/11 or not.

Yes your right there are other targets in the area, but like has been said we should only do one job at a time. The Al Queda trail has essentially gone cold for now so let's get rolling on the next target.”

“you may have a point... there is an Al Queda affiliate group operating in the Phillipines, killing American citizens, how about them?

Many of the 9/11 terrorists were in America illegally, some say there are terrorist cells here, how about them?

I think we need to deal with American security, and demand the U.N. follow-up on their resolutions.

I know Presidents do some stupid things to look good... I'm not going to play that "they did it, so we can" game, I am demanding more of my elected officials. The enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend, they just might be a psycho that goes off on me when they are done with my enemy...”

“"The Al Queda trail has essentially gone cold"

Not so. We should be bombing Buffalo next.”

“screw the WMD issue. Let's secure our oil and strengthen our hegemony.”

“Damn donman! Beat me by three seconds.”

“In a recent profile in http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/22/magazine/22WOLFOWITZ.html?pagewanted=1" target="_blank">The NY Times Magazine, Paul Wolfowitz is credited with thinking that we can bring democracy to Iraq and possibly push Saudi Arabia in that direction too by toppling Saddam. What if, as many others think, it has the opposite effect and the governments in both countries are replaced by militant Islamists who decide that oil riches are only a temptation to the faithful and blow up all the oil facilities or simply refuse to sell to the west?”

“What if? Well, the U.S. wouldn't sit idle in Iraq and watch radical muslims set up a stable gov't in SA. The U.S. would have a good excuse to clean up the mess in SA.”

“Like we did in Iran after the fall of the Shah? Are we to occupy the region indefinitely? Wouldn't our garrisoned troops be sitting ducks like in Beruit? Wouldn't it be cheaper and less costly in terms of human life to just buy the oil?”

“I'm more worried about the radical Muslims in Pakistan... a push and a shove and then Nuclear weapons exist in the hands of Muslim terrorists”

“And what a shocker...We just sold Pakistan a shiitload of arms!!”

“donman: amen. I've been saying from the beginning that pakistan should be the next target after Afghanistan. We should have let the Indians do the dirty work earlier this spring when they badly wanted to kick some paki butt. Now that the monsoon season is over, India has a number of military options to pursue. We'll see what happens.

Violin: The Iraqi people don't like Sadam. And they're an educated, secular population with a substantial middle class. If anybody in the ME has the desire and the abilities to enter the modern era, it's the Iraqis. Sure, the Iraqis distrust American intentions, but I think they'd take to freedom like flies to shit. The spectre of civil war is way overplayed in the media, as is the difficulties of rebuilding the country.

To answer your questions: no, the Iranian sitatuation is not an analog of Iraq today. No, our troops won't be sitting ducks. The cost of human life is hard to calculate: life is lost if Sadam stays in power, life is lost if we knock him down. I'd choose freedom, democracy, and capitalism for the Iraqi people, rather than another decade of Sadam.”

“If it could be proven to at least a reasonable degree of certainty that Saddam was an imminent threat to our allies or us or if his fingerprints were on 9-11, I’d be all behind an invasion.

I think it would be great if we could spread democracy around the globe but look what kind of commitment it took to transform Japan and Germany. Afghanistan hasn’t exactly been transformed. Do the Iraqis even want western style democracy? It can’t be forced. From what I understand, the Iraqi middle class has been severely depleted by sanctions.”

“violin, you make a good point. We should make the war look like it's Sadam's fault. Have you ever watched the movie Patton? At the end where Patton says something like "I'll have a war started with the Russians in a week and make it look like their fault!" Yep, that's the kind of thing we need to make this war "legitimate."

The Dummy administration had no intentions of seriously rebuilding afghanistan. Our interest in that country, like in the cold war, runs only as deep as their relevance to our larger goals. As long as Afghanistan doesn't become a haven for terrorists, then we don't care what happens to them. Obviously, Iraq is a much different story. Iraq is at the center of our oil-soaked obsession with the ME. It greatly matters to the U.S. what happens there after Sadam. The Iraqi people just want to make money - like us Americans. I don't think there's going to be a destructive amount of "forcing" done in the name of capitalism or freedom. But democracy will be another matter. You're right to be concerned about that.”