The Cost

[john1863]

Everyone,
We are rapidly approaching $650 Billion in cost for the war in Iraq. Conservative estimates are putting the final cost at over $1 trillion.
My question is…wasn’t there something we could have done here for that amount.
Before anyone starts with the “Better to fight them there than here” argument (i.e. detection equipment, more, better trained screeners, better port security), what could we have here done for even the lower amount?

John

 

[Ani_Ibi]

You raised the question. You answer it. Unless of course your question was a rhetorical question in which case you still get to answer it.

 

[Della]

Well, for starters, we could have been preparing for terrorist attacks during the Reagan and Clinton administrations, if not earlier, instead of telling ourselves it couldn’t happen here.

We Americans are never going to learn that the rest of the world isn’t going to leave us alone just because we don’t want to get involved. We’ve had to learn that lesson over and over again, it seems, and we still don’t get it.

Nearly all the wars we’ve engaged in we’ve been caught off guard and unprepared to fight because we tend to be so isolationist. Even after the horrific events of 9-11 we still believe we are insulated from the evils of the world. But one of these days that attitude is going to bite us in the butt in an even bigger way and next time God may not pull our fat out of the fire (for reasons that would take this thread off topic).

 

[Troy7]

What a horride sin to spend so much on chaos and destruction, but when it comes to SS, medical care, taking care of the poor, the very military itself as well as veterans we just can never seem to “find” those funds at such exorbitant levels.

War you say> Why we have a never ending pit of money!

Other matters? Hmmm…get back to us after we make you jump thru miles of red tape.

 

[Della]

Troy7:

What a horride sin to spend so much on chaos and destruction, but when it comes to SS

Most people don’t need SS who collect it–they already have pension plans and/or have invested their money for retirement. So, if we take these people off the SS rolls, we’d have plenty of money.

medical care

Once again, most people have insurance and can get it, so it’s not as big a problem as it’s made out to be.

taking care of the poor

If most of the people on the dole learned to care for themselves (with the proper helps, such as work programs), this would just about take care of itself too, that and their restraining themselves from having baby after baby out of wedlock. Oh, but that’s right, we can’t legislate morality!

the very military itself as well as veterans we just can never seem to “find” those funds at such exorbitant levels.

Get rid of most of the unnecessary entitlement programs and we would have enough.

War you say> Why we have a never ending pit of money!

And even here we haven’t done all that we should have because we were, once again, woefully unprepared to go to war.

Other matters? Hmmm…get back to us after we make you jump thru miles of red tape.

Red tape created by whom? That’s the question we have to answer not how to never need to defend the interests of our country, which will never happen since we live in a fallen world with lots of people eager to turn us into toast.

 

[john1863]

I guess my point, poorly made I’ll admit, is that for $1 trillion we could have upgraded security at ports, airports, on subways, trains, planes. We could have upgraded our intelligence gathering, selective strike capabilities and general military.
Instead, as I see it, we are draining our military in an ill conceived and poorly executed (not by the soldiers, the leaders) war.
As the economic drain continues, have we really gained in the war on terrorism? Personally, I don’t think so.

John

 

[Ani_Ibi]

john1863:

I guess my point, poorly made I’ll admit, is that for $1 trillion we could have upgraded security at ports, airports, on subways, trains, planes. We could have upgraded our intelligence gathering, selective strike capabilities and general military.

We could have fought a reactive war. Instead we chose a proactive war.

john1863:

Instead, as I see it, we are draining our military in an ill conceived and poorly executed (not by the soldiers, the leaders) war.

For you to make that claim with any degree of credence, you would have to provide supportive argumentation and links to articles underlining your premises.

john1863:

As the economic drain continues, have we really gained in the war on terrorism? Personally, I don’t think so.

Again, saying you don’t think so is one thing. Demonstrating that your point of view is logical is another thing.

Since you are new here I will point you to the search window at the top of the News Forum. Take a day and search gilliam’s threads. gilliam gets her news from the blogosphere, from her son who is in Iraq, and from soldiers on the ground. The picture they paint is entirely different from the picture you paint. Consider why that is.

 

[Adonis33]

Troy7:

What a horride sin to spend so much on chaos and destruction, but when it comes to SS, medical care, taking care of the poor, the very military itself as well as veterans we just can never seem to “find” those funds at such exorbitant levels.

War you say> Why we have a never ending pit of money!

Other matters? Hmmm…get back to us after we make you jump thru miles of red tape.

So - I guess you do not have an answer to the OP.

 

[john1863]

An Ibi,

I base my assumptions about the war on the original projections of the administration regarding cost. Remember, they fired a senior staffer, whose name eludes me at the moment, for suggesting that the war would actually cost $100 billion.
I understand your point about the reports of individual soldiers. However, their view is limited. They can only attest to a small zone of the total operation. The mere fact of the escalating cost, in both dollars and lives, indicates that the war is certainly not going as originally hoped. I know, no plan survives contact with the enemy, but this underestimation smacks of incompetence.
Yes, we could have fought a reactive war and many believe that is precisely what should have happened. By the way, I’m not that new here, just an infrequent poster who reads a great many of the posts.
While this is personal opinion, what else does any of us have since we all lack access to all the facts.

John

John

 

[Geldain]

I don’t care if the costs for the war in Iraq reach 999 trillion dollars. Freedom is priceless. Freedom in Iraq is worth 999 trillion times a trillion dollars and more, from where I sit.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

john1863:

I base my assumptions about the war on the original projections of the administration regarding cost.

Which are? Please provide a link.

john1863:

Remember, they fired a senior staffer, whose name eludes me at the moment, for suggesting that the war would actually cost $100 billion.

This is way to vague to discuss. Please firm up what happened and explain why this supports your point of view.

john1863:

I understand your point about the reports of individual soldiers. However, their view is limited. They can only attest to a small zone of the total operation.

My point was not about the individual soldiers. My point was that there is an absolute mountain of links to articles which provide evidence refuting your claim. Before getting into a round of tautologies, it would be useful if you read what is out there. Fortunately gilliam has made it easy for you by posting so many links.

So next question: what comments do you have to contribute on which of the links which gilliams has posted on the topic of this thread?

john1863:

The mere fact of the escalating cost, in both dollars and lives, indicates that the war is certainly not going as originally hoped.

Not really. Many budgets are exceeded for many diverse reasons.

john1863:

I know, no plan survives contact with the enemy, but this underestimation smacks of incompetence.

“Smacks of incompetence” is strong terminology, particularly in light of the utter absence of support for saying so.

john1863:

Yes, we could have fought a reactive war and many believe that is precisely what should have happened.

Your point?

john1863:

By the way, I’m not that new here, just an infrequent poster who reads a great many of the posts.

Then you will certainly be able to apply your comments to information already provided.

john1863:

While this is personal opinion, what else does any of us have since we all lack access to all the facts.

So are you attempting to create an equivalency between a point of view rigorously put together by means of logical argumentation and by means of authoritative reference on the one hand and, on the other hand, just a point of view?

If so, then they are not equivalent.

 

[john1863]

An Ibi:
Some links for you

2003 article on funding sources that never materialized
comw.org/pda/0305bm28.html

Washington Post 2003
washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A48747-2003Jul12?language=printer

Council on Foreign Relations 2004
You will find the administration official to whom I referred in this article Lindsey is the name.
cfr.org/publication.html?id=7663#12
And a followup related to Lindsey
washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040701-024236-4063r.htm

A blog
dailykos.com/tag/iraq%20cost

All that in about five minutes on Google. It is abundantly clear through these varied sources that the administration woefully underestimated the cost of the Iraq War.

BTW, I will check gilliam’s links. Many I’m certain I have already read. My apologies if my links are not live…I’ll remedy that in the future.

John

 

[Geldain]

Will someone please share with us how to accurately predict what any war will cost in advance of the fighting. I realize to do this you need to know how the enemy is going to react in advance by sending your super-duper-mind-probe into the future to read the minds of the enemy leaders to learn what tactics they are going to use in order to know how you will counteract them and the materials, men and equipment you will need…but come on, ya ought to be able to do that, right?

 

[estesbob]

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_28_100.gif

Geldain:

I don’t care if the costs for the war in Iraq reach 999 trillion dollars. Freedom is priceless. Freedom in Iraq is worth 999 trillion times a trillion dollars and more, from where I sit.

 

[rlg94086]

Actually, as I posted before, we are not even spending what we did during the Cold War: hnn.us/roundup/entries/22660.html

But while war spending of $83.3 billion a year ($250 billion over three years) is a vast and growing sum, in an $11.7 trillion economy it represents just 0.7 percent of gross domestic product. Even if we add in the rest of the defense budget, total spending on the military is still just 4.5 percent of GDP. We spent almost 40 percent of GDP to win World War II and more than 7 percent a year over several decades to win the Cold War.

Geldain:

Will someone please share with us how to accurately predict what any war will cost in advance of the fighting. I realize to do this you need to know how the enemy is going to react in advance by sending your super-duper-mind-probe into the future to read the minds of the enemy leaders to learn what tactics they are going to use in order to know how you will counteract them and the materials, men and equipment you will need…but come on, ya ought to be able to do that, right?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

john1863:

2003 article on funding sources that never materialized
comw.org/pda/0305bm28.html

The author is Project on Defence Alternatives. Their goals are:

Guarantee reliable, cost-effective defense against aggression;

The military does this. Why should PDA be payrolled for duplication of effort – if indeed it is duplication of effort as opposed to just plain getting in the way?

Rely on military structures that do not contribute to interstate tensions, crisis instability, or arms racing;

In other words make it really comfortable for those of our enemies to flourish on interstate tensions, crisis instability, or arms racing.

Allow significant reductions in the level of armed forces and military spending;

Because we wouldn’t want to scare anyone, particularly not our enemies.

Foster progress in arms control and in the gradual demilitarization of international relations;

By surrendering.

Facilitate an increasing reliance on collective and global peacekeeping agencies and nonmilitary means of conflict prevention, containment, and resolution.

Even when our enemies commit genocide, kill our peacekeepers, and define conflict prevention, containment, and resolution as laissez faire.

Global peacekeeping agencies such as?

Peace at any cost as long as it doesn’t cost the collaborators.

All policy rests on a body of basic technical, historical, and methodological research. In its policy analysis and development efforts, PDA draws widely on this body of research, often conducting “meta-analyses” that combine or relate available research in novel ways.

Novel ways such as spindoctoring classified information and pretending to have the same degree of expertise for which the military is paid.

PDA also undertakes or contracts basic research when gaps or flaws in existing studies dictate a need.

Translated: when thwarted by the evidence, make things up and tautologize.

john1863:

Washington Post 2003
washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A48747-2003Jul12?language=printer

“Two antiwar activists, Elias Vlanton of Takoma Park, and Niko Matsakis of Boston, are keeping a running tally of the war costs on their www.costofwar.comWeb site. Among the site’s assertions: the $67 billion spent this year on the war and Iraqi reconstruction could have put 9.5 million more children in Head Start, financed the hiring of 1.3 million schoolteachers, or covered the health insurance costs of 29 million children.”

Some people are spending an awful lot of energy on trying to control what other folks are doing instead of just getting on with their own lives. If you think that more should be done for kids, then do it. Nothing stopping you from moving money in the direction you want it to go. Of course you have to make the money first. You don’t get to spend other people’s money. The US is not a communist state. Yet.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

john1863:

Council on Foreign Relations 2004
You will find the administration official to whom I referred in this article Lindsey is the name.
cfr.org/publication.html?id=7663#12

“In the scheme of things, the war is not super-expensive, but it also sure ain’t cheap,” O’Hanlon says.

Translation: although CFR cannot make a case for crushingly exorbitant spending vis a vis the military, they are still going to make noise.

And the alternative to military spending is what? The cost benefit analysis please.

john1863:

And a followup related to Lindsey
washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040701-024236-4063r.htm

The current financial cost to the American taxpayer, according to the IPS report, now rivals that of the Vietnam War on a monthly basis.

You can see the agenda right away. Iraq has very very little in common with Nam except that the troop-bashers are using it to scare-monguer and to give comfort to the enemy.

I guess part of the conflict is about what kind of spending is absolutely necessarily government spending and what kind of spending can quite well be taken care of by Americans doing for Americans.

Of course those who believe government should be paying for everything are going to resent not seeing money spent on their own pet project.

john1863:

A blog
http://www.dailykos.com/tag/iraq%20cost

So Stiglitz say the war may cost $2 trillion. What is the cost benefit analysis?

john1863:

All that in about five minutes on Google.

Five minutes? I don’t understand why this is significant. Is it significant?

john1863:

It is abundantly clear through these varied sources that the administration woefully underestimated the cost of the Iraq War.

Underestimating the cost of the Iraq War is significant how? How do you define “woefully” underestimating the cost of the Iraq War?

What is the cost benefit analysis?

BTW, I will check gilliam’s links. Many I’m certain I have already read.

That of course can be demonstrated by the references you make to gilliam’s articles many of which set out clearly what is being accomplished in Iraq by the American military, by the Coalition, and by the Iraqis themselves. So gilliam’s articles have much to say on the benefits of a Coalition victory in Iraq. The costs as your own commentators have admitted are – in relative terms – still low.

end of post

 

[john1863]

An Ibi,

Cost benefit analysis? How can that possibly be done since we cannot see what the final outcome will be? To do an analysis you will have to demonstrate, in clear terms, the benefit. Short term gains do not equate to a true benefit. If we build a pumping station that is destroyed, the benefit is negated. The cost remains. Naturally enough, one man’s benefit may not be regarded that way by another.
Obviously, we are not going to agree on this issue. Personally I don’t believe that all of Iraq is worth the life of one American soldier.
The five minute reference was to show that views and analysis contrary to your position are easy to find and not just in liberal news outlets.

John

 

[estesbob]

john1863:

An Ibi,

Cost benefit analysis? How can that possibly be done since we cannot see what the final outcome will be? To do an analysis you will have to demonstrate, in clear terms, the benefit. Short term gains do not equate to a true benefit. If we build a pumping station that is destroyed, the benefit is negated. The cost remains. Naturally enough, one man’s benefit may not be regarded that way by another.
Obviously, we are not going to agree on this issue. Personally I don’t believe that all of Iraq is worth the life of one American soldier.
The five minute reference was to show that views and analysis contrary to your position are easy to find and not just in liberal news outlets.

John

So Per John:

It doesn matter what the cost is because it wasnt worth it AND we cant do a cost benefit analysis becuase the war is not over BUT even if we could do a cost benefit analysis it wouldnt mean anything becuase one mans benefit may not be another mans** SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO** why did you start the thread? smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_12_2.gif

Would have been a lot easier if you had just posted “although I cant give a rational reason for it I oppose the war in Iraq”

%between%

 

[Thekla]

John,
The better question could be why are Americans letting the leaders in our government squander the respect for the United States and bankrupt the nation? While I understand the intent of your original question the answer is painfully, and deadly, simple.

Yes. There are a plethora of good things that that debt could have been used for, but what makes anyone think that our Congress would have spent it on worthwhile endeavors beneficial to the American people? Do they have a recent history of that?

Eisenhower warned Americans of perpetual wars for perpetual profits and we have yet to listen. The military industrial complex is a voracious beast with an insatiable appetite for our tax dollars. They play on our fears and purchase our representatives while all shielding themselves under the mantle of “patriotism.”
Thekla