Iraq war could cost 2 trillion.

usickenme

usickenme

CAGiversary!
http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/Cost_of_War_in_Iraq.htm

A new study by Columbia University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz, who won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2001, and Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes concludes that the total costs of the Iraq war could top the $2 trillion mark. Reuters reports this total, which is far above the US administration's prewar projections, takes into account the long term healthcare costs for the 16,000 US soldiers injured in Iraq so far.
"Even taking a conservative approach, we have been surprised at how large they are," the study said, referring to total war costs. "We can state, with some degree of confidence, that they exceed a trillion dollars."
The higher $2 trillion amount takes a 'moderate' approach. Both figures are based on the projection that US troops will remain in Iraq until 2010, with steadily decreasing numbers each year. The economists also used government data from past wars, and included such costs as the rise in the price of oil, a larger US deficit and greater global insecurity caused by the war, the loss to the economy from injured veterans who cannot contribute as productively as they would have done if not injured, and the increased costs of recruiting to replenish a military drained by repeated tours of duty in Iraq. These are items which are almost never included by the US government when determining the cost of the war.
Click to expand...

One caveat, this study takes into account a lot of factors. However, it does really show the impact of this mistake.

So in almost every regard the Iraq war has been a total disaster. The final piece is an economic disaster. The dishonest initial prediction of 70 billion seem so quaint.

save your "how much did WW2 cost" points? They don't apply. This was a war of choice.
 
Here's the solution they'll use: eliminate SS, veteran benefits, social programs, medicare, federal pensions and healthcare, and school funding, then blame America's woes on democrats for not wanting to cut taxes.
 
[quote name='usickenme']One caveat, this study takes into account a lot of factors.[/QUOTE]
Bingo. While I gasped at this article when I first saw it, reading it led to the claim of "BETWEEN 1 and 2 billion," but most liberals seem fixated on that last figure at the expense of the truth of the analysis.

Also, he takes into account so many things on a long-term horizon, it reminds me of the bullshit mathematics that the Republicans tried springing last year about the long-term cost savings by "fixing" social security. They never pointed out that their estimates were calculated by looking into the infinite horizon, so that in the context of even a single century, the understanding of the estimates were far different.

I could give a shit about either statistic. I think it's more than sufficient to examine the amount of money appropriated to Iraq in comparison to the money spent elsewhere in the overall "war on terror." That, to me, is far more meaningful and indicative of the current administration's devotion to our well-being and security.
 
Even if the final total winds up at the low-end estimate of 'only' 1 trillion dollars, its still breathtaking how far off the Bush administration (and its supporters) were. Their estimate wasn't even within the right order of magnitude. Its impossible not to ask if they were lying about the cost of the war, or if they're simply that incompetent. Either way, they're the LAST people who should be permitted to make any further decisions about our country's policies.
 
What a worthless study.

"the loss to the economy from injured veterans who cannot contribute as productively as they would have done if not injured" Are they just making up data now?

Hmm... Did they include the cost to the economy of economists doing forward-thinking studies about the costs of the war?
 
[quote name='Quillion']"the loss to the economy from injured veterans who cannot contribute as productively as they would have done if not injured" Are they just making up data now?[/QUOTE]

Um, no, they're estimating. Considering that the entire thing is an estimate, that's a pretty reasonable thing to do. That's the entire point of an estimate.
 
They could be going on past wars. For example, the difference between injured vietnam or gulf war veterans vs those who were not injured in those conflicts. If you can actually find the info then thats a reasonable thing to include in a survery as far reaching as this.
 
Many of these economic "costs" should not be lumped together, there are are irrecoverable costs, such as death, destruction, internation standing, and ill will generated to the presidency; there are misplaced resource costs- army's time better spent protecting elsewehere, resources (time/money/energy) diverted from other needed areas such as the gulf costs, and then there are the government expendentures that may seem nefarious, but in a keynesian economic sense, do not "cost" the economy, but rather are an important part of any fiscal policy.
Does this study (and the link doesn't work) lump costs altogether, as well as assume all those costs are negative? I think the purpose is probably of good intention, but human nature isn't built to care about long term costs (if we were the dollar menu at McD's would really be costing $5 with aggregate health costs, lowered life expectancy, lethargic behavior and fried reproductive juices).
And the admin may have lied about the costs of war, but war is not the kindest of subjects to estimate.
 
I think there are some items included in the study just to make the number bigger, so I'm not putting a lot of stock in the total.

However, realize that when Congress returns and passes another supplemental appropriation for Iraq, the total spent specifically for it and it alone will be around $500 billion. Obviously anyone with half a brain should realize what kind of bullshit people like Paul Wolfowitz (now president of the World Bank...how convenient!) were talking about when they claimed the war would be more or less paid for in full by Iraqi oil money.
 
As far as I can find (or remember), Wolfowitz was very, very, very reluctant to give any actual numbers for what he thought the war would cost. I suspect he had an idea that Iraq would turn into a never-ending mess, and was bright enough to not say anything that would come back and bite him.

My own personal favorite quote regarding the cost of the war in Iraq:

Q: Mr. Secretary, on Iraq, how much money do you think the Department of Defense would need to pay for a war with Iraq?

Rumsfeld: Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question. I think the way to put it into perspective is that the estimates as to what September 11th cost the United States of America ranges high up into the hundreds of billions of dollars. Now, another event in the United States that was like September 11th, and which cost thousands of lives, but one that involved a -- for example, a biological weapon, would be -- have a cost in human life, as well as in billions, hundreds of billions of dollars, that would be vastly greater.
Click to expand...

The passing-the-buck for the estimate being wrong to someone else, the implication that it'll actually be lower because other countries will chip in, and - like a ribbon on a Christmas present - an implication that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Absolutelyl beautiful - a masterwork of evilness.
 
2 trillion seems a little "over" to me. Im not good when it comes to pricing tanks, but thats a lot of money to be spending.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top