RSSUsing PayPal
Costs of Iraq War Skyrocketing
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Thursday, Apr 20 2006, 6:12AM
CLOSE 
SOCIAL WEBSITES
http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2006/04/costs_of_iraq_w/&title=Costs of Iraq War Skyrocketing&topic=political_opinion" target="_blank">Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Facebook
Newsvine
Stumble UponEMAIL THIS ARTICLE
The Washington Post has run an important piece this morning on the rapidly increasing year on year costs of the Iraq War. Rather than becoming less expensive each year, American costs have increased, in constant dollars, each year.
Jonathan Weisman writes:
With the expected passage this spring of the largest emergency spending bill in history, annual war expenditures in Iraq will have nearly doubled since the U.S. invasion, as the military confronts the rapidly escalating cost of repairing, rebuilding and replacing equipment chewed up by three years of combat.The cost of the war in U.S. fatalities has declined this year, but the cost in treasure continues to rise, from $48 billion in 2003 to $59 billion in 2004 to $81 billion in 2005 to an anticipated $94 billion in 2006, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. The U.S. government is now spending nearly $10 billion a month in Iraq and Afghanistan, up from $8.2 billion a year ago, a new Congressional Research Service report found.
Annual war costs in Iraq are easily outpacing the $61 billion a year that the United States spent in Vietnam between 1964 and 1972, in today's dollars. The invasion's "shock and awe" of high-tech laser-guided bombs, cruise missiles and stealth aircraft has long faded, but the costs of even those early months are just coming into view as the military confronts equipment repair and rebuilding costs it has avoided and procurement costs it never expected.
"We did not predict early on that we would have the number of electronic jammers that we've got. We did not predict we'd have as many [heavily] armored vehicles that we have, nor did we have a good prediction about what our battle losses would be," Army Chief of Staff Peter J. Schoomaker recently told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The Post has a graphic depicting that this war in Iraq, in dollar terms, has surpassed the U.S. Civil War, the first Gulf War, and World War I in cost. We are going to surpass the Korean War in 9 months. And we are spending at a rate far greater than we were in Vietnam, and will surpass Vietnam in about 24 months.
Without getting into the tragic human casualties in this war, on both sides, the most important net loss from this war is the puncturing of American mystique in the world.
George Bush, Vice President Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and those who empowered them and/or did not do their jobs in constraining or overseeing what they did have pushed the American military to a near breaking point. Their poor planning and the mission creep they devised to turn a war against bin Laden into a war against much of the Middle East has shown the nation's limits.
Now, Iran is moving its agenda forward. Allies like Europe and Japan are not counting on us as much. The President's efforts to cut economic and trade deals in Latin America and during the APEC Leaders Conference fell with a thud. And now the Doha Development Round of trade talks is quickly dying.
It frustrates me greatly that Dems at the leadership level are not out making the case that this war and the maintenance of an occupation in Iraq are harming this nation's interests and future capabilities in profound ways. Dems have a hand in approving these budgets -- and they should begin linking defense spending to an Iraq withdrawal.
-- Steve Clemons
« Previous Article - More Thoughts On Iran: In No Particular Order
» Next Article - Will They Be Able to Google This from China?
Steve, you say that "the most important net loss from this war is the puncturing of American mystique in the world" and
"this war and the maintenance of an occupation in Iraq are harming this nation's interests and future capabilities in profound ways"
I think you seriously understate the problem. The Iraq war is not merely egg in our face, a continuing economic drain or profoundly counterproductive - by an of itself, it is all of those and more - but more importantly it is an enormous distraction from the real problems we face in a changing world.
Presumably you are aware that your old colleague Clyde Pretowitz has just come out with a new book, Three Billion New Capitalists: The Great Shift of Wealth and Power to the East , that makes clear some of enormous challenges that are looming in keeping our economy competitive in the technology and information sectors? While China and India focus on trade and industrial policies and turn out competent workers who put in long hours at a fraction of American wages, the U.S., Prestowitz argues, struggles with crushing trade and budget deficits, a zero savings rate, failing schools, dwindling investments in scientific training and research, a collapsing dollar and a debt-dependent economy that will face an "economic 9/11" once foreign creditors bail out. Our opportunity costs in failing to confront these problems should not be forgotten in the still important analysis of how the Iraq war has created many additional difficulties for us (as you, Prestowitz in his "Rogue Nation" book and Richard Haass in "The Opportunity" have pointed out).
This Administration has been high on American military power, and has little stomach to address through diplomacy or multilateral tools problems that cannot be resolved by military pressure. Unfortunately, not only have they not learned the lesson that we cannot solve all of our problems militarily, they continue to play the same tune while Rome burns. This attraction to the use of the military clearly caters to the egos of the administration, but also is closely linked to Republican political strategy and to the distribution of political favors.
That our bloated defense spending itself undercuts private investment in R&D, thereby undermining our ability to build the economy we need to stay competitive (as Paul Kennedy pointed out in "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers") seems to have completely escaped the adminministration.
One wonders if it is really national interest or private and partisan gain that are have been driving the Administration.
Dear TokyoTom: Sorry if it seems like I underestimate the problem as I completely agree with you that it's not just explicit net loss costs that come from diminished prestige and power -- but there is a major problem of lost opportunities to do other important tasks, like getting the "developing nation" problem resolved, etc. So, I agree with you wholeheartedly -- and thanks for referencing Clyde's important book.
best,
Steve Clemons
All these billions could and should instead be used to rebuild New Orleans and roads, bridges, schools, and hospitals in our aging infrastructure in U.S.
Re your frustration with "Dems at the leadership level":
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0420/p03s03-usmb.html
On the Democrats' policy on Iraq:
"There is a consensus that we cannot continue to have a permanent commitment to a failed strategy.... One, we are going to support our troops and two, you are going to see a ... desire to resolve the situation ... by turning this over to the Iraqis and bringing our folks home. The only thing that is left up to some modest differences is what the timetable is."
"It frustrates me greatly that Dems at the leadership level are not out making the case that this war and the maintenance of an occupation in Iraq are harming this nation's interests and future capabilities in profound ways. Dems have a hand in approving these budgets -- and they should begin linking defense spending to an Iraq withdrawal"
..I have never been a Nader voter but every day I remember what he said..that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between the dem and repubs."
The dems think that standing by and letting the country slid further and further down the tube will help them regain power....you can say they have no control now and that is why they can't do anything....but they could have been speaking out loud and clear with the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the state of this nation instead of just using every Bush and GOP screw-up as a talking point for their own political interest.
For the hundredth time...Neither Party Represents this Country...only themselves.
Given the stark admission that "we did not predict...", coupled with unexpected procurement costs, it seems as though Rumsfeld has put his foot in his mouth yet again with his remark today "the implication that there was something wrong with the war plan is amusingâ€Â.
You can't have it both ways, Rummy. Its time you retired from government service.
Perhaps it's time we recongized our limits.
Carol hit the nail on the head. Rather than speaking up for what is right, Dems have taken to the sidelines in hopes todays problems will gain back their power come the elections. Its pathetic to see them resorting to personal attacks on Bush and Rumsfeld [giving them a free ride on facts] when reality dictates a factual debate and education of the current crisis is desperately required. It is a sad time for America when both political parties place their agenda ahead of what is actually right for the nation.
This goes to the effectiveness of Rumsfeld's high tech new military. If the cost of this new tech "Shock and awe" war exceeds these other wars, what bang are we getting for our dollar. Iraq was devastated by years of sanctions, if we win wars against third world armies, what is going to happen with a war with a real enemy. These satelites and smart bombs don't work during a sandstorm. Carters Iran rescue mission failed due to a sandstorm.
Okay. So, what you are saying is that if we'd just bought everyone in the world a happy meal for a year, we'd be better off? Okay, I guess that makes more sense than sending them thar foreigners the business end of depleted uranium...but, sadly, I guess the folks in charge of the US Congress at the moment didn't invest in...I mean...uh...didn't think of that.
Reader Comments (10) - post a comment