CBO: Bush Plans For Iraq Will Cost Trillions

[babylonsister]

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 drawdown -- and still tallies a daunting expense for the United States.

We've added the report to our document collection. You can read it here:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/iraq-presence/

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 estimated that U.S. costs in Iraq from 2009 to 2017 will total approximately $1 trillion. 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.

All estimates are in 2008 dollars. Both estimates are arguably conservative. In the combat scenario, for instance, Army units serve 12-month tours, whereas they now serve 15-month tours. In the non-combat scenario, the CBO ratcheted down the Defense Department's cost-of-war estimates to reflect "lower costs for such items as equipment maintenance, fuel and consumable materials."

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

[Bandit]

1. No Problem just "Charge It"

Put it on the cuff. Then whelch on the debt when it comes due. It is the American Criminal way...

[pscot]

3. It always worked for him before

Makes you wonder just how hard it really is to get a Harvard MBA.

[donkeyotay]

2. I just saw Dear Leader on tv. He said he was fiscally responsible,

and Social Security was the problem. Bush has reduced our deficit while fighting a war. What is this CBO, some kind of leftist group?

[PA Democrat]

4. Oh please, tell me he didn't say that. Bush is STEALING from

Social Security surplus to pay for his war and running up the deficit to pay for the rest. He is a vile , despicable piece of human excrement.

What does YOUR pay stub say in the description for your Social Security withholding? Does it say Social Security or does it say Social Security AND Bush's war fund?

[donkeyotay]

5. My FISA stub says "Sucker, the BFEE stole your lockbox."

Bush did say he was "fiscally responsible." At another point in his speechifying he said he still wanted to fix social security. But he doesn't want us to link these 2 concepts. Endless money - trillions for defense contractors and war for O.I.L., but the surplus from social security is missing. I'm making the link. He wants Merca to think that because the deficit is slightly less now, that the war hasn't cost a thing. He made out like that he's run a balances budget on the war. You and I getting old, now that's the problem. The feds want to run out on that little contract they made with us when they started taking all that money out of our checks and taxing our employers for hiring us. Now if he wants tax cuts, that where the cut should be made, since the trust account for us is a fiction.

[PA Democrat]

6. Yep. I'm old enough to remember the big deception perpetuated by Reagan

to create the Social Security Trust Fund by almost doubling Social Security taxes. My husband and I wonder if we will EVER be able to retire. We are not counting on Social Security.