CBO: Bush Plans For Iraq Will Cost Trillions

[Hissyspit]

Source: Congressional Budget Office

CBO: Bush Plans For Iraq Will Cost Trillions
By Spencer Ackerman - September 20, 2007, 10:02AM

A new Congressional study finds that President Bush's plans for the U.S. in Iraq over the next several decades will reach the trillions of dollars, on top of the approximately $567 billion the war has already cost. That accounting assumes a significant troop draw-down -- and still tallies a daunting expense for the United States.

On June 1, during a trip to U.S. Pacific Command in Honolulu, Defense Secretary Robert Gates mused about how to "posture ourselves" in Iraq "for the long term." The Vietnam experience underscored the undesirability of a sudden, abrupt withdrawal. Far better for the U.S. to follow the experiences of post-conflict garrisoning in Korea and Japan, he said: "a mutually agreed arrangement whereby we have a long and enduring presence." President Bush is reportedly intrigued by the so-called Korea model, wherein the U.S. has guaranteed security on the Korean peninsula with at least four U.S. Army combat brigades for half a century. Indeed, in his speech on Thursday, Bush declared himself ready to build an "enduring relationship" between the U.S. and Iraq.

The study, conducted by the Congressional Budget Office, decided to follow the Korea model to calculate its expense. Since it's unclear for how long or under what conditions combat operations will ensue, the CBO projects both a combat and a non-combat presence. Both, however, are projected to require 55,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. The combat scenario entails one-time costs of $4 to $8 billion, with annual expenses of $25 billion, projected outward. Under the non-combat scenario, a $8 billion one-time cost -- mainly for the construction of additional "enduring" bases -- would be followed by annual costs of $10 billion or less.

A prior CBO study, released in August, estimated (large pdf) that U.S. costs in Iraq from 2009 to 2017 will total approximately $1 trillion on the assumption of a troop presence of 75,000. On top of that, under the reduced-force combat scenario envisioned in this CBO estimate, the U.S. will spend another $1 trillion by 2057 -- the lifespan of the U.S.'s Korean presence to date.

Read more: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004243.php

[predfan]

1. anyone notice that California is expected

to have most new homes off the grid within 20 years? the incredible amount of money the administration's friends are making off this war would go a long way to completely eliminating our need for mideast oil, thereby getting us out of the mideast. Plus, it's easy to obligate our grandchildren to the debt. Realtime financing for Bush's Folly would never fly.

[Robbien]

2. This point should be hammered

And hammered often. The defense industry is breaking the US treasury but all the DC politicos look at is social security and medicare when they talk about budget cuts.

[ladywnch]

5. of course ss and medicare are all they talk about.

because THOSE monies go to the 'little people' instead of rich folks pockets. THAT must be stopped! everyone knows this country is MUCH stronger and better off when the rich have all the money and tell the 'little people' what they can and can't have. Money MUST remain in the hands of the rich who are much better able to manage it. :sarcasm:

[ryanmuegge]

8. A choice has to be made: a military or entitlements

One has to be completely eliminated. Anyone that thinks otherwise is fooling themselves. Why isn't anyone in Washington saying this?

[uppityperson]

9. That is the only choice for funds? Social security is entitlement?

Maybe no one is saying this because there are other choices, other ways to divide up the money. Maybe no one is saying Social Security is an entitlement is because it isn't.

People who have paid into Social Security and collect later are getting an entitlement? On the 1 hand they are because they paid in and are entitled to get some back, sort of like I'm entitled to take my money out of the bank when I want to (after I put it in of course). Edited to add, perhaps you think that the money I paid into SS should now go to support the War Machine instead?

[tabasco]

11. Take your horseshit talking points somewhere else. n/t

[cyberpj]

10. Well put. And bears repeating to every congressperson we can reach. nt

[The_Casual_Observer]

3. They get away with this by holding a "terrified" public hostage

with loose talk about "bringing it over here".

[truthisfreedom]

4. It would probably be cheaper to let them try to "bring it over here" at this point. We need a new

energy infrastructure and we need it now. Going "off the grid" will reduce the threat of terrorism dramatically... Less places for the bad guys to interrupt power over a vast area!

[psychopomp]

6. As usual, *bush gets it wrong--Iraq cannot be like the "Korea model"

The four brigades in Korea are nothing more than a trigger for US commitment to siding with ROK in a total war against the PRNK. Nobody believes the troops stationed there would be more than a speedbump for the PRNK as they roll into the South. It is the fear of a full US retaliation that prevents the PRNK from making a move.

In the case of Iraq, the US forces would be garrisoned occupiers. The threat of US commitment has been realized already so anti-US forces would not fear attacking the troops.

[Hissyspit]

7. .

[Screwfly]

12. Bush's plan is Armageddon or bust.

I doubt he images the U.S. will exist beyond the year 2012 .