The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond

[defendandprotect]

The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond

By Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes
Sunday, September 5, 2010

Writing in these pages in early 2008, we put the total cost to the United States of the Iraq war at $3 trillion. This price tag dwarfed previous estimates, including the Bush administration's 2003 projections of a $50 billion to $60 billion war.

But today, as the United States ends combat in Iraq, it appears that our $3 trillion estimate (which accounted for both government expenses and the war's broader impact on the U.S. economy) was, if anything, too low. For example, the cost of diagnosing, treating and compensating disabled veterans has proved higher than we expected.

Moreover, two years on, it has become clear to us that our estimate did not capture what may have been the conflict's most sobering expenses: those in the category of "might have beens," or what economists call opportunity costs. For instance, many have wondered aloud whether, absent the Iraq invasion, we would still be stuck in Afghanistan. And this is not the only "what if" worth contemplating. We might also ask: If not for the war in Iraq, would oil prices have risen so rapidly? Would the federal debt be so high? Would the economic crisis have been so severe?



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090302200.html

---------------------------

Iraq was a preemptive and illegal war based on lies --

and further complicated in its expense by the privatization of the military.

And, according to Sy Hersh, this was our most brutal and cruel military effort ever.

And, behind war, as we see so often, so much other damage is done to our own nation.

[CurtEastPoint]

1. With those $$ the US could once again be an A-1, top notch, infrastructure-sound country.

But no.

[Raster]

2. The invasion and occupation of Iraq was planned *years* before cheney*/bush* stole the Presidency.

The Petroleum Mafia and the Military/Industrial Complex had been salivating over invading Iraq and privatizing its petroleum resources for years. For years. The theft of the Presidency via Selection 2000 just made it possible. Once 9/11 was added to the mix, the outcome was inevitable.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0316-03.htm

Published on Sunday, March 16, 2003 by the Sunday Herald (Scotland)

Rumsfeld Urged Clinton to Attack Iraq

by Neil Mackay

DONALD Rumsfeld, the US defense secretary, and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz wrote to President Bill Clinton in 1998 urging war against Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein because he is a 'hazard' to 'a significant portion of the world's supply of oil'.

In the letter, Rumsfeld also calls for America to go to war alone, attacks the United Nations and says the US should not be 'crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council'.

Those who signed the letter, dated January 26, 1998, include Bush's current Pentagon adviser, Richard Perle; Richard Armitage, the number two at the State Department; John Bolton and Paula Dobriansky, under-secretaries of state; Elliott Abrams, the presidential adviser for the Middle East and a member of the National Security Council; and Peter W Rodman, assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs.

<snip>

The letter -- also signed by Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush's special envoy to the Iraqi opposition; ex-director James Woolsey and Robert B Zoelick, the US trade representative -- was written by the signatories on behalf of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a right-wing think-tank, to which they all belong.

Other founding members of PNAC include Dick Cheney, the vice-president.
----------------

YES! The trillions of dollars spent--and continuing to be spent--on the invasion and *continuing* occupation of Iraq would go far to alleviate many of the financial problems facing the United States. In fact, it is largely BECAUSE of the invasion and occupation of Iraq that the United States is in it's current financial difficulties. Of course, the Petroleum Mafia and the MIC are pleased.

[sabrina 1]

3. Thank you for this, defendandprotect

Does anyone remember when George Bush fired Paul O'Neill I believe it was, for contradicting Rumsfeld on the cost of the war? Rummy had told reporters when they asked that it wold cost 'no more than a few billion, but O'Neill when asked, stated that it might cost over $200 billion. He was let go, and smeared for trying to tell the truth.

We should not forget these incidents. Because they got away with that lie with only man trying to tell the truth. He was abandoned, and that is not right and it makes other people frightened of doing what is right.

There were some good people, even the Republican party back then, but all of them, like O'Neill were pushed aside. I think they should be remembered and honored for their efforts.