Before the war in Iraq, very few people asked a very important question:
what's this thing going to cost?" At a time when the administration was pounding the drums of war, asking such a question would be supporting the terrorists. However, it's a very important question and one which all participants should have actually debated. Instead, no one really pursued the question. Three years later - after 5 years of the Republican's fiscal incompetence, the US is facing an ever-increasing cost for the war in Iraq.
In any event, most estimates put forward by White House officials in 2002 and 2003 were relatively low compared with the nation's gross domestic product, the size of the federal budget or the cost of past wars.
White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey was the exception to the rule, offering an "upper bound" estimate of $100 billion to $200 billion in a September 2002 interview with The Wall Street Journal. That figure raised eyebrows at the time, although Lindsey argued the cost was small, adding, "The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy."
Back in 2002, the White House was quick to distance itself from Lindsey's view. Mitch Daniels, director of the White House budget office, quickly called the estimate "very, very high." Lindsey himself was dismissed in a shake-up of the White House economic team later that year, and in January 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the budget office had come up with "a number that's something under $50 billion." He and other officials expressed optimism that Iraq itself would help shoulder the cost once the world market was reopened to its rich supply of oil.
Lindsey's numbers were the only ones advanced during the "debate" stages of the war that proved to be anywhere near accurate. And the administration rewarded him by distancing the administration from the statements. Also notice the Rumsfeld essentially dismissed the idea of even questioning the cost of the war and the US' ability to pay for it.
And those Iraq oil revenues sure are helping, aren't they?
Making matters worse is the method the administration uses to pay for the war. Instead of actually budgeting for the costs when they submit their budget, they use the special appropriations process. Essentially, the administration asks for block grants of money with very little oversight. They do this throughout the year. In case you were wondering where the money for secret European prisons comes from, now you know.
Scott Wallsten, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, put the direct cost to the United States at $212 billion as of last September and estimates a "global cost" of $500 billion to date with another $500 billion possible, with most of the total borne by the United States.
One of the things that Bush obviously didn't consider about the idea of having a real coalition is sharing costs. Remember the first Iraq war? Remember the money that all parties put in to pay for it? The US essentially became the world's mercenary force. Not only does a coalition provide political legitimacy to an action, it also spreads the economic burden out among off the participants. Not so with Mr. We don't need allies. Thanks to his inability to make any friends, we get to pay the entire cost ourselves.
And the cost appears to be increasing:
U.S. military spending in Iraq and Afghanistan will average 44 percent more in the current fiscal year than in fiscal 2005, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said.
Spending will rise to $9.8 billion a month from the $6.8 billion a month the Pentagon said it spent last year, the research service said. The group's March 10 report cites ``substantial'' expenses to replace or repair damaged weapons, aircraft, vehicles, radios and spare parts.
It also figures in costs for health care, fuel, national intelligence and the training of Iraqi and Afghan security forces -- ``now a substantial expense,'' it said.
The research service said it considers ``all war and occupation costs,'' while the Pentagon counts just the cost of personnel, maintenance and operations.
Oh joyous day. At a time when the "fiscally responsible" party can't balance a budget to save its soul, they're going to increase spending on the war. Way to go guys. By the way - let's make those tax cuts permanent, just to make sure we destroy the nation's finances completely.