<p>$291 billion and counting spent so far:</p>
<p><a href=“Cost of Iraq War $291 Billion So Far”>Cost of Iraq War $291 Billion So Far;
<p>Excerpt from the article:</p>
<p>Cost of Iraq War $291 Billion So Far
From the Associated Press
July 14, 2006</p>
<p>WASHINGTON The war in Iraq has cost $291 billion so far and would total almost half a trillion dollars even if all U.S. troops were withdrawn by the end of 2009, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis released Thursday.</p>
<p>The nonpartisan CBO analysis comes after congressional debate over whether to set goals or timetables for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq. Congress declined to set a timetable, but the Pentagon hopes to start drawing down forces by the end of the year.</p>
<p>500 Billion, a trillion, they’re just numbers. If we could just privatize Social Security and get another tax cut then things would be OK.</p>
<p>NewHope,</p>
<p>Not necessarily true with the tax cut. There’s a point where cutting taxes is actually detrimental to revenue generation. The key is to curve it properly, and also to try to keep in mind what externalities raising/cutting them will have. </p>
<p>coreur,</p>
<p>If you buy into the notion of peak oil, then having a stable Middle East will be worth much much more than $300 billion.</p>
<p>Having a stable Middle East isn’t going to happen in our lifetimes.</p>
<p>“500 Billion, a trillion, they’re just numbers. If we could just privatize Social Security and get another tax cut then things would be OK.”</p>
<p>Wouldn’t have to - with the two trillion it will ultimately cost, including Veterans Benefit and long-term health costs, Social Security could be a pure entitlement, and cost people ZERO. No need to privatize something that is free.</p>
<p>Another way to look at it - forget tax cuts. With the two trillion cost, the richest 1% of the population could be TAX-FREE for a generation.</p>
<p>This war doesn’t seem to have been worth the 2549 American lives lost in Iraq, either (as of yesterday). How many more before the prez thinks it’s too expensive to go on?</p>
<p>I don’t know how many Iraqis think the 40,000 civilian lives lost were worth the cost, as well.</p>
<p>Wow, 291 billion is a great bargain seeing as we liberated a nation free from a tyrannical dictator who used biochemical weapons to massacre thousands of innocent lives in Iraq. I feel that 291 billion is also a great deal for liberating a once totalitarian nation, to a free democratic one.</p>
<p>I am glad that we finally seized Hussein, the one who recklessly invaded Kuwait; also the one who funded terror organizations who ultimates slammed to airplanes into the WTC on 9/11.</p>
<pre><code> Gosh, people, when you grow old and need your medicare, 291 billion will be peanuts compared to the amazing amount of money that will be spent trying to provide healthcare for you.
Don't believe everything you hear on CNN or ABC
</code></pre>
<p>I wonder how the cost breaksdown between the early stages which involved outing Saddam versus the occupation.</p>
<p>^Curious, indeed! If George Bush were to send an additional, say, 50,000 troops to Iraq, the insurgencies would stop quickly, I reckon. One must admit that our troops now are spread thin Unfortunately, liberals tend to abandon unfinished work without care of certain repercussians. Please, America, vote Republican in 08!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you have any…evidence for this claim? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If I recall correctly, the Republicans currently are in control, but haven’t shown an interest in sending more troops. Besides, last time I checked, the Republicans haven’t been all that politically willing to really “stick it out” during politically unpopular wars either.</p>
<p>Gosh, I thought it was the Republicans under Bush who pretty much abandoned Afghanistan and the search for Osama bin Laden, the one REALLY responsible for 9-11, in order to rush into Iraq… Seems like that work was unfinished…and still is…</p>
<p>Evidence, UCLAri? Hmmm, somewhat difficult to prove something tangibly when SPECULATING. Sometimes, you must use your “gut instinct”; for most of the time, we can not PROVE that something will work. I made this claim merely to say that US Troops currently are spread thin in Iraq, uncapable of backing of the insurgencies. Notice I used “reckon” for a word choice.</p>
<pre><code> Susan, we never abandoned the effort in Afghanistan. Osama could be anywhere; plus, try searching every single crevice or depression in a mountain range like Afghanistans. The task is difficult to say the least.
</code></pre>
<p>In addition, I challenge the fact that Osama is still in Afghanistan. Personally, he could be ANYWHERE right now, the last place he would wish to be is in a heavily populated area of US Troops.</p>
<p>Monsieur Lee,</p>
<p>The use of “I reckon” at the end of your sentence doesn’t really convey a sense of “speculation” as well as I think you wanted it to. Unfortunately, the Internet, being wonderfully devoid of inflection and the subtleties of spoken language, doesn’t convey many such messages too well. </p>
<p>However, even “gut feelings” are derived from somewhere. Past experience must have shown you that troop saturation at present is too low. I’d say that it’s quite the contrary at present, as we don’t seem to have trouble weeding out the insurgents. We have trouble keeping more of them from spawning. </p>
<p>However, I find it kind of silly to go from very wild speculation to using the same train of thought as an opportunity to launch vitriol at those dastardly liberals/conservatives/whoever.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Notice I used the word “reckon” and the subjunctive mood to convey a message of speculation and reasoning. Sounds good enough to me, KWIM?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which is why we need to increase troop “saturation” in Iraq to stifle the drive to create these political “jihads” Personally, an augmentation of troops would, “I speculate”, quell these insurgencies to a low.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Our liberal friends launch that same vitriol right back to us Conservatives when speculating or “doing”. Listen to Hillary Clinton talk sometime; she is quite adept of using that vitriol to blame conservatives. It is always OUR fault, or George’s. It’s called modern day politics, UCLAri.</p>
<p>Mnsr. Lee,</p>
<p>I never suggested that liberals were above the mudslinging. I’m just as wary of ideologues on BOTH sides, as I find them to be usually incapable of seeing issues as complex and multifaceted.</p>
<p>Oh, and if you think it’s “modern day” politics, you ought to read up on the kind of silliness that was aimed at presidents from as early as Adams and Jefferson. Political vitriol is as old as Pericles himself. We just like to think we have some sort of monopoly on a sort of new brand of it. Once again, silliness, I say!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Questionable. It has seemed to me, at least over the past year or so, that the greatest successes have been with reestablishing resources, filling political voids, and giving people no reason to feel that the insurgents are doing anything “good” for them. This isn’t necessarily a “more troops” issue, but it’s a “get the parliament up and running ASAP,” issue. Of course, I’m sure you’ll counter with, “without security, no parliament!” I don’t disagree. Nonetheless, I don’t know that saturation at this point is necessary. We have more than enough troops to keep the most important cities secure. What we need now is to make sure that the government establishes legitimacy elsewhere. We should be spending money on infrastructure and communications, as that’s what will get Iraqis really “pumped up” over their new government.</p>
<p>I agree with Robert E. Lee!</p>
<p>What most do not understand is that changing an absolute dictatorship to a democracy can not be done overnight. To do such a thing takes years, especially with a creature so delicate as Iraq. We thankfully have a Prime Minister now who seems to be doing well. Currently, we need to increase security as much as possible. We must, without doubt, stifle these insurgencies(as Lee said, to increase troop number) As a general and his army becomes disheartened at the thought of being outnumbered, so would the insurgents who cause these attacks also feel with a rise of ground troops.</p>
<p>I do agree, UCLAri, that we need to bolster the infrastructure of Iraq such as schooling or food supply, etc. Time, this is what we need!</p>
<p>Justinian,</p>
<p>We can bolster security without using our own men, per se. I can’t help but wonder if a native security force might actually draw less ire from Iraqis.</p>
<p>Then again, based on what I’ve read, the native Iraqi security forces seem to be the first ones blown up…</p>
<p>Anyway, Justinian is right. This is not an overnight job. Unfortunately, I don’t know that the present administration really did a good job of conveying that. “Mission accomplished,” anyone?</p>
<p>The problem is that the Iraqi police guard is not yet trained to defend their homeland. Again, time is needed to train these people to defend their homeland; thus, we may need the extra troops during the training process.</p>
<pre><code> I agree, UCLAri, that Bush made a poor move by saying “Mission Accomplished” I suppose he was not aware of the great resistance that some of the Iraqis would show to the US Troops.
</code></pre>
<p>
</p>
<p>It doesn’t seem to me that an additional number of troops would really expedite much. This is going to be painful no matter what. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know about that. I mean, the problems that moderately democratic nations in the region have had (Turkey comes to mind) should’ve tipped off Mr. Bush to how hard a sell democracy is over there.</p>
<p>But then again, he may not have been paying attention when Karl said, “George! PR move! You on a carrier in a jumpsuit!”</p>
<p>I might’ve done it too, to be honest. It was probably fun.</p>