Total Price of War in Iraq: over $1 TRILLION (Gen. Barry McCaffrey)

[scottxyz]

A friend of mine just emailed me this news that was on CNBC tonight:

Gen. Barry MacCaffrey on CNBC tonight put a figure on the total cost of the war in Iraq:

$150 billion/year x 5 years
= $750 billion (2004 through 2008)
+ >$100 billion spent in 2003
+ $30 billion buildup (2002)
= $990 billion!!

Over $1 trillion with interest costs! That's more than the GDP of Canada (a G-8 nation), or 10% of our 2002 GDP!

And, never mind what that we are spending less than 10% of what's required to secure Afghanistan.

My friend, who is a libertarian-leaning sometime CEO/entrepreneur who reads the WSJ, continues:

My math says, we did NOT secure cheap energy (the implicit reason for this war, which I tacitly support), so this war has been a failure. Further, it has INCREASED the risk to our domestic security. $3-4/gallon gas for the next 10 years would have been cheaper, and less risky. Yet, energy prices will probably NOT moderate for at least a couple of years, and may potentially rise as a result of Iraq's impaired oil infrastructure (Iraq is now importing oil).

This administration has struck out on security, the economy, AND its
promises of CHEAP energy for big business - THAT last one will be its
undoing.

If there's anyone here who hasn't been banned from Free Republic, get over there and post these figures. This is the only kind of thing that wakes them up: it drives them crazy when they realize that BUSH is so much more "big-government" and "bad for business" than any Democrat could ever be.

[Laughing Mirror]

1. and that 87 billion is a mere drop in the bucket

compared to figures the Congressional Budget office reported, as reported a week ago in LeMonde

remember those dollar numbers Sen Bryd demanded of a withering Rumsfeld?

According to LeMonde reports that the actual ground troops at 139,000 would normally be rotated down to 67,000. To attain a bare minimum of 106,000 (a figure that experts considered insufficient) would require the use of special forces not normally employed to keep peace and would cost a cool 19 billion a month. Were two divisions to be added to the ground troops (the prescription of some experts), the cost would go up to $29 billion a month, and would have to go on some five years for that prescription to take effect.

Clearly, America needs help.


http://www.lemonde.fr/recherche_articleweb/1,9687,332592,00.html?query=powell&query2=&booleen=et&num_page=1&auteur=&dans=dansarticle&periode=7&ordre=pertinence&debutjour=&debutmois=&debutannee=&finjour=&finmois=&finannee=&G_NBARCHIVES=787+842

[Lisa]

2. more than the GDP of Canada?

Geez, don't go giving him ideas! Annexation, anyone?

[teryang]

3. The study of colonialism always

...reaches this same conclusion. The creation and maintenance of empire by conquest always costs infinitely more than any profits yielded. So for the "mother country" it is invariably an experience which tends to bankrupt the treasury.

However, for the Rhodesian carpetbaggers and profiteers who stir up these causes, they are the source of untold private wealth. The public treasury which finances the operation groans under additional taxation, levies, debts, wars, inflation, and economic stagnation. The profiteers who stirred up the phony adventure become extremely wealthy.

[chaumont58]

4. As more time goes by and more information comes out....

My belief grows stronger that the Bushies did it for the most vile of reasons: billions for Bechtel and Harliburton.

[MGKrebs]

5. And my current working theory is

that they are doing this on purpose in order to force us to make a choice between security and social programs. Say bye bye to large parts of Social Security, Medicare, and welfare.

(It's not my original idea- this was published in an editorial in the Financial Times a couple of months ago.)

I'm not sure if they will be able to keep their tax cuts or not, but they will certainly try to hold on to them. If Bush* wins the election, that will be seen as a validation for him to keep the tax cuts in place. If he loses, it will be the Dem's job to "raise" taxes.

[htuttle]

6. I think that was the point of the tax cut

But I think the situation in Iraq has been out of their control from the moment the US invaded -- they are just now beginning to realize it.

And as we've seen in the past, the Bushes just don't deal effectively with issues that weren't on their 'agenda'.

PPPPP!

[karlschneider]

7. Hell, they can't even deal with issues that are ON their agenda!

:eyes: