How much will Iraq really cost?

Column

16 July 2007

By Joseph A. Kechichian

At the White House last Friday, President George W. Bush chided journalists huddled in the new Press Room, looking forward to the day when Iraq would no longer be his responsibility.

He adamantly expressed his hope for vindication, insisting that "when it's all said and done... if you ever come down and visit the old, tired me down there in Crawford, [Texas] I will be able to say, 'I looked in the mirror and made decisions based upon principle, not based upon politics'."

Two days earlier, and ironically, the highly respected Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a detailed report assessing the true costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It concluded that the $577 billion allocated through the end of the current fiscal year (October) will amount to a small down payment, and that over the years, the total bill will reach much higher levels.

No one asked Bush about the projected costs but one is reminded of claims made by senior officials that Iraq would either pay for itself or cost no more than about $50 billion.

Five years ago, optimists agreed with these figures, although Lawrence Lindsey, then a White House economic adviser, was a bit more realistic when he predicted that the expenditures could go as high as $200 billion. Not surprisingly, he was fired, in part, for saying so.

In early January 2007, The New York Times reported that the true charge of the war would be in the $1 trillion range, based on several calculations. The most recent CRS figures top that estimate, to an unimaginable $1.5 trillion if 75,000 troops were left in Iraq by 2017.

Ten years from today, and few should be surprised that US troops would still be in Mesopotamia despite intensified calls to sharply reduce overall numbers, the total bill will probably cross $2.5 trillion.

This educated guess is based on several premises, including rapidly growing costs, and a massive replacement of depleted armour straddling from tanks to armoured personnel carriers and many other essential items.

In 2007, the $135 billion allocated for Iraq amounted to a 40 per cent increase over 2006. In fact, the average annual cost to support a single American soldier in Iraq rose to $390,000 in 2006, up 22 per cent from the $320,000 it cost in 2003.

At this projected level, by 2017, the price tag to keep a single soldier in Iraq will top the $600,000 figure per year.

Additional dollars

Billions of additional dollars will be spend on body armour and other protective gear. CRS further estimates that an extra $4 billion will be needed this year alone to pay for higher oil prices, perhaps another $4 billion for equipment maintenance, and $2 billion for enhanced intelligence and communications.

These figures are truly the tip of the iceberg. One can easily add a lot more details ranging from the true outlays of repeated massive naval deployments around the Gulf to critical care expenses for the injured.

Many of the estimated 115,000 wounded who were evacuated from Iraq will require expensive long-term care running into the millions. How much will that total be?

Remarkably, and while US law requires long-term estimates, the Bush Administration has budgeted only $50 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for its fiscal year 2009 projection, and nothing for the eight years after that, claiming that there were "too many uncertainties" to make such forecasts.

Perhaps. Yet, the Army and the Marine Corps, traditionally the two largest branches of the military, plan to add 92,000 personnel by 2012. It would be a safe bet to assume that United States military planners, as stated by CRS, have concluded the need "to be able to deploy substantial numbers of troops on a permanent basis."

None of these issues were raised at the latest Bush press conference but no should have any illusions that as long as the funding question is not broached openly and with a great deal of transparency, claims made by both Democrats or Republicans about reducing the number of troops or considering phased withdrawals, cannot be taken seriously.

One will need to follow the money to reach clear conclusions, for bills will have to be paid, and expenses budgeted, and costs appraised, and accounts recorded. The rest is fantasy and unbecoming of serious analysis.

Even if current annual expenditures on both wars - which, of course, does not factor in disbursements for the so-called "war on Terrorism"- represent around 1 per cent of GNP, this is a reflection of the overall size of the US economy.

Bush may want to reflect on the true costs of his two wars after he retires from office for these will follow him into posterity.

First, in terms of the total financial burden that will be shouldered by future generations, and second by the physical and psychological damage imposed on thousands of young men and women who served with honour. Not to mention the loss of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis whose sacrifices are probably immeasurable.

Dr. Joseph A. Kechichian is a commentator and author of several books on Gulf affairs.