The Boston Globe is reporting today that the true cost of the war in Iraq is likely to be in the trillion dollar range.
The war in Iraq could ultimately cost well over a trillion dollars — at least double what has already been spent — including the long-term costs of replacing damaged equipment, caring for wounded troops, and aiding the Iraqi government, according to a new government analysis.
A figure in that story that startled me was that the government is spending about ten percent of revenues on this war.
The cost of the war in Iraq and other military operations has soared to the point where “we are now spending on these activities more than 10 percent of all the government’s annually appropriated funds,” said Robert A. Sunshine, the budget office’s assistant director for budget analysis.
Now that is a shocking number. And the Bush Administration not only fired Generals over their estimation of troop levels required in post-war Iraq, they fired policy folks who gave higher numbers for the financial burden the war would present to the American taxpayers.
At the time, the White House and then-defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld predicted a quick, decisive victory and counted on Iraqi oil revenues to pay for the war. And when Lawrence Lindsey, one of Bush’s top budget advisers, estimated in 2003 that the entire undertaking could cost as much as $200 billion, he was fired.
Why deal with the truth when you can just fire people? And how are we paying the wars expenses. Well of course we are borrowing the money. The American public is not being asked to finance this war via taxation. Instead the ruinous financial scheme of borrowing trillions to finance this debacle and leave the debt to our kids has been adopted by the Bush Administration. Rep. James McGovern of Worcester keyed in on that point.
But McGovern said he is worried about the long-term financial impact of the war, adding that his primary concern is that the United States is borrowing money to pay for it. Some leading economists have predicted that, depending on how long troops remain in Iraq, the endeavor could reach several trillion dollars as a result of more “hidden” costs — including recruiting expenses to replenish the ranks and the lifelong benefits the government pays to veterans.
“It is being paid for on the national credit card,” McGovern said. “It is being put on their backs of our kids and grandkids. That is indefensible.”
McGovern said he is considering proposing that a “war tax” be levied on all Americans to cover the ballooning expenses.
“We should find a way to pay for it so that when this war is over we are not bankrupt,” he said.
With all that the President continues to threaten a veto of the extension of the federal health care program for children. Can his poll numbers sink further?
Link to the Globe story here.
Bill Manzi.com 
Your Honor,
The solution is simple. The Democrats should acquire some testicular courage and cease funding the war.
What a shame that the Democrats are pushing for us to loose the war to win political power. This became public when the senator (whose name escapes me) is caught on tape telling his interviewer that “improvement in conditions in Iraq would create division in the Democratic party”. That to me is anti-American.
As I mentioned before, I stand with the president 100%. This is WWIII that we are engaged in.
Can someone tell me what the Democratic party stands for in the matter of terrorism?
Why don’t they just implement it? After all The war on terrorism is only a bumper sticker.
It’s time to stop complaining and act.
Jules
LikeLike
Lets start out with finance. Why not ask the American public to foot the bill for the war, instead of borrowing to finance it. I thought that the Republican Party at one time favored balanced budgets.
LikeLike
Jules,
I’d be curious to see the verbatim quote and cited source on that senator’s statement…
Here’s a cited source detailing Romney’s approach to effectively establishing diplomacy:
“Hezbollah went into southern Lebanon and provided health clinics to some of the people there and schools, and they built their support by having done so. That kind of diplomacy is something that would help America become stronger around the world and help people understand that our interest is an interest toward modernity and goodness and freedom for all people of the world.”
So analogous to your claim the democrats are advocating losing the war on terror (while I thought they were actually advocating getting out of Iraq), it would appear that Romney is advocating we now adopt a terrorist approach….
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/romney-us-can-l.html
LikeLike
Your Honor,
WWII was financed from borrowed money, e.g.War Bonds. Actually what is more critical, in my mind, is that the Democrats get on board and stand with our troops against our enemies, or else de-fund the war.
As far as my republican compatriots are concerned, I am ashamed of them. They are worse than the Democrats in that they are waffling, weak kneed cowards, afraid of loosing their jobs.
For now they are standing with the president, defeating the defeatists resolutions proposed by Harry Reid and company.
If you want to save money then de-fund the war. Isn’t that the reason Democrats claim they had captured control of the congress?
This constant bickering has to stop. It encourages our enemies and stifles governance.
War is expensive. This war is expensive. I have never heard an accurate assessment of the cost of any war. Congress owns the revenue dispersement. I have not heard much shouting from congress about borrowing except for budget issues which are finance from taxes.
By the way, I have heard the cry of impending financial ruin from “borrowing money” from the Korean war until today.
I understand what you are driving at, but my view is that this “war on terror” is NOT a bumper sticker.
Jules.
LikeLike
Your Honor,
It’s good to hear from you.
Jules
LikeLike
This has been discussed before; if the Democrats vote cease funding for the war they are going to get killed by the “abandoning our troops” politics. The war is a mess, neither the president nor congress is doing anything worthy about it. I still have yet to see anyone in office come up with a definitive plan with a reasonably flexible timetable for the war.
I go with the if pro is the opposite of con, then what is the opposite of progress?
LikeLike
As for finances, numerous government reports have warned that our country’s transportation infrastructure is crumbling, yet little has happened in Washington. The bridge collapse in Minnesota is a direct result of this, but now senators and congress people will come out to decry the funds and a ridiculous complex bill with tons of pork will be passed, all after the horses have left the barn.
Of course, Anti-Republicans will point the finger at Bush and pull the “money on the war could have been used to fix bridges” card, but this is a complete failure on both branches of the government.
LikeLike
The war is costing us $12 million an HOUR. What a disgrace…
That money could be put to use in so many other productive ways here in the United States. Heck, our financial troubles with the high school would be beyond solved if that cash was put to use at home. We need to start focusing on re-building schools and bridges at home and not in Iraq. Take a look at the disaster in Minneapolis last night…it’s a perfect example.
LikeLike
Jim,
Following is the quote from Democrat majority whip Clyburn
“As House Majority Whip James Clyburn suggested this week, success in Iraq also would be awkward for those who have bet their political chips on American failure.
To be precise, Clyburn said that it would be “a real big problem for us” should General Petraeus return to Washington next month and present a positive report on progress in Iraq. Moderate Democrats might listen and decide that for America to be defeated in Iraq by al Qaeda and Iranian-backed militias is neither inevitable nor in the national interest. These same moderate Democrats also might decide that, for them, the national interest trumps the partisan interest”
This is a direct quote copied from the web site.
Check it out. Carried news last week.
Jules
LikeLike
Jim,
There is going to be many stupid things said by the candidates on both sides.
Jules
LikeLike
Jim,
He is not a candidate.
This is the Majority Whip worrying that there could be political fall out against the Democratic party from a possible “good news from the war” report.
This guy is an elected LEADER of his party. I also believe he is right. But, now he has been recorded on tape (I think CNN)saying American success against our enemies is bad for his party.
Do you see anything in that statement to be concerned about?
Have a good week end, Jim. Wasn’t “Jules and Jim” a French movie?
Jules
LikeLike
Jules,
Never heard of that movie…
Anyway, depending upon one’s viewpoint, he wasn’t saying it was bad for the democratic party, but instead…
“In other words, Clyburn did not say that good news from Iraq is bad news for Democrats in electoral terms, but rather that a recommendation from Petraeus against withdrawal would impede Democrats’ efforts to garner support in Congress for legislation to begin withdrawal.
LikeLike
Jim,
Some think there would be a conflict within the Democratic Party. One result would be as you state. Another would be disappointment. That is the reaction that has some upset, especially in light of Harry Reid’s drumbeat that the war is lost.
Tough times are-a-comin’.
Jules
LikeLike
I am just SO confused!!
Here we have Jules’ president (no, not the one in France 😉 )telling us we’re fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, but the MSM reporting we’re fighting insurgents: “But U.S. commanders say rogue Shiite militias have stepped into the gap left as Sunni insurgents have been pushed back, and are now responsible for most attacks on Americans in Baghdad and surrounding districts.” This written in light of the ominous news that US deaths have climbed again in August. So much for the surge…
Of course, the fact that there are 190,000 unaccounted for weapons provided by the US to the Iraqi’s shouldn’t be a concern, right?
This coupled with the fact that the US is now arming Sunni insurgents to fight Al Qaeda (or the Shiite’s or us depending upon which way the wind is blowing) is certainly bound to come back and bite us in the *ss…
$1 trillion right now is just a drop in the bucket…
LikeLike
Jin,
The fog of war.
Arab terrorists are being killed or captured. They need to be replaced.
I presume that there are others locals getting revenge.
The terrorists are hitting everyone and are beginning to tick them off(good thing for us).
The 200,000 guns appear to have been passed out to the Iraqis who deserted or sold the guns to others.
It’s still war, Jim, and we are deep in it in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The liberal party can bring our participation to a stop by shutting off the funds. If they don’t do that to protect their politics, then that is horrible.
What do you think should happen at this point, Jim?
Jules
LikeLike
Jules,
And it gets foggier day by day. But, FINALLY, per the link below, I believe we may be on the right track…
http://my.break.com/media/view.aspx?ContentID=345028
LikeLike
Jim,
It’s been a nice day today.
Saw the “Zombies are coming” presidential news interview.
The interview was funny.
I did notice the reporter, who seemed to object to taking on the zombies, has suggested that we “run away”.
Sorta like the Harry Reid solution to Iraq.
Still the fog of war. The Iraqis are going to have to decide if they want to be free or subjected to the Iranians. I think we both agree on that.
Same question. If you were the president for 1 week what would you do?
Jim, Have a nice week end.
Jules
LikeLike