| On War Cost |  | ||
| Archive | |||
|
Posted by: JAK ® 03/08/2003, 22:26:45 Author Profile Mail author |
Iraq: How Much Would War Cost? The Estimates Keep Rising
From Radio Free Europe By Kathleen Knox How much would a war in Iraq cost? That's a question being asked with increasing urgency as a war looks imminent. The cost in human lives cannot be calculated. But number crunchers are trying to tote up the money the United States and Britain will need to spend. Their guesses at the likely price tag are high -- and rising. Prague, 7 March 2003 (RFE/RL) -- As war in Iraq looms, economists have been busy trying to put a price tag on a military campaign -- and any occupation and reconstruction that follows. Lawrence Lindsey, a former White House economics adviser, fired the first shot in the war of estimates last autumn. He said it would cost the United States at least $100 billion. Not so, said other officials. U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in a January interview it would be less than half that figure. But recent reports from the "Los Angeles Times" and elsewhere suggest that official estimates for a war and a short occupation are again creeping toward the $100 billion mark. Add in a lengthy postwar occupation and reconstruction, and the bill could reach the dizzying figure of $1.6 trillion, according to one academic economist. Cost estimates are rising too for the United Kingdom, which is likely to join any U.S.-led attack. Chancellor (finance minister) Gordon Brown has now earmarked 1.75 million pounds ($2.8 billion). But independent economists say the bill could be twice that much. Brown himself said this week that Britain will spend "what it takes" to disarm Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "Last year, I set aside 1 billion pounds to be drawn upon by the Ministry of Defense for security and military preparation if and when action became necessary. Last month, I set aside an additional 750 million pounds. Our armed forces do an outstanding job for Britain, and today I make clear our gratitude for the work that they do and my resolve to ensure that our armed forces are properly supported for whatever lies ahead," Brown said. Analysts say that the conservative estimates are based on a best-case scenario: a short, successful war that removes Hussein from power and maintains regional stability. But the war could get bogged down, or messy, if Hussein uses chemical or biological weapons. Oil prices could spike for a long time. It could set off regional instability. And how long or intensive would the postwar occupation and reconstruction be? For the United States, it could all push the final bill up to the scary $1.6 trillion figure given by Yale economist William Nordhaus in December last year. Little wonder U.S. government officials are reluctant to provide numbers. Rumsfeld last week said it's impossible to made an accurate prediction. And his deputy Paul Wolfowitz was so evasive to the House Budget Committee last week that one congressman, James Moran, accused him of "deliberately keeping us in the dark."
JAK
|
| | Recommend | Alert | Previous | Next | Current page |
Replies to this message
War cost will no doubt be high. Re: On War Cost -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Gunnar ®
03/13/2003, 09:35:50
Author Profile Mail author
Gunnar
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Cost higher than administration's estimates Re: War cost will no doubt be high. -- Gunnar Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
03/13/2003, 17:51:39
Author Profile Mail author
In Gulf war 1, the limited objective was to remove Saddam Hussein and his Republican Guard from Kuwait. By comparison, Gulf war 2 will be a much different proposition.
It will be to remove Saddam himself, his entire government occupying a country the size of CA+. After centuries of Muslim life in the country we know as Iraq, the U.S. will take that country, seize it, control the oil fields, and keep in place an interim government until a permanent “democratic” government can be established to the Bush Administrations liking (and this will take long beyond the Bush Administration). In addition, the U.S. forces will be required to keep 6 million Iraqis in Baghdad at peace. It will mean control of a people. Bush has few people who even know the language spoken there, let alone know the values, customs, and thinking of the people whom the U.S. will need to dominate.
That prospect will take many years, perhaps decades and the cost is unknown. Administration projections are not reliable. Why? Because the projections are from a biased source with an agenda that makes valid figures unlikely.
The “boom” will be illusive. The objectives of the current Bush are far more ambitious than his father’s. It is to install a democracy in the middle of a whole region which had never known democracy. The notion of tolerance from the Bush administration for Islam is also an illusion. The Bush administration cannot tolerate the present Supreme Court ruling allowing women the right to chose termination of pregnancy.
So a Gulf war 2 will be vastly different than was the Gulf war 1 as will be the consequence including the ultimate cost to the United States and the capacity of the United Nations.
JAK
Modified by JAK at Thu, Mar 13, 2003, 20:23:49
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: War cost will be higher than estimates Re: Cost higher than administration's estimates -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: grendel ®
03/13/2003, 20:48:37
Author Profile Mail author
in world war II, the u.s. defeated japan...a country with a much larger population than iraq(as of today, japan's population is 5 times the size of iraq). the u.s. instituted a military presence to, as you say, "control the people". certainly that was a more daunting task than the present situation. the u.s. has had experience with these situations before.
"Bush has few people who even know the language spoken there, let alone know the values, customs, and thinking of the people whom the U.S. will need to dominate."
80% of iraq speaks arabic...how hard is it to find someone who speaks arabic? it's quite a common language! more people speak arabic than japanese, to contrast with the situation in WWII. i contend that we know much more about iraq and its customs now than we did about japan 60 years ago.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: War cost will be higher than estimates Re: Re: War cost will be higher than estimates -- grendel Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
03/14/2003, 09:29:56
Author Profile Mail author
Accuracy:
Modern weapons, however, are usually more accurate and reliable than weapons in older wars. This, combined with their increased explosive power, can only increase the numbers of dead and wounded. The Gulf air war killed over 100,000 Iraqis, many of them civilians, in less than a month.Mobility:
Tanks and troop transporters, helicopters, strike aircraft, and transportation aircraft allow modern armies to fight and cause destruction over very wide areas--including entire countries.Power, precision, and speed are likely to be the features of the extraordinary military invasion of Iraq planned by the United States. While the last embers of diplomacy to avert the war die down at the United Nations this week, 250,000 U.S. troops in and around the Gulf are coiled and ready.
The political and military nature of this American war against Iraq will be very different than the one we saw in the first weeks of the 1991 war. The first war was about liberating Kuwait from occupation of Iraq. The second Gulf war is aimed at overthrowing the regime of Saddam Hussein. If the earlier war was aimed to restore the territorial status quo in the Gulf, the present war regime change in Iraq that will set the tone for a long-term political transformation of the entire West Asian region.
No war goes according to plans conceived on either side. There are far too many imponderables here, as in any war, which will shape the implementation of competing military strategies. If Bush had had his way, U.S. military forces would have already bombed more than 1,000 targets in Iraq. So the war has already gone wrong from Bush’s perspective.
Only last week, Bush was calling for an up or down vote from the United Nations on U.S. war plans. Now that he us very unlikely to get even the votes needed without a veto, he has withdrawn that bravado speech of last week and heads abroad for a critical conference with other nations. It was a hastily arranged meeting, a desperate move to have war with the approval of doubtful nations. Bush also boasted that we will go it alone if necessary. He is obviously back-peddling on that ill-thought foot-in-mouth utterance.
The overwhelming use of air power to produce shock, awe, death, destruction, & pain would be the first instrument of the U.S. military. Given the world’s general opposition to the war, the Bush administration would want to narrowly focus the application of power by emphasizing those targets which are crucial for the political and military control.
One surprise could be an Iraqi preemptive strike on U.S. forces now at its borders before the U.S. can launch its preemptive strike on Iraq itself. Since the U.S. appears unlikely to be able to count on Turkey, the northern attack route may be scrapped. Surprises are occurring almost hourly...and the war has not officially begun. Of course, the war has begun. Even the current desperate diplomacy is part of the war.
Bush knows the U.N. is relevant despite his bravado charging that it is irrelevant if fails to support him. Otherwise, Bush would not be taking the current desperate measures to get doubtful governments on his side.
The relevant issue should be whether Iraq directly threatens the United States requiring preemptive U.S. military action. The litmus test to use military force must be that the territorial integrity, national sovereignty, or liberty of the United States is at risk. To begin, although Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, it does not have any military capability to directly attack the United States. None. Zero.
Artillery shells capable of carrying chemical munitions possibly tens of miles do not constitute a threat. The longest range weapons Iraq has are a handful of Scud missiles with a range of several hundred kilometers -- again, not enough to reach the United States. And the Iraqi military is about half of what it was when the United States defeated it in less than one week in the first Gulf War.
Thus, the threat that has been conjured up by the administration is the merging of two disparate notions: WMD and terrorism. Playing on the public's sense of fear and vulnerability in the aftermath of September 11, the administration's argument comes down to the assertion that Iraq will give weapons of mass destruction to al Qaeda terrorists.
This will not be a re-play of the war with Japan nor of the 1991 Gulf war.
JAK
Modified by JAK at Fri, Mar 14, 2003, 09:54:56
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
100 billion......pocket change Re: On War Cost -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: TLC ®
03/13/2003, 10:51:44
Author Profile Mail author
I look forward to American control of the Iraqi oil fields and dreaming of all the money we will save on gasoline at 35 cents a gallon. Shouldn't take all that long to get our 100 billion back at that rate.
(tongue in cheek of course)
TLC
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
