Iraq Is Almost Another Vietnam... In Costs That Is.

[MA-Caver]

Iraq war's total cost nearing Vietnam's price tag

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080725/ap_on_go_co/war_costs

By CHRISTINE SIMMONS, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 28 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The total cost of the Iraq war is approaching the Vietnam War's expense, a congressional report estimates, while spending for military operations after 9/11 has exceeded it.

The new report by the Congressional Research Service estimates the U.S. has spent $648 billion on Iraq war operations, putting it in range with the $686 billion, in 2008 dollars, spent on the Vietnam War, the second most expensive war behind World War II. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the U.S. has doled out almost $860 billion for military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere around the world.
All estimates, adjusted for inflation, are based on the costs of military operations and don't include expenses for veterans benefits, interest on war-related debts or assistance to war allies, according to the nonpartisan CRS.
The report underscores how the price tag has been gradually rising for the war in Iraq, which began in March 2003. In late 2002, then-White House budget director Mitch Daniels estimated the Iraq war would cost $50 billion to $60 billion. A year later, L. Paul Bremer, then-chief of the U.S. occupation government in Iraq, said the war would cost $100 billion.
Yet the Iraq war has consumed less of the nation's gross domestic product than other pricey conflicts. The Iraq war's costs represented 1 percent of GDP in the peak year of the war. World War II, with a $4.1 trillion price tag in 2008 dollars, was nearly 36 percent of GDP and the Vietnam War was 2.3 percent of GDP in that wars' peak years.

Almost as much as the Vietnam war... but not costing or consuming our GDP as "other pricey conflicts"
Now I dunno about you but 600 Billion is a lot more than the original estimates put out after 9/11.

Here are the report's estimated costs of major wars, in 2008 dollars, and their costs as a percentage of GDP in each of their peak years:
_American Revolution: $1.8 billion; GDP figure not available
_War of 1812: $1.2 billion; 2.2 percent
_Civil War, Union: $45.2 billion; 11.3 percent
_Civil War, Confederacy: $15.2 billion; GDP figure not available
_World War I: $253 billion; 13.6 percent
_World War II: $4.1 trillion; 35.8 percent
_Korean War: $320 billion; 4.2 percent
_Vietnam War: $686 billion; 2.3 percent
_Gulf War: $96 billion; 0.3 percent
_Iraq war: $648 billion; 1 percent
_Afghanistan/Global war on terror: $171 billion; 0.3 percent
_Post 9/11 domestic security: $33 billion; 0.1 percent
_Post 9/11 operations: $859 billion; 1.2 percent

63.374 Trillion Dollars this country has spent in wars alone... adjusted to 2008 dollars.
Weigh the amount against 1,291,859 American lives lost combined in the above listed wars http://www.militaryfactory.com/american_war_deaths.asp amounts to what? Roughly 2.04 million dollars per death in all the wars listed? Or 6.13 million for each soldier killed thus far in Iraq.
Do the families get that much compensation for the loss of their loved one?

Definitely war is a money making venture... but it's also a costly one at that.
So how much longer will it last, how much more in dollars and blood will we spend?

 

[newGuy12]

Definitely war is a money making venture...

There are some people making money hand over fist. Everyone knows that Haliburton is cashing in Big Time. The outsourcing has caused some problems. Big problems. When the 4 contractors were killed in Fallujah, it derailed the whole plan for the region. The contractors had to get the job done, now. They had to deliver on the contract, even though the guys had not worked together as a team yet. There was no time to prepare. So, off they went, two to a vehicle instead of three to a vehicle. No rear gunners. No armoured vehicles as would be optimal. No map even. No time, just hit it.

Okay, then they get killed. This meant that the Marines ended up going in to Fallujah as everyone's worst enemy. That was not the plan, but that's how it played out due to the killing of the contractors. This is what happens when the "free market" makes decisions in a combat theatre instead of military command and control.

So how much longer will it last, how much more in dollars and blood will we spend?

How much longer will it last? Until it is over. The problem is, what are we trying to accomplish? The original plan was to get rid of the weapons of mass destruction. We obviously can't do that. So what is the plan now? That depends on who you talk to, or what you read. If you read Armed Madhouse (Greg Palast), he says that some of the main goals are to make sure that the Right People make money off the oil. In other words, its not about the oil (that is, Iraq will still be an OPEC nation -- they will still be beholden to the Saudis to cap their production), but about who makes money off the oil.

Remember -- the State Dept (and Big Oil) won the fight with the Pentagon (and the Neo-Cons). The Neo-Cons wanted to simply privatize the oil production -- get that oil out of the ground and make some money -- everybody's happy. Big Oil wants none of that -- if you flood the market you depress prices.

There are also many laws that have been put into place for the new Iraq, things like Iraq not being able to have any tarriffs (something that NO other nation has to live with), and laws making sure that no copyright violations are allowed.

As soon as Iraq's resources are divied up among The Important Entities, and some puppet leader is installed, then the military can pull back into bases and many troops and active fighting can cease. At that point, who knows?

Remember -- Winston Churchill invaded Iraq -- twice. Its very well known that you can invade Iraq successfully, but you cannot negotiate occupying it for long. That's been demonstrated. The British know it. Our leaders may know it, but I have little faith in them.

I don't think Iraq will last too much longer. The United States of Exxon will have its tentacles into Iraq's wealth soon enough, and as soon as the resistance can be put down, the majority of the troops can then come home.

Of course, if the US invades Iran, then all bets are off. Its possible then that the US economy can fail so magnificently that it won't be able to borrow enough money for bullets. Then it will be over for sure.

 

[MA-Caver]

I don't think Iraq will last too much longer. The United States of Exxon will have its tentacles into Iraq's wealth soon enough, and as soon as the resistance can be put down, the majority of the troops can then come home.

Of course, if the US invades Iran, then all bets are off. Its possible then that the US economy can fail so magnificently that it won't be able to borrow enough money for bullets. Then it will be over for sure.

Iraq will be like Afghanistan okay, people have been trying to occupy that part of the world for centuries and have failed. As long as there are going to be Iraqi's there's going to be insurgents. Not all Iraqis are insurgents and not all insurgents are Iraqi but as long as infidels are in their lands they'll fight and keep fighting.
So basically they're freedom fighters labeled as terrorists. We would be no different on U.S. (or British Island) soil. What makes us think they'll eventually tolerate our presence?

As far as a protracted war against Iran making the U.S. broke? I don't think it'll last long enough for it to happen. Remember we have nukes, Israel has nukes and you can damn well bet Iran has nukes too. It'll get real hot and then get hotter still. Oh and lets not forget some of the lesser nations nearby who'd be willing to jump in on the fight.