[Mb-civic] George Bush's Trillion-Dollar War By BOB HERBERT

[Michael Butler]

The New York Times
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By

March 23, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
The New York Times
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By

March 23, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
George Bush's Trillion-Dollar War
By BOB HERBERT

Call it the trillion-dollar war.

George W. Bush's war in Iraq was never supposed to be particularly
expensive. Administration types tossed out numbers like $50 billion and $60
billion. When Lawrence Lindsey, the president's chief economic adviser, said
the war was likely to cost $100 billion to $200 billion, he was fired.

Some in the White House tried to spread the fantasy that Iraqi oil revenues
would pay for the war. Paul Wolfowitz, the former deputy defense secretary
and a fanatical hawk, told Congress that Iraq was "a country that can really
finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

The president and his hot-for-war associates were as wrong about the money
as they were about the weapons of mass destruction.

Now comes a study by Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist at
Columbia University, and a colleague, Linda Bilmes of the Kennedy School of
Government at Harvard, that estimates the "true costs" of the war at more
than $1 trillion, and possibly more than $2 trillion.

"Even taking a conservative approach and assuming all U.S. troops return by
2010, we believe the true costs exceed a trillion dollars," the authors say.

The study was released earlier this year but has not gotten much publicity.
The analysis by Professors Stiglitz and Bilmes goes beyond the immediate
costs of combat operations to include other direct and indirect costs of the
war that, in some cases, the government will have to shoulder for many
years.

These costs, the study says, "include disability payments to veterans over
the course of their lifetimes, the cost of replacing military equipment and
munitions, which are being consumed at a faster-than-normal rate, the cost
of medical treatment for returning Iraqi war veterans, particularly the more
than 7,000 [service members] with brain, spinal, amputation and other
serious injuries, and the cost of transporting returning troops back to
their home bases."

The study also notes that Defense Department expenditures that were not
directly appropriated for Iraq have grown by more than 5 percent since the
war began. But a portion of that increase has been spent "on support for the
war in Iraq, including significantly higher recruitment costs, such as
nearly doubling the number of recruiters, paying recruitment bonuses of up
to $40,000 for new enlistees and paying special bonuses and other benefits,
up to $150,000 for current Special Forces troops that re-enlist."

"Another cost to the government," the study says, "is the interest on the
money that it has borrowed to finance the war."

Among the things taken into account by the study are some of the
difficult-to-quantify but very real costs inflicted by the war on the
American economy and society, such as the effect of the war on oil prices,
and the economic loss that results from the many thousands of Americans
wounded and killed in the war.

The study does not address the substantial costs of the war borne by Iraq or
by any other countries besides the United States.

In an interview, Mr. Stiglitz said that about $560 billion, which is a
little more than half of the study's conservative estimate of the cost of
the war, would have been enough to "fix" Social Security for the next 75
years. If one were thinking in terms of promoting democracy in the Middle
East, he said, the money being spent on the war would have been enough to
finance a "mega-mega-mega-Marshall Plan," which would have been "so much
more" effective than the invasion of Iraq.

It's not easy to explain just how much money $1 trillion really is. Imagine
a stack of bills worth $1 million that is roughly six inches high. (Think
big denominations ‹ a mix of $100 bills and $1,000 bills, mostly $1,000's.)
If the six-inch stack were enlarged to the point where it was worth $1
billion, it would be as tall as the Washington Monument, about 500 feet. If
it were worth $1 trillion, the stack would be 95 miles high.

Ms. Bilmes said that the $1 trillion we're spending on Iraq amounts to about
$10,000 for every household in the U.S.

At his press conference on Tuesday, President Bush made it clear that
whatever the cost, American forces would not be leaving Iraq soon. When
asked whether a day would come when there were no U.S. forces in Iraq, he
said that decision would be made by future presidents and future governments
of Iraq.

The meter's running. We're at a trillion dollars, and counting.

    * Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
    * Home
    * Privacy Policy
    * Search
    * Corrections
    * XML
    * Help
    * Contact Us
    * Work for Us
    * Site Map
    * Back to Top



Call it the trillion-dollar war.

George W. Bush's war in Iraq was never supposed to be particularly
expensive. Administration types tossed out numbers like $50 billion and $60
billion. When Lawrence Lindsey, the president's chief economic adviser, said
the war was likely to cost $100 billion to $200 billion, he was fired.

Some in the White House tried to spread the fantasy that Iraqi oil revenues
would pay for the war. Paul Wolfowitz, the former deputy defense secretary
and a fanatical hawk, told Congress that Iraq was "a country that can really
finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

The president and his hot-for-war associates were as wrong about the money
as they were about the weapons of mass destruction.

Now comes a study by Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist at
Columbia University, and a colleague, Linda Bilmes of the Kennedy School of
Government at Harvard, that estimates the "true costs" of the war at more
than $1 trillion, and possibly more than $2 trillion.

"Even taking a conservative approach and assuming all U.S. troops return by
2010, we believe the true costs exceed a trillion dollars," the authors say.

The study was released earlier this year but has not gotten much publicity.
The analysis by Professors Stiglitz and Bilmes goes beyond the immediate
costs of combat operations to include other direct and indirect costs of the
war that, in some cases, the government will have to shoulder for many
years.

These costs, the study says, "include disability payments to veterans over
the course of their lifetimes, the cost of replacing military equipment and
munitions, which are being consumed at a faster-than-normal rate, the cost
of medical treatment for returning Iraqi war veterans, particularly the more
than 7,000 [service members] with brain, spinal, amputation and other
serious injuries, and the cost of transporting returning troops back to
their home bases."

The study also notes that Defense Department expenditures that were not
directly appropriated for Iraq have grown by more than 5 percent since the
war began. But a portion of that increase has been spent "on support for the
war in Iraq, including significantly higher recruitment costs, such as
nearly doubling the number of recruiters, paying recruitment bonuses of up
to $40,000 for new enlistees and paying special bonuses and other benefits,
up to $150,000 for current Special Forces troops that re-enlist."

"Another cost to the government," the study says, "is the interest on the
money that it has borrowed to finance the war."

Among the things taken into account by the study are some of the
difficult-to-quantify but very real costs inflicted by the war on the
American economy and society, such as the effect of the war on oil prices,
and the economic loss that results from the many thousands of Americans
wounded and killed in the war.

The study does not address the substantial costs of the war borne by Iraq or
by any other countries besides the United States.

In an interview, Mr. Stiglitz said that about $560 billion, which is a
little more than half of the study's conservative estimate of the cost of
the war, would have been enough to "fix" Social Security for the next 75
years. If one were thinking in terms of promoting democracy in the Middle
East, he said, the money being spent on the war would have been enough to
finance a "mega-mega-mega-Marshall Plan," which would have been "so much
more" effective than the invasion of Iraq.

It's not easy to explain just how much money $1 trillion really is. Imagine
a stack of bills worth $1 million that is roughly six inches high. (Think
big denominations ‹ a mix of $100 bills and $1,000 bills, mostly $1,000's.)
If the six-inch stack were enlarged to the point where it was worth $1
billion, it would be as tall as the Washington Monument, about 500 feet. If
it were worth $1 trillion, the stack would be 95 miles high.

Ms. Bilmes said that the $1 trillion we're spending on Iraq amounts to about
$10,000 for every household in the U.S.

At his press conference on Tuesday, President Bush made it clear that
whatever the cost, American forces would not be leaving Iraq soon. When
asked whether a day would come when there were no U.S. forces in Iraq, he
said that decision would be made by future presidents and future governments
of Iraq.

The meter's running. We're at a trillion dollars, and counting.

    * Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
    * Home
    * Privacy Policy
    * Search
    * Corrections
    * XML
    * Help
    * Contact Us
    * Work for Us
    * Site Map
    * Back to Top