|
|
|
|
Bush's 'priceless'
war
By David Isenberg
WASHINGTON - Although the exact cost of
the Iraq invasion to the American taxpayer is not
known, recent figures suggest it is a lot more
than has been publicly suggested and will grow
considerably higher. Part of the problem in
estimating costs is that the war is obviously not
over; it just keeps going, and going, and going.
According to a report on the cost of
the war in Iraq released last week by the
Democratic staff of the House Budget Committee,
the war and ongoing insurgency could cost the
United States between US$461 billion and $646
billion by 2015, depending on the scope and
duration of operations.
The difference
between the low and high-end estimates depends on
potential costs in 2006 and beyond. The lower
figure is based on a US withdrawal of forces
within four years, per Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld's prediction that all US troops could be
withdrawn from Iraq by the end of 2008. The second
estimate reduces US forces to 40,000 by 2010, per
a previously released Congressional Budget Office
model.
The Budget Committee
report estimates are higher than previous estimates
for several reasons: the war is lasting longer and
is more intense, and the cost to keep US troops
in the theater of operations is proving to be
greater, than anyone anticipated.
Those
estimates are also far higher than anyone had
predicted earlier, including Lawrence Lindsey,
President George W Bush's former chief economic
adviser. In 2002 he predicted that the cost of a
war with Iraq could range between $100 billion and
$200 billion at best. The administration dismissed
the figure, and Lindsey was soon fired.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates
that the cost of military operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan and the global "war on terrorism",
after the newest supplement is exhausted, could
total about $350 billion over the next 10 years
(excluding interest payments on the debt),
assuming an eventual phase-down of US activities
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
To date, Congress
has appropriated $154 billion for the military
operations and reconstruction in Iraq. In the
upcoming weeks this total will grow after Congress
enacts the president's $81.9 billion emergency
supplemental appropriation to fund these
operations through the rest of fiscal year 2005.
This latest supplemental includes $64 billion for
Iraq and increases the total cost to the US to
more than $200 billion through 2005.
One obvious question when considering costs is why
the government has to ask for
supplemental appropriates in the first place. Why can't it
be put in the annual budget request? According
to Chris Preble, director of foreign-policy studies
at the Cato Institute in Washington, DC, "There is
one good argument for not using Iraq costs for not
being in the annual military budget. That is the
risk you build in tens or hundreds of billions of
dollars that are not applied to Iraq, but applied
to somewhere else. However, that concern is
completely overwhelmed by the fact that funding
for war by supplements really seems to be intended
to conceal some of the costs, and to present costs
to Congress to be a fait accompli. Congress
can't vote against such things without being
accused of undermining troops in the field."
According to Chris Hellman,
military-policy analyst at the Center for Arms Control and
Non-Proliferation in Washington, DC, "It seems to
me you have to ask the fundamental question. I
believe if the president went to Congress and said
we are going to put it in the top line and we need
to fund it, Congress would say 'yes'. So why does
the president go the supplement route? To a certain
extent it hides the deficit. At least temporarily
it distorts the true nature of the deficit."
Another reason, according to Hellman, is
that "supplement appropriations are slushy. There
is a lack of oversight, which gives a federal
agency a lot of discretion. You are talking about
$500 billion in total annual spending, of which
20% - the total of the supplement - is unaccounted
for. No other agency has discretionary authority
of 20% of its budget."
Then there are
future costs that have hardly begun to be paid
such as disability payments for those who are
wounded in the "war on terror".
Larry Korb, a
former assistant secretary of defense in the administration
of president Ronald Reagan and a senior fellow the
Center for American Progress, a liberal think-tank
in Washington, DC, said, "You are going to have
one in 10 die. That means a 90% survival rate.
People forget about the VA [Department of Veterans
Affairs] costs that have to be paid."
According to Hellman,
"Nobody has made any effort to calculate those costs.
One of the sad ironies of our technical
proficiency is that our death-to-wounded ratio is completely
reversed from previous wars. This could be a
substantial burden to taxpayers for 40-50 years."
Then there
is the reality that not all the money appropriated
for the cost of war in Iraq or Afghanistan
actually is spent on those wars. Korb said,
"There are things in the supplement which should
be in the regular budget, such as converting
army brigades and the costs of military transformation,
as well as regular operations and maintenance
costs, plus odds and ends, like procurement
of Black Hawk helicopters. Keeping
these costs in the supplement allows the Pentagon
to claim that their budget request comes in under
last year's budget. But when you include the costs
of items in the supplement they are over by about
10 billion."
Korb's claim is confirmed by
the documentation provided by the White House. For
example, the fact sheet it released about the
supplement notes that it "includes $5.3 billion to
begin implementing plans to restructure the army
and Marine Corps into more flexible,
self-sufficient modular units better able to
deploy and fight the 'war on terror'."
Aside from the difficulty in tracking
costs it is also unclear how well the money is
being spent. Last month, Stuart Bowen Jr, special
inspector general for Iraq reconstruction,
released findings that the US occupation authority
in Iraq was unable to keep track of the nearly $9
billion it transferred to government ministries,
which lacked financial controls, security,
communications and adequate staff.
So how
much might it cost by the time it is all over? It
is impossible to predict with certainty. But Korb
estimates that "before it is all over the costs
will run to half a trillion dollars".
But
in the end the debate over the costs obscures a
more fundamental question. "I think at the end of
the day, whether they account for costs normally
or via supplement, it is incumbent to come to
Congress and say whether costs are worth the
benefits. The Bush administration can't be left
off the hook for their assumption that the war
would be reasonably quick and inexpensive," said
Preble.
David Isenberg, a senior
analyst with the Washington-based British American
Security Information Council (BASIC), has a wide
background in arms control and national security
issues. The views expressed are his own.
(Copyright 2005 Asia Times Online Ltd. All
rights reserved. Please contact us for information
on sales, syndication and republishing.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
All material on this
website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written
permission.
© Copyright 1999 - 2005 Asia Times
Online Ltd.
|
|
Head
Office: Rm 202, Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong
Kong
Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
|
Asian Sex Gazette Middle East Sex News
|
|
|
