CBO Scores The Price of The Iraq War

[Gaspar]

The CBO has now scored the price of the Iraq War.  It seems there were some exaggeration on both sides of the isle on this one.  According to the CBO the total cost from 2003 to present was $709 Billion.  Only 3.2% of federal spending.


This takes a lot of the wind out of the sails for blaming the deficit on Bush's war for oil.  It did make an impact, but when compared to Obamacare and Porkulus, it's minuscule.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Yeah, it only accounted for about 10% of Bush's spending increases.  So what the hell did we do with the rest of the money all those years? I wonder what the true cost is when figuring equipment replacement and medical care for life for the injured.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Yeah... there's a bargain!  And we got to futilely have 4,400 of our kids killed in the process, too!  Plus over 30,000 wounded!!  Hey, what a deal!

Here is a 2007 analysis to that point with estimates.  Some of the things missing in the "price" are things like cost of equipment replacement, cost of recruiting, retention costs, and cost to treat brain injuries through 2010 - $15 billion alone.  Figure about $10 billion a month ongoing costs.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/86xx/doc8690/10-24-CostOfWar_Testimony.pdf

[we vs us]

It did make an impact, but when compared to Obamacare and Porkulus, it's minuscule.

Don't forget those tax cuts!

EDIT: By way of comparison, the entirety of the ARRA stimulus bill amounted to $787 billion.

[nathanm]

Those numbers don't comport with previously reported figures. I generally trust the CBO, so I'm a little bit confused. I guess I'll have to see if I can find the text of the report later.

Edited to add: Well, I haven't gone through the whole CBO report, but I did find something interesting. Revenues for 2009 were over a trillion dollars lower than 2007. I guess there's no way our budget deficit could have anything to do with that. 

[Gaspar]

Those numbers don't comport with previously reported figures. I generally trust the CBO, so I'm a little bit confused. I guess I'll have to see if I can find the text of the report later.

Yeah, that's the whole point.  There have been numbers thrown around over the past 4 or 5 years that have no basis in reality.  I'd like to compare anything from previous reports if that information is still available. 

[Gaspar]

Yeah... there's a bargain!  And we got to futilely have 4,400 of our kids killed in the process, too!  Plus over 30,000 wounded!!  Hey, what a deal!

Here is a 2007 analysis to that point with estimates.  Some of the things missing in the "price" are things like cost of equipment replacement, cost of recruiting, retention costs, and cost to treat brain injuries through 2010 - $15 billion alone.  Figure about $10 billion a month ongoing costs.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/86xx/doc8690/10-24-CostOfWar_Testimony.pdf

I think 700 billion is far from a bargain.  Especially since we got very little out of the deal.  No WMDs and very little progress in the region. 

[nathanm]

I think 700 billion is far from a bargain.  Especially since we got very little out of the deal.  No WMDs and very little progress in the region.  

Iraq and Afghanistan together have cost us 1.2 trillion so far, by CBO's accounting. I dare say we haven't made any progress in either country.  

(Edited to add back in the 8 billion they didn't include for VA activity related to our two wars)

[Conan71]

Where's Rwarn to chime in?  He loves the CBO numbers on Obamacare and seems like he was talking about Iraq costing $1 trillion.

I honestly don't understand why we simply didn't let the CIA pull off one of it's textbook coups in Iraq and install a loyal puppet.  It would have saved thousands of lives and accomplished the same result without the cost of having to re-build an entire nation.

[Townsend]

I honestly don't understand why we simply didn't let the CIA pull off one of it's textbook coups in Iraq and install a loyal puppet.  It would have saved thousands of lives and accomplished the same result without the cost of having to re-build an entire nation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat

The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, on August 19, 1953 (and called the 28 Mordad coup d'état in Iran), was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh by the United States' Central Intelligence Agency.[1] The crushing of Iran's first democratically elected government launched 25 years of dictatorship under Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi, who relied heavily on U.S. weapons to hold on to power until he was overthrown in February 1979.[2] "For many Iranians, the coup demonstrated duplicity by the United States, which presented itself as a defender of freedom but did not hesitate to use underhanded methods to overthrow a democratically elected government to suit its own economic and strategic interests", the Agence France-Presse reported.[3]

[nathanm]

I honestly don't understand why we simply didn't let the CIA pull off one of it's textbook coups in Iraq and install a loyal puppet.  It would have saved thousands of lives and accomplished the same result without the cost of having to re-build an entire nation.

That worked out great in Iran. Personally, I think we went wrong with two things: Firstly, we left Iraqi Army stockpiles of high explosives unguarded. Secondly, immediate Debaathification, as they called it. You can't remove the entirety of government and military command and expect to have a stable nation capable of policing itself. I guess it's one of those things that seemed like a good idea at the time.

[Conan71]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat

It worked for 26 years.  Ike was dead and gone by the time that scheme fell apart and the Shah was pretty good to the subsequent Presidents, so what's the point?  We've backed other bloody dictators before who were better than the existing asshat because they represented better overall stability and acted in the best interests of the US.  Study what we've done in Central and South America over the years.

[guido911]

Condi Rice rips Couric a new one over revisionist view of the run up to the war.

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hd6UuzkUSU

[Red Arrow]

Condi Rice rips Couric a new one over revisionist view of the run up to the war.

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hd6UuzkUSU

Looks like you have to be a member/ signed in to get access to the video.

[guido911]

Try this link.

http://nation.foxnews.com/condoleezza-rice/2010/12/12/condoleezza-rice-schools-katie-couric-why-us-invaded-iraq