Cost of Iraq war could top $2 trillion: study

 

By Jason Szep Mon Jan 9, 8:05 PM ET

 

BOSTON (Reuters) - The cost of the

Iraq war could top $2 trillion, far above the White House's pre-war projections, when long-term costs such as lifetime health care for thousands of wounded U.S. soldiers are included, a study said on Monday.

 

 

Columbia University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes included in their study disability payments for the 16,000 wounded U.S. soldiers, about 20 percent of whom suffer serious brain or spinal injuries.

 

They said U.S. taxpayers will be burdened with costs that linger long after U.S. troops withdraw.

 

"Even taking a conservative approach, we have been surprised at how large they are," said the study, referring to total war costs. "We can state, with some degree of confidence, that they exceed a trillion dollars."

 

Before the invasion, then-White House budget director Mitch Daniels predicted Iraq would be "an affordable endeavor" and rejected an estimate by then-White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey of total Iraq war costs at $100 billion to $200 billion as "very, very high."

 

Unforeseen costs include recruiting to replenish a military drained by multiple tours of duty, slower long-term U.S. economic growth and health-care bills for treating long-term mental illness suffered by war veterans.

 

They said about 30 percent of U.S. troops had developed mental-health problems within three to four months of returning from Iraq as of July 2005, citing Army statistics.

 

Stiglitz, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001 and has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, and Bilmes based their projections partly on past wars and included the economic cost of higher oil prices, a bigger U.S. budget deficit and greater global insecurity caused by the Iraq war.

 

They said a portion of the rise in oil prices -- about 20 percent of the $25 a barrel gain in oil prices since the war began -- could be attributed directly to the conflict and that this had already cost the United States about $25 billion.

 

"Americans are, in a sense, poorer by that amount," they said, describing that estimate as conservative.

 

The projection of a total cost of $2 trillion assumes U.S. troops stay in Iraq until 2010 but with steadily declining numbers each year. They projected the number of troops there in 2006 at about 136,000. Currently, the United States has 153,000 troops in Iraq.

 

HIGHER COSTS

 

Marine Corps Lt. Col. Roseann Lynch, a

Pentagon spokeswoman, said on Monday that the Iraq war was costing the United States $4.5 billion monthly in military "operating costs" not including procurement of new weapons and equipment.

 

Lynch said the war in Iraq had cost $173 billion to date.

 

Another unforeseen cost, the study said, is the loss to the U.S. economy from injured veterans who cannot contribute as productively as they otherwise would and costs related to American civilian contractors and journalists killed in Iraq.

 

Death benefits to military families and bonuses paid to soldiers to re-enlist and to sign up new recruits are additional long-term costs, it said.

 

Stiglitz was an adviser to U.S. President

Bill Clinton and also served as chief economist at the

World Bank.

 

(Additional reporting by Charles Aldinger in Washington)

 

 

File photo shows a U.S. soldier walking past a burning liquified petroleum gas pipeline after it was destroyed by insurgents in Bazwan village near Kirkuk, north of Baghdad January 5, 2006. (Slahaldeen Rasheed/Reuters)

 

To $2 trillion into perspective:

2004 USA GDP = $11.75 Trillion

 

The Cost of Freedom (something Fox News seems to be concerned about):

$2 Trillon/26,074,906 Iraqis = $76,702.10 per Iraqi

2,215 American lives and 16,337 injuries (at least)

201 Coalition lives (at least)

The lives of 31,586 Iraqi Civilians (6,000+ being women or children)

The Cost of Freedom (something Fox News seems to be concerned about):

$2 Trillon/26,074,906 Iraqis = $76,702.10 per Iraqi

 

 

Worth every penny and more.

I wish I was surprised that this administration never took those factors into account. I would have to agree that this war is going to continue to cost us for a long time.

Hi PhishPhan.

 

*waves*

*Writes Check*

*Writes Check*

 

That's going to be one BIG check. :blink:

Patriotic American:

 

Yeah, ok, let's pay for it.

 

What? Pay for it with taxes? :crying

 

NOOO FRIKKIN WAY!!!! :nono

 

Just have my kids pay for it. :mischief

 

No checks being written. Just credit cards being charged.

YES! A war I have to pay for that was entirely stupid to be fought for.

 

 

Just what I always wanted.

I love chair...

 

 

I love lamp...

It sounds like an interesting study, though I'd have to take it with a grain of salt, considering that it isn't exactly coming from a group of nonpartisans.

 

Stiglitz, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001 and has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, and Bilmes based their projections partly on past wars and included the economic cost of higher oil prices, a bigger U.S. budget deficit and greater global insecurity caused by the Iraq war.

 

...

 

Stiglitz was an adviser to U.S. President Bill Clinton and also served as chief economist at the World Bank.

 

They said a portion of the rise in oil prices -- about 20 percent of the $25 a barrel gain in oil prices since the war began -- could be attributed directly to the conflict and that this had already cost the United States about $25 billion.

 

I'd like to see somebody else do this study...I am kinda curious what the long-term costs would look like.

It sounds like an interesting study, though I'd have to take it with a grain of salt, considering that it isn't exactly coming from a group of nonpartisans.

 

Stiglitz, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001 and has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, and Bilmes based their projections partly on past wars and included the economic cost of higher oil prices, a bigger U.S. budget deficit and greater global insecurity caused by the Iraq war.

 

...

 

Stiglitz was an adviser to U.S. President Bill Clinton and also served as chief economist at the World Bank.

 

They said a portion of the rise in oil prices -- about 20 percent of the $25 a barrel gain in oil prices since the war began -- could be attributed directly to the conflict and that this had already cost the United States about $25 billion.

 

I'd like to see somebody else do this study...I am kinda curious what the long-term costs would look like.

 

He's a Nobel Prize winner. People don't earn Nobel Prizes in economics by being biased.

It sounds like an interesting study, though I'd have to take it with a grain of salt, considering that it isn't exactly coming from a group of nonpartisans.

 

Stiglitz, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001 and has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, and Bilmes based their projections partly on past wars and included the economic cost of higher oil prices, a bigger U.S. budget deficit and greater global insecurity caused by the Iraq war.

 

...

 

Stiglitz was an adviser to U.S. President Bill Clinton and also served as chief economist at the World Bank.

 

They said a portion of the rise in oil prices -- about 20 percent of the $25 a barrel gain in oil prices since the war began -- could be attributed directly to the conflict and that this had already cost the United States about $25 billion.

 

I'd like to see somebody else do this study...I am kinda curious what the long-term costs would look like.

 

He's a Nobel Prize winner. People don't earn Nobel Prizes in economics by being biased.

 

And you don't teach at a liberal ed north eastern university without being biased.

It sounds like an interesting study, though I'd have to take it with a grain of salt, considering that it isn't exactly coming from a group of nonpartisans.

 

Stiglitz, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001 and has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, and Bilmes based their projections partly on past wars and included the economic cost of higher oil prices, a bigger U.S. budget deficit and greater global insecurity caused by the Iraq war.

 

...

 

Stiglitz was an adviser to U.S. President Bill Clinton and also served as chief economist at the World Bank.

 

They said a portion of the rise in oil prices -- about 20 percent of the $25 a barrel gain in oil prices since the war began -- could be attributed directly to the conflict and that this had already cost the United States about $25 billion.

 

I'd like to see somebody else do this study...I am kinda curious what the long-term costs would look like.

 

He's a Nobel Prize winner. People don't earn Nobel Prizes in economics by being biased.

 

And you don't teach at a liberal ed north eastern university without being biased.

 

That's not true at all. Economists tend to be right of center. Political scientists, sociologists, etc. tend to be left of center. But you get everything. I graduated from a northeast university and am currently attending one and there are more than enough conservatives around.

What's the matter with our nation today when people won't accept the word of a Nobel Prize winner? Lighten up on the politics of the situation already.

It sounds like an interesting study, though I'd have to take it with a grain of salt, considering that it isn't exactly coming from a group of nonpartisans.

 

Stiglitz, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001 and has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, and Bilmes based their projections partly on past wars and included the economic cost of higher oil prices, a bigger U.S. budget deficit and greater global insecurity caused by the Iraq war.

 

...

 

Stiglitz was an adviser to U.S. President Bill Clinton and also served as chief economist at the World Bank.

 

They said a portion of the rise in oil prices -- about 20 percent of the $25 a barrel gain in oil prices since the war began -- could be attributed directly to the conflict and that this had already cost the United States about $25 billion.

 

I'd like to see somebody else do this study...I am kinda curious what the long-term costs would look like.

 

He's a Nobel Prize winner. People don't earn Nobel Prizes in economics by being biased.

 

And you don't teach at a liberal ed north eastern university without being biased.

 

That's not true at all. Economists tend to be right of center. Political scientists, sociologists, etc. tend to be left of center. But you get everything. I graduated from a northeast university and am currently attending one and there are more than enough conservatives around.

Bingo. Econ profs are definitely not a liberal group. I rarely found a student of economics that opposed globalization or saw it very negatively when I went to school.

He's a Nobel Prize winner. People don't earn Nobel Prizes in economics by being biased.

 

he worked for the clinton administration and has been an outspoken opponent of the iraq war for years.

 

lord.

What about the benefits? There are a lot of economic benefits involved with this war.

What about the benefits? There are a lot of economic benefits involved with this war.

 

 

Like?

Even if these estimates are way too loose, Bush definitley didnt want to listen to economists for how much this war would cost :

 

Before the invasion, then-White House budget director Mitch Daniels predicted Iraq would be "an affordable endeavor" and rejected an estimate by then-White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey of total Iraq war costs at $100 billion to $200 billion as "very, very high."

 

 

Marine Corps Lt. Col. Roseann Lynch, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said on Monday that the Iraq war was costing the United States $4.5 billion monthly in military "operating costs" not including procurement of new weapons and equipment. Lynch said the war in Iraq had cost $173 billion to date.

 

 

Unless the Pentagon spokeswoman is also suffering from liberal bias, it's clear that just including operating costs means the war has been over budget. Now throw in procurement of new weapons and equipment along with all the intangible costs.

What about the benefits? There are a lot of economic benefits involved with this war.

 

 

Like?

 

The contracting firms that are rebuilding the infrastructure, where are they from?

What about the benefits? There are a lot of economic benefits involved with this war.

 

 

Like?

 

The contracting firms that are rebuilding the infrastructure, where are they from?

 

LOLOL :lol And who's paying them? We are.

That's the point, part of the two trillion or however much the cost is being pumped back into the US' economy because the branches are in fact in the United States.

That's the point, part of the two trillion or however much the cost is being pumped back into the US' economy because the branches are in fact in the United States.

 

Couldnt you say that about not only the entire war expenditure, but also about any government spending?

That's the point, part of the two trillion or however much the cost is being pumped back into the US' economy because the branches are in fact in the United States.

 

 

Yes, but you need to take into account a few other things. First, the kind of long-term effect that spending has on the economy. For example, if you spend 2 trillion dollars on education rather than to rebuild another country (and paying US contractors to do that) you're going to have different effects. Those 2 trillion dollars spent in education will probably generate a lot more benefits (more educated population, more efficient workers, etc.) for us than spending that money to reconstruct another country. Second, the effects of a huge budget deficit - higher interest rates, a strain on the government's ability to address vital problems in the US, etc.

I never would have imagined a Republican president throwing out so much money to build a country that isn't ours. Despite the destruction of Katrina on the Gulf Coast, not much progress has been made over there so far, and it's within our borders. Then again, I don't see all the money going into Iraq having much of an effect, either.