Administration officials have declined to publicly forecast how long U.S. troops will remain in Iraq or how much it will cost to stabilize the country and set up a new government. The U.S. is currently spending an estimated $3 billion per month to maintain its forces in Iraq.
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. senators from both major parties said on Monday American soldiers may need to remain in Iraq for at least five years.
Actually, when Wolfowitz and one of his pet generals appeared before the House Armed Services Committee last week, there was some talk the U.S. military presence in Iraq might last a decade -- which apparently neither of them bothered to deny. But we'll stick with the "conservative" (pun intended) 5-year forecast. Let's see, that would be:
$3 billion per month x 12 months = $36 billion
$36 billion x 5 years = $180 billion
(And that's just to pay for the troops. Since it appears Iraq's oil revenues won't even cover the country's basic needs, and since Proconsul Bremer already has promised to steer at least some of those revenues directly to the Iraqi people in the form of dividend checks -- a la Alaska's Permanent Fund -- we probably should add something to the U.S. tab for Iraq's reconstruction. So let's call it an even $5 billion a month, which equals $60 billion a year, which equals $300 billion over five years.
Compare to annual federal spending for:
- U.S. international aid budget: $7.8 billion
- U.S. Homeland Security Department: $17.5 billion
- Science, space and technology: $20.7 billion
- Natural resources and the environment: $29.5 billion
- Federal grants to state and local governments for education, training and social services: $44.8 billion
- U.S. Department of Education: $46 billion
Oh, and I forgot about these costs:
For the burial benefits program administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs: $422,172,000
Bless you for posting this.
...speaking of money I'm listening to ESPN on the way in and Mark Cuban (billionare owner of the Dallas franchise for you not sports-heads) is talking about his fund for the families of the soldiers killed in Iraq.
It certainly is a nice thing to do (good Western Pennsylvania boy) and he had the numbers down- not only did he say "over 200 killed" but he also pointed out that "they are still taking casualties." Somebody alert Faux News.
But I got really pissed off anyway: here is a country with a 400billion military budget and a 10+ trillion GDP. We have such a massively hi-tech army that, even if Bush spends the next 5+ years swinging his Raytheon-enhanced dick through a number of countries, it's hard to imagine more than a couple thousand dead servicemen.
So why does somebody have to hold a fucking bake sale for the widows and orphans of these men? Heaven forbid their needs limit what some white crony capitalist has to spend on greens fees, I guess.
And that was before I heard that we had come up with the embarrassing offer of 2.5 billion -apparently total- for Iraqi reconstruction, and were shaking the cup for help from Europe (Old Europe, no doubt) and Asia.
Shame on all of us.
Sounds like we need another tax cut.
Two first rate post today, Billmon. Keep it up!
Excellent post, Billmon. However, since some of us are trying (without much success, sadly) to turn some of the Dittoheads, it would be helpful if there were numbers that these relationally-challenged types can understand. Three hundred billion is a huge number, but divide that by the approximately 300 million people who live in this country (rounded up for a simpler division) works out to about $1000 per person. Divide by 50 weeks (simplistic math excuse again) works out to $20 per week. And if said D-head is a smoker, that's less than one carton of cigarettes per week (and we all know how important THAT is to a smoker).
Give it some thought, and if this can be done without adding much to your workload, I'll see if I can get any traction with it.
Once again, superlative post.
In the course of my work, I interface (e-mail, sometimes telephone) with British, French, Spanish and Mexicans. They're not Muslims, and I wouldn't categorize any as extremists or virulent Anti-Americans. They're white-collar guys. And they do make a difference between "America" (= Bush Gvnmt) and folks like us.
I'm... I'm not sure what's the word... shocked? surprised? grieved?... by the depth of their resentment, which pretty much boils down to two categories of thoughts, expressed in various ways, sure, but that could be classified as:
1) wishing for / approving of more US military casualties (the "serves you right"reflex),
2) if their Government volunteers troops to help the US, they'll have a revolution on their hands.
There's A LOT of anger out there, folks. I'm old enough to remember / have lived through Vietnam and I never saw this before.
Don't forget the ongoing costs of our military presence in Afghanistan. I can't find the numbers, but estimates range from $200 million/month to upwards of $1.2 billion per month!
$300 billion, eh? Clearly, we need the White House to invade California, and quickly. We've even got oil!
Okay, look, I am the first to agree that the economic costs of this debacle in Iraq alone ought to be enough to get us the hell out.
But you forget the basic political theory behind the occupation: to give the US a stable base of operations for the Middle East and Southwest Asia -- one that we own. You also forget that it wasn't financial numbers that turned off the US populace to the war in Vietnam. The anti-Vietnam movement was cranking out the numbers as far back as 1967 and making little impression on the peepul or the newspapers.
What it took was lots and lots of body bags coming back for no apparent reason, and a media that finally got on board and pointed out to the peepul that the whole thing was for no apparent reason. That didn't start happening until about the time My Lai broke loose.
I don't for a moment want lots of GIs or Iraqis killed so we can close this sorry mess. I don't want some 22 year old captain in the 3rd ID to freak out and torch a village full of women and children in front of a French cameraman just so the American media will finally wake the fuck up. I want Bush the hell out of the White House so the next guy will get us out.
I hope.
sgc
Unfortunately I hate to say this but now that we actually are in Iraq we have to "do it right". I fear the consequences if we don't. However, having said that, I just came home from a long town meeting where we are cutting our town's annual budget from last year by about 1.8 million dollars because of decreased state and federal aid..let me tell you it ain't pretty. There are about 30 positions within the town that will be cut from fireman and policeman, to teachers and public works crews. It is devastating. This is small peanuts (less than 1%)compared to the annual cost of the Iraq war $60 billion. But it does help to put it in better perspective for the average person. Our troops are sacrificing and states and local communities around the country are beginning to feel the effect of the Bush economy. This war cost will certainly drain valuable resources away from this country. I am certainly not better off than I was 2 years ago, and with the Perpetual War gang in control and tax cuts for everyone whether you need it or not, I don't see things getting better anytime before the next election.
Great Post:
Economist have a name for this concept "opportunity Cost." Idea is that you should value any investment in resources by what the resources would achieve in an alternate use. With 36 billion you could do something like solve AIDS or a Marshall Plan for South and Central America not to mention domestic uses.
Over on Dave Hackworth's site he has some letters sent from noncoms and junior officers. To put it mildly they are pissed and depressed. The troops despise the officers who live in Saddams palaces. They have all the comforts of home: A/C, ice, top grade bottled water, showers. Everything the grunts don't have, they're lucky to get ice or decent bottled water.
Ohh, read the open letter sent by one of major's who lives at the palace. This guy is really out of touch.
sftt
Good post, but it leaves the flank open for attack. You compare 5 year costs versus one year costs with no justification.
Good post, but it leaves the flank open for attack. You compare 5 year costs versus one year costs with no justification.
Not really -- the annual tab of $60 billion for our little stay in Iraq (making a reasonable guess about "incidental" costs) is more than the annual spending for any of the items listed.
Another way to put it would be to say that the 5-year $300 billion price tag would cover ALL of the items listed for almost two years.
lupin up there has a good point. i just have to look at my mother, a british ex-pat living in canada for the last fifty years, and very conservative.
she cried when kennedy was shot.
when reagan was wounded, all she said was, so many guns and they still can't shoot straight?
with bush.... i don't think it's legal to post what she'd like to happen to him. slowly. and if possible, on live tv.
and she's a conservative....
i don't think there's much feeling in canada of the "serves you right" variety.... we get too many of those guys up here on vacations to be comfortable wanting any of them dead.... but towards the white house and the upper levels of the american government, incredible and inventive malice. (SENTENCE DELETED)
Hmm. Lesee now. Last year's defense budget was $329 billion. That's about $27.5 billion per month. $3 B/month is about 10%. A hefty raise.
However, when I see these numbers, nobody ever says if the $3B/month is total cost (ie, would be part of the total budget) or marginal costs (only stuff we wouldn't be doing already).
Makes a big difference.
(REFERENCE DELETED)
Well, until they get a taste of Cheney.
Sorry to play Big Brother here, but Vancouver's final comment was over the line. It's been deleted. And so has Matt D's reference to it.
If I am understanding Pentagonese correctly, the 3 billion a month is the marginal cost of staying in Iraq and that is to be spent on additional spare parts, ammo, combat pay, pensions, death benefits, reconstruction and troop construction costs etc.
Fester
Maybe slightly off topic but when I read the post, I had just read a story about Bush's fundraisers in New York. Compare the following
Department of Veterans Affairs: $422,172,000
Bush reelect Fundraising goal $200,000,000
I think I just was trying to put the $200 million number into some sort of context that relates to everyday things the goevernment provides for the people that it represents, not just the people who want to run it.
cost on america's soul: priceless
Wow, it's really true what they say: A billion here, a billion there--pretty soon, you're talking real money.