What Iraq will cost the U.S.

In response to Lawrence Lindsey’s article in Fortune considering his cost estimate of the Iraq War, I’m troubled by this discussion of his alternative to the war. These are his words:

“In late 2002 the U.S. had more than 60,000 troops stationed in the countries around Iraq to back up UN Security Council resolutions. Hans Blix, the UN’s weapons inspector, credited those forces as being the reason he was getting even limited co-operation from Saddam. In the congressional debate about authorizing the war, the opponents’ position was that we should continue with the UN inspection process, which required U.S. troops to stay on the scene. It was presumed that Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), not just by President Bush, but by the National Intelligence Estimate and the spy agencies of many other countries. It would have taken a long time to convince a skeptical world that Saddam’s noncompliance with 17 UN resolutions was innocent. Under the alternative scenario of the time American forces would have been stationed around Iraq for years, many of them in harm’s way.

The true cost of the Iraq war, therefore, is not the pricetag we see in the papers, but the cost of that conflict relative to the alternative scenario on offer. We would have still stationed half to three-fourths as many troops as we now have in Iraq in neighboring countries. The cost of stationing them there would be lower than what we now pay but would still be substantial. The continuous use of air power would have been necessary to police the no-fly zones established in the ceasefire of the first Iraq war.”

It appears to me, that if the military personnel stationed in Iraq, and the pre-2003 maintenance of a no-fly zone was in place, why would it not seem reasonalbe for Hans Blix to continue WMD inspections in Iraq? Wouldn’t the inspections ultimately find that there were no WMD’s, and that Iraq posed no threat to the U.S.? Were military personnel directly in armed conflict during this period? I don’t think so. Are U.S. military personnel directly in armed conflict now? Why risk people’s lives for a maybe, or because someone runs out of patience? I can’t get my head around the logic of deciding to go into military action, when the alternative to pursue (inspections that could have provided the evidence needed to make an informed decision) was not pursued. It would have saved the estimated 1 trillion dollars or more the war is projected to cost. Not to mention the lives lost.

And another comment. I hope those responding to this article are not looking at the economic benefits of this war. From a humanitarian perspective alone, this war has been disastrous, and no amount of dollars (income or expense) is going to change that.

This was a very informative and insightful article. However, I’m disappointed in Fortune’s editors’ choice of graphics. The graphics all slant toward the negative, giving the impression that Mr. Lindsey was fired for opposing the war. The article reads quite differently. Shouldn’t the graphics support the article, and not give a contrary message?

As for Mr. Lindsey’s writing, I find him to have a very objective, non-biased view of the conflict. It is refreshing to see someone who can cut through the rhetoric and acknowledge how little this war has cost in a historical perspective. The American people have sacrificed little compared to past conflicts. The American soldier has shouldered the load, and as usual gets only patronizing non-support. You cannot support the soldiers without supporting their mission. Anyone who believes otherwise has spent too much time watching the news and not enough time talking to actual soldiers.

I really enjoyed this article and it has altered my perspective on well… war in general. However, I am still under the assumption that it is arrogant and ignorant to think the we as in America can bring peace to the Middle East. A region that has not known peace relatively, forever. Especially when many American political officials have demonstrated that they do not even know the difference between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Even more bothersome to me is that I can not think of any relation for passion, that I nor anyone that I know have, that resembles the Muslim passion for religion. We simply can not identify with this passion and therefore, I assert that we can not understand the Muslim people.

Winning this war is about changing a perspective that is long ingrained in generation after generation of a passion that is unidentifiable for Americans. Which brings me to my dichotomous views on this issue. To an extent I am pro “manifest destiny” and believe that this historically deep region would benefit from a different perspective on life. On the other hand, I must ask who are we to tell the Middle East about life? When our history is so relatively short compared to theirs.

Either way it is what it is and we are where we are. After this article I will start measuring our Iraq success relatively instead of absolutely. After all the absolute truth does not exist and nobody will ever know if we are “right” so our intentions are all that matter.

Vietnam doesn not have oil. Kuwait and Iraq have OIL.. don’t we get oil for 10 cent a barrel until we get our money back ??

all of these things are eventually circular.. THE WORLD PAYS..

It just kills me when you see EXPENSE articles like this and they leave out THE INCOME part..

Reminds me of all the deficit / debt talk.. nobody mentions the 100 trillion in assets..

or

when Target corp says 10 percent of the profits are going to charity..
THANK YOU TARGET CUSTOMERS… please.. reduce the prices and let everybody do their own donating.

What do you think the cost of 3800 dead people a day from car accidents comes out to ??? Injured ? property damage.. Far exceeds any other “WAR”..

Mr. Lindsey has not factored into his analysis the human cost of this war. He has not discussed the cynical and deceitful propaganda campaign orchestrated by the Bush administration to frighten the American public into supporting the invasion.

There is no mention of the 2,000,000 Iraqis who have fled their country nor the 2,000,000 other Iraqis who are living in miserable refugee camps. Those figures are comparable to 48,000,000 US citizens in exile or in camps. There is no calculation of the unnamed tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, nor any mention of the blasted maimed and otherwise traumatized victims of this war.

As we enter the sixth year of this war our troops have suffered in excess of 30,000 wounded and killed. There is no calculation of these lives, lost or broken nor of the pain and heartbreak felt by their friends and families.

Mr. Lindsey asks us to think of what Saddam might have done if Bush had not started the war. We did know that he was busy building palaces, paying off his generals and tormenting his people. These actions were insufficient to justify the carnage Bush has unleashed. Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, had not attacked us, nor threatened us nor had the capability to attack us. The no-fly zone set in place over Iraq after the first Gulf War was keeping him in check and was sooooo much cheaper than what Bush has squandered since 2003.

It is fatuous and dishonest to justify this war without demonstrating a shred of evidence that Saddam planned to harm us. I’d also note that Mr. Lindsey’s statement that “it’s the military’s judgment that should determine whether we double our investment or take our losses and go home” displays a sad misunderstanding of policy making in the United States. The civilian branch of our government makes such decisions. If we left it up to the military we’d still be in Vietnam.

Mr. Lindsey does not even mention the years of lost opportunity in the hunt for Osama bin Laden, who as I recall, attacked us on 9/11. Iraq has been an unconscionable diversion by Bush and has made us weaker and less competent in the eyes of the world. How does one put a dollar figure on that?

This essay reminded me of the statement that may have been uttered by Mark Twain: “There are liars, damn liars. Then there are statistics. “

I think any measure of the cost of the Iraq War and the War on Terrosim is understated without the inclusion of calculating our reliance on oil and what $50 to $100 per barrel of oil has meant to funding terrorism and the rise of Petro-terrorists. If we’re talking about Value rather than Price, wouldn’t we have been better off by taking a significant portion of the money spent on the Iraq War and investing in alternative forms of energy, infrastructure and the economic incentives to support alternatives to a more technological and cost efficient status? Without oil, these terrorist nations and organizations are irrelevant. Calculate the value to the American people on financing and re-making the world’s energy base, and win the war on terrorism by putting oil out of business. Can we at least ask an economist what an oil-free society would mean in economic value for democratic nations, rogue dictators and terrosit activity. Throw in the cost of climate change…now tell me what would have $1.7 trillion bought the American people?

Best, accurate, informative, succinct, summary of the Iraq war I’ve read in a long time. Most Americans couldn’t care less what happens beyond our borders unless they are actively engaged in international business which forces them to think globally. Most Americans take our security for granted. Most Americans forget beyond the past 6 months of history much less than what happened with Quaddafi giving up WMDs as a result of the Iraq war, and that yes, most of the World nations did believe at the time the decision was made to invade that Iraq had them as well and Saddam wasn’t backing down. I’m not for war at any time, but ignorance, apathy, pacifism to the extreme always brings conflict that has caught the U.S. unprepared. The U.S. should not leave the Middle East. It’s ridiculous to even try to “think” that this region would be more stable had we done nothing.

It is silly to justify the war investment on the dirisory grounds offered by Mr Lindsey (the annual cost in money and lives is in line with the historical average for America, and not that much greater than keeping a garrison in Saudi Arabia. But what is even sillier is that a Bush admin. economic advisor would fail to note that Iraq is sitting on $11 trillion of oil reserves and $750 billion in natural gas reserves. In light of these figures, perhaps, the investment might be justified as a claim for booty, but of course this is the investment that dare not state its name. Anyway, the reasoning was transparently disingenous and only makes sense as a long-winded job application for an eventual McCain administration.

I believe that Mr Lindsey should have spent considerable time on the other indirect costs of the war. For example, the long term effect of more than $1T in costs together with the complete erosion of support for the US and the resultant decline in the dollar. The corollary to this is the potential loss of the dollar as “the worlds reserve currency” and the loss of the benefits we as a nation accrue. Finally all this needs to be taken in context of the rise of China - economically and militarily as well as India and the EU - particularly from an economic sense.

With all the inane commentary here–in the comment list, not the article–it’s hard to believe they’re actually moderated as claimed.

Page 132: 2 points.
1.Terrorist migration would be a cost even without the war. There were NO terrorists until we invaded. It is still a training ground with our troops as the victims!
2. Decision to invade immaterial.WRONG!It is well established that the Bush Government used lies and deception to get us in there. No president should ever be permitted to do this again. The media dropped the ball. Instead of being the 4th branch of government they “Drank the Coolaid.”

Diplomacy instead of Cowboyism would have involved more nations thus lwering our costs. I am not taling about the fraudulent Coalition of the Willing.

How will the massive amount of borrowing impact on the future economy?We owe our financial souls to China, India,et.al. Will we fall victim to the same fate as Allan Sloan mentioned in “The Deal”?

Who cares. I just flick the plasma set onto the sports channel and my favorite football game and there I be “the American past-time” heaven on earth. So, thill and invading army rips my plasma set off the wall…well I could care less.

One the other hand…
what is most surprising about this economist is what he does NOT mention/cover:
recent health/news reports tell US that there was a dramatic: a] decrease in deaths due to much better field medical care, AND a much greater number of people with serious injuries.
AND, b] that there are a vastly increased number of “brain” injuries, most of which are unrecognized.
This article not only does not mention/talk about this two minor problems with his & W’s analisis, but it pretends that those “costs” do not exist.
Please, forgive US for suggesting that the true cost of the Iraq was is NOT just whether we win or not, but may morally and legally AND economically depend on whether we provide the “brain damaged” troops with good medical care, OR whether we do not.

How is it that Mr. Lindsey fails to “calculate” the costs of a foreign policy that is designed to prepare the ground for the assault on Social Security and Medicare that is surely to come once the costs of this war come due and the mantra of “fiscal responsibility” requires “adjustments.”

it frustrates me when i think of all the things we could use for the money WE use for this war

Lindsey put a price tag to everything, including what the US has achieved through the war on Iraq, but he couldn’t begin to fathom the value of what the US has lost. Yes, it’s all about the value, you stupid warmongers.

In fact, the US hasn’t lost any value: it has simply made its value-less color of price crystal clear to the rest of the world and thereby has united the rest of the world against the US and its global collaborators.

Indeed, that’s the achievement of the Bush administration. Good for humanity. The world has much less apetite for the American style experiment, thanks to the Bush/Cheney/Neo-con Bunch.

Nice article. It brings a great perspective to what is happening. One observation I have as a professional problem solver and Catholic is that there did not seem to be many alternatives to war considered for solving the problems we were trying to solve. Did we consider trying to do good things like colaboration, investment, helping, caring, joining, discussing, partnership, building etc. as opposed to things that don’t seem so good to me (threatening, interrogation, destroying, restricting, spying, sanctions, and of course killing). We all seem to agree that “thou shall not kill” makes a lot of sense for a lot of reasons. If we could have done other things to address our problem before killing, didn’t we have a moral obligation to try to solve our problem by doing good things? Was this ever even givin fair consideration? In hind site if we used the $500 Billion to do good things, imagine what might have been accomplished. I hope and believe we will pull through this in the end, but, I also believe it will only be when we start looking at the problem from a “do good things” point of view. All the data I have collected has led me to believe that you truly do catch more bees with honey.

There are hidden costs to any war that are incalculable by any back-of-the-envelop calculation, and Mr. Lindsey’s argument hardly touches on the subject. However, he can take the credit for arriving at the accurate per annum cost ($100 billion) at the time the war was still in its secret planning stage. Indeed, the whole purpose of the book appears to be self-congratulatory on that account.

Ultimately, the Iraq war’s fate is decided by the number of causality, not by its monetary cost. If the war is going to cost $100 billion a year with 100 American dead a year, it is sustainable until the West is out of the energy dependency on Middle East oil. On the other hand, if it costs $100 billion with 800 US dead a year, as is the case currently, then it is not.

The true aim of the Iraqi war was to take Saddam out of the Persian Gulf oil production equation in order to protect the flow of oil from the Gulf region. Bush and Cheney succeeded in this regard, but now they have another factor in the oil flow equation–Iran, which is posing far grater threat to the flow of Persian Gulf oil than Saddam’s Iraq ever did after his defeat in the Persian Gulf War

Another ironic twist is that the Iraq war has indeed turned out to be a war against Islamic terrorists now that Al-Qaeda are trying to force the US to withdraw its military presence from Iraq through a war of attrition. Al-Qaeda strategy, of course, is to spread their jihad to other Gulf States, using Iraq as its base, after Americans are gone.

Thus, a hasty withdrawal by the US from Iraq now poses great danger to the flow of Persian Gulf oil to the West than ever before. One could argue that Saudi Arabia would have to step in, had the US decided to withdraw in haste, but that would tempt Iran to match the move, thus increasing the danger of a war between Saudis and Iranians, one of the consequences of which can easily be attacks on each other’s oil production facilities.

The bottom-line is that the West and the rest of oil poor world are on the Middle Eastern hook. The only way we can truly extricate ourselves from the politics of Persian Gulf region is to redouble our effort to develop non-fossil based energy sources. Imagine what those $500 billion the US has spent so far in the Iraq war could have done toward that goal.

Let me first say that Larry Lindsay is at best, a second rate economist and that was before he wrote this self-serving tripe.

I do not consider myself a democrat but I did find it remarkable that Larry somehow tried to shift the blame for his wildly wrong estimates for the cost of the war onto democrats. He claims some democratic staffers (no names mind you but i bet they were interns he crank called)estimated $30 Billion. Larry, if memory serves, democrats were very concerned over General Shinseki’s comments about the need for a minimum of 250,000 troops to stabilize Iraq. It goes without saying that would cost a lot more than $30 Billion and I can guarantee that if for no other reason than politcs , dems would not have come in with an estimate less than Rumsfeld’s $50 Billion.

I also like the fact the Larry fails to include the cost of Iraqi lives in his calculation. Estimates for those losses fall between 200,000 and 600,000. And then there is property damage and the emigration of the Iraqi professional class which condemns Iraq to decades of attempting to rebuild the soical fabric and the infrasctructure of the society. Larry, obviously a modern colonialist, wants to serve up democracy (while lining Haliburton and Blackwater’s pockets) at the barrel of a gun. After all, it is the white man’s burden.

I also like how Larry uses percentages in the classic salesman sleight of hand to brush aside the issue of the hard numbers. He offers us a war at a discount - only 2% of the US GDP. Absurd. I would point out that in hard dollars we have spent over $500 Billion to date. There is no end in sight and quite rightly Larry suggests we stay (Faustian bargain). While much has been made of the success of the surge which is real (you add a lot more troops you get more stability as General Shinseki pointed out before the invasion). But the suggestion that there is anything approaching political stability or legitimacy in this country that is fiercely divided by centuries old conflict is hopeful at best. The Oraqi government is corrupt and incompetent as has been documented by multiple organizations and the police force is abysmal. So there is no end in sight and has been pointed out this will lead to trillions more in spending.

Just contemplate if you will, what could be done with 2 trillion dollars considering that the national debt is $9.5 trillion, 45 million americans have no healthcare and if anything the middle east is much less stable.

Somehow we have managed to open the Iraqi borders to the most dangerous country in the world, Iran. Iran is a country that actually has weapons of mass destruction.

I would also point out that Larry condemns us for not considering the cost of having stayed with the status quo in Iraq. Well, as it turns out Larry, we have those numbers if you want to average out the annual cost of the post GWAr1 security costs for the gulf. I don’t have the exact numbers on me as I leave that stuff to “professional economists” but I can assure you that it is pennies on the dollar in comparison with our “mission accomplished” war under W and a lot more people were alive. AlQaeda was also not in Iraq before our invasion. And then also Larry, you have to remember that to be accurate we would really split the cost of sending US forces to the Gulf among the various nations there. Right? Protect friends from Iran. You know, that sort of thing.

Larry, let sleeping dogs lie. You were a footnote on the Iraq War disaster. Nobody really respected you as an economist before you joined the administration and even less do now. You are so unimportant that most Americans had forgotten who you were if they knew who you were at all. WHY ATTRACT ATTENTION TO YOURSELF WITH SUCH A RIDICULOUS ESSAY?

Finally Larry, don’t try to play the hero by saying you have so much integrity that you wouldn’t follow the script. You place emphasis now on $200 billion but at the time it was more like $100 billion. It is only now that you have checked the direction of the political winds and adopted to take a feckless stab at resurrecting your reputation.

Let sleeping dogs lie. You are right to note that on your obituary, your incompetence and tour as a Bush lackey will be noted for all to read. Now disappear back down your rat hole.

WAS IT PERSONAL NOT POLITICAL?

I think George Bush felt humiliated because he perceived that his father had failed in Iraq and he too was humiliated by the events of 9/11. In attacking Iraq he was finishing what his father failed to do and saw it as restoring the family honour. However, he failed to understand the political consequences of his actions and failed to understand that it was in the United States interests to leave Saddam Hussein in power as a buffer between Iran and Syria. The removal of Saddam Hussein has created a power vacuum that will be filled by the Iranians once America leaves. The present administration now knows this but has no solution to the problem it has created.

In retrospect, we shoud have supported Saddam in Gulf War 1. He would have taken over Saudi Arabia, and most likely cleansed that area of it’s hardliners, to include the radicals who attacked us on 9/11.. We would still have cheap oil, and the Saudi desert could have been the worlds largest HazMat dump.
Instead, we have an illegal invasion which is subjugating the population of that country. We call their militia “terrorists” because they do not toe-the-line of the foreign invaders. We must ask ourselves, “What would we do if a foreign nation invaded the U.S.?” Toe-the-line or fight as militia or illegal combatants?
We should also ask ourselves, “Where is bin Laden?”(hint-Pakistan) Where are our much vaunted freedoms since the advent of the Patriot Act? (hint-they’re gone)
Bush sucked us into Iraq for oil, power, and revenge. In the mean time, Afghanistan is a backwater, Saudi contnues to export fundamentalism, and Pakistan is more dangerous than ever.

It has, and will continue to cost this country its reputation as a nation of honor and justice, earned on the backs and lives of our armed forces

The war in Iraq is simply a way to pump dollars into our economy. The sad truth is that Bush cannot declare that we need to spend a few hundred billion on primary education because the congress and the voters would not bit on that bait. But, because he was able to slither into a justification to make war on Iraq, that gave him the ability to borrow any amount of money he and the Congress desire. Think of it, Bush tried tax cuts but that did not have the required massive stimulatory effect on the economy. He was looking for (and the next Democratic president will also need) an easy way to give our otherwise outsourced economy a shot in the arm, especially after the financial wizards botched the refi market. That is why he keeps on banging the wardrums about Iran - a war there could be just the thing to allow the President to borrow more money to keep the armaments industry (and America) going. This country, and the political sector, is run by corporation boards and huge stockholders. They view a few thousand dead American soldiers as a lesser evil than an economic apocalypse.

Thanks to Mr. Lindsey’s explaination,it’s much clearer to me,and has change my perception of the whole matter.Though like Vietnam, the effort was seriously undermanned from the beginning,and the tribal (sunni vs. shite)differences underestimated.

Let’s be real here, people. This war is only about oil in so far as the Bush/Cheney alliance and all their good buddies made mega-millions off of it. Saddam was doing his dirty work many years before anyone could “care” less about it. Everyone knew for years about the human atrocities he was committing agaianst mankind, but who cared?…no one. Irregardless of all of this, he kept the Iranians and all the surrounding countries at bay. They knew not to mess with him. Now the Iranians can’t wait to pounce as soon as they can to expand their borders. The trouble is not oil use/consumption—it’s the greed of the “chosen few” –namely Bush/Cheney and big business who wanted to make all the money they could off of all of this. The consequence being — a country that will be left to fend for themselves against their enemies, US troops that will not be able to leave for years because they have to help with the damage that was caused, and the fact that a real war may have to ensue if Iran causes trouble. And, if that happens, what resources are left to do that. Also, as everyone keeps their eyes on Iraq, China, Russia, Pakistan, and all our so-called “friends” can work on their own dirty little deeds to further their own causes. And, something else no one seems to pay any attention to is the fact that the Arabs, Chinese, Indians and so many other countries have been taking over US businesses– Citibank, Bank of America, etc. It’s time to open our eyes to the fact that if all these countries want to take down America, they don’t need an army of guns to do it. They can do it with the almighty dollar…and guess what, we have no one to blame but ourselves for that because our government does nothing to stop it.

Look, the economy we are in is falling off the cliff as real estate carried us to this point. But in reality the cost of the war helps drive our economy. Even though the cost of the war is not included in our deficit, The accounting for this is like Enron, and the sub prime mess, off the books. This to will put us deeper in debt and head us closer to an economic mess. We should have taken all the money for the war and put it into R and D for energy solutions. America could have figured out an answer by now and we could be cutting our dependence on oil thus eliminating us interfearing in other countries private and soverign affairs.

By launching this “war of choice” on false pretenses against Iraq, a nation which had nothing to do with 9-11, Bush managed to alienate our allies, waste American lives, misdirect our troops from the fight from Afghanistan to Iraq, line the pockets of the Blackwaters and Halliburton’s the world with no-bid contracts, and strenghten Al-Queda in the process. If there is a better example of a “Manchurian candidate” in American history, I’d like to see it.

The real question about the cost of the Iraq war is a matter of Oil prices. Will Oil stay above $80.00, and if so will America be able to build the refiners needed to process and sell it to the free market. Thus, giving them a return on there investment.

For surly no one out there really believes this has any thing to do with Bin Laden, Saddam, and or freedom?

If they do, they very well may be as smart as you know who.

It is amazing to me that the great economist has not included in the cost of the war the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians that have died and the thousands that have been injured. Not to mention the destruction of that country and its infra structure as well as the daily humilation that are exacted on people there through attacks on their private homes, arresting and torturing as a result of false tips, etc. Acting as the world’s bully can only win us enemies and hatred for which the cost is incalcuable. I think Republican politicians should stop their deceit of the American public and admit that the war in Iraq is a huge blunder.

The war costs have been cloaked from the start by draining other funds such as the federal employees retirement fund, SSA trust fund etc… and diverting funds such as using creative accounting of NATO funds and reclassifying expenditures by changing the account codes under which military operations are tracked. All told, a base cost of $3 trillion is probably realistic with ancillary collateral costs of another trillion for frills. Always hard to track irresponsible spending practices of unaccountable leaders.

Really? You mean all the subprime loans could be fully government backed if we hadn’t spent dollars overseas killing via a war? Let’s open discussion on bread vs. bullets or rather homes vs. bombs debate.

When you add the totally ignored low death benefit paid to families of dead U.S. military, along with the obviously un-funded medical care for the maimed and wounded, and then ignore the $$$ this country will spend paying U.S. contractors to rebuild a country that we trashed for Papa Bush’s ego, all multiplied and totally ignored by the number of Iraqis who will be evacuated to this country, can the U.S. middle class really afford it?

It didn’t cost as much as the amount of money funded by congress. Since we backed out out the SALT treaty, we probably spent quite a chunk of that money on a ground base anti-missle defense system. Let’s face it, if it cost that much money to fight a war in a country that size, Russia would bankrupt us.

Oil and War contracts are limiting the true growth of our economy. Furthermore, how are political friendships with international business allowed to avoid taxation as well?
Every day the USA becomes weaker and closer to third world country status so the above can benefit!
When will we wake-up to remind these people of the Constitution as to whom it was written for and why.
International neighbors and colleagues need to be reminded whose country they are in since US citizens are treated as a plague if we tried the same tactics for employment, benefits, healthcare, fleecing currency savings and other means to manipulate they’re economy for short-term results to generate a greater life in their country!
SOS SOS MAYDAY

I don’t know where to start. Well Iraq is a wreck even if 1 soldier dies and with nearly 50 million American without health care and are country heading if not already in rescession, I don’t want to know whats going to happen the rest of the year. Mr Bush is the worst President we have ever had and he is going to leave all this for are next president. Everything he starts turns to S–t. Well I will see you under the overpass cause thats where we are headed.

Prosecute President Bush in a world court for war crimes against humanity for his war against Irag. He violated the UN Security Council NO vote and for torture against the Geneva Conventions. Bush is a real possible war criminal. He should be Impeached by the House and removed by the Senate. He is truly a disgrace to the American people and an embarrassment to what the USA is supposed to stand for! Bush is the “evil one”!

Before the invasion, most of the world was with us including the Muslim world in response to 9/11. Now, world opinion is less than favorable. I agree with Mr. Lindsey when he says we would have a presence in the region even if we hadn’t invaded Iraq. The difference is that we would have had much more financial and military support from the rest of the world. Other countries, EU, Middle East and Asian countries would be contributing to the cost and taking a significant portion of the burden off of the United States. Now, even our best ally, Great Britain, has greatly reduced their commitment. What if we would have followed the UN recommendations? What if we would have let Hans Blix finish his job? What if we worked to resolve the issues with Iraq diplomatically? I know the money wouldn’t have been spent this way anyway, but, what if we would have spent half a trillion dollars on developing alternative fuels over the last 5 years and become far less dependant on the Middle East region? And, yes, what I think is a much greater cost, is the loss of life and permanent and debilitating injuries suffered.

But, alas, I also agree with Mr. Lindsey in that we can’t reverse the last 5 years. We did break it and we do own it. But in process of fixing “it”, are we breaking more: our border security, national deficit, stretching the military beyond it’s limits and not really addressing what we’re being told is the reason for being in Iraq; The War on Terror (can we please call it something else? It’s a gross over simplification and terror is a tactic, not a government or political movement). Al Qaeda is alive and well on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Regardless of whether Bagdad is secure or in chaos, we’ll still have terrorist threats. Our ability to come back from a terrorist attack, whether it’s the likes of Al Qaeda or Timothy McVeigh, should be greatly improved after 9/11. Look at the attacks in London and Spain. They came back quickly and it didn’t cost billions of dollars. The odds of any one American dying in a terrorist attack are extremely low. If you’re afraid of dying in a terrorist attack you better not drive on the highway. As a matter of fact, you have a better chance of dying in an accident in your home! The assertion that “the terrorists” will follow us home is fear mongering. We’ll have a terrorist threat regardless of what we do in Iraq. Is our money better spent securing Bagdad or New York?

It’s not a matter of winning or losing in Iraq. It’s a matter of making a good business decision based on facts. Cutting our losses and refocusing our resources and efforts is not losing. I just can’t see a return on our investment in Iraq paying off other than protecting the flow oil. When put in those terms, we can begin an honest evaluation and decide if it’s really worth it.

the hq of terrorism,based on 9/11 events, is saudi arabia,egypt,afghanistan and pakistan, not iraq.

think of all the poor people-men,women and kids that could have been fed,clothed and housed for all that money and, all the kids that could have been put through school and college if the President had made a different choice. it is not surprising that america’s image in the world has suffered terribly under the bush administration.

I figured that the war in Iraq would cost us about $100 billion per year. I’m no expert. Anyway, our commanders have been finding ways to blow about $100 billion every year, some of those ways worked, and some didn’t. For all that money we are learning a great deal about what the NEXT war will drop in our lap. Do we have a solution to Iran’s road-side Explosively Formed Penetrator? Not yet, but we for sure are working on it. It will be worth it some day. Perhaps not tomorrow, but certainly within 10 years. Within 10 years, for instance, I expect some experiments to be run by agents provocateurs of the Persian ethnicity to determine the feasibility of using EFP’s in the continental United States.

That technology (road-side EFP)is not going away. Now that our military have learned that our ideas of armor don’t stand up to Iran’s EFP, we are highly motivated to develop effective active and passive counter-measures.

There is no such thing as a short war, only a short memory.

This started as a pretty reasoned explanation of the famous cost estimate, then devolved into a defense of neocon policy.

It’s good to see the comments pointing out how much more sense it makes to reduce our dependence on oil than to invade countries.

The one thing that seems to be missing in this debate, as usual, is why we don’t have more policies promoting telecommuting. It’s estimated that 40 percent of American workers could work from home some or all of the time. I do, and cut my mileage by fully 90 percent per year. I had to quit my job to do it (which worked out fine, but not everyone can do that). That was ridiculous because the company had a telecommuting policy that middle managers would not let anyone else use.

Why aren’t we giving tax incentives and emissions credits to companies that actively pursue telecommuting for as many employees as possible?

This war has been a huge waste of money and life. After 09/11 Americans wanted to feel safe in their own country. The Bush Administration used that sentiment to start a war in the Middle East that has nothing to do with our security here in America. This war is bankrupting our country while enriching private contracting firms like Haliburton. END THIS WAR AND BRING THE TROOPS HOME!!!

This war will be even longer and more costly than you are thinking. The cost of not staying is be even higher: Al Quaida in Iraq and security risks for Israel, Saudi Arabia etc etc.

This war was about enriching corporations - some directly via their direct support of the war, others indirectly such as Exxon, and others… Some of the largest corporate enrichment has come via shipping US jobs offshore - while everyone is focused on the middle east, we’ve lost hundreds of thousands well paying jobs to places such as china and india… This country can get off 80% of it’s oil dependency in 10 years… Convert most of electric generation to fuel cell technology, convert all auto’s to run on electric and bio diesel, convert all homes in the northeast to heat on bio diesel or natural gas. Fuel cell tech at the individual auto level is the wrong approach - the infrastructure won’t scale / too expensive. Use it for the grid, and you already have the infrastructure in place to delivery the power… GM’s Volt car is the way to go - charge the batteries at night off the grid, and the engine only runs when it needs to recharge the batteries… Oil consumption essentially goes away… No need to be in the middle east ! And by the way, I’d like to thank Bush and Cheney for adding $1 Trillion to the nation debt based on this war - nice job guys…

There is no way to even estimate the cost of this whole debacle. My memory is that Bush, etc. said Iraq oil would pick up the tab, but since the terrorists keep blowing up the pipelines and gathering systems no oil gets shipped to be sold. How dumb is that?

I am not sure I understand the question as the amount of money the war will save and help grow the USA economy over 30 years would be in the 100’s of billions.

a lot of people got disappointed when the war was not won in seconds and turned against bush, a president of great foresight.

we would not have needed to invade iraq if they had not hijacked airplanes and attacked our country.

then saddamn was building a bomb. it was taken to syria because the damocrats delayed our going into iraq, they got away.

the people who do not support bush, this war and our valiant troops are traitors and should be tried and shot.

if more people in this country believed in GOD, we would not have these problems.

vote Huckabee!!!

I cannot believe how naive we are concerning Arab culture. This is an old war that goes back beyond the British RAF presence in the 1920’s. Churchill told us we were dreaming but we still sink $B’s into a lost cause.
This war has never improved anyone’s dignity and has never brought about democracy. But it has caused distress to too many families and to this nation’s economy. The loss is not just economic but lost opportunities for everyone.
When will we wake up?

You can not quantify the cost in terms of dollars, lives, and other residual amounts. Just think how the U.S. could have better used $1 Trillion domestically to fight the poverty, failing healthcare, social security, etc. This war will never end and 6 years later, what have we accomplished. Thanks George Bush for being such a genius

War is stupid. All wars are stupid. Naum all over again. Might as well call it Naum 2. A stupid war for stupid reasons.

I am amazed at how cowardly and tightfisted so many Americans are. I find it interesting that an overwhelming majority of Americans supported OIF when it kicked off. Suddenly, all these people have decided the cost of the war is not worth it in blood and treasure. Iraq is not George Bush’s fault, but rather it is the fault of the American people.

I hear so many stating we should leave Iraq to its own devices. Why should we care about the blood bath that would ensue? After all, we are American and our children go to nice secure schools and our greatest intrigues stem from Brittany Spears and the price of oil. Every single American in Iraq is there because they WANT to be there.

Civilian or military they are volunteers and they are there of their own volition. I think spineless Americans can’t understand why service members would fight and die for what they believe in. As far as the cost of the war goes, so what if it runs a trillion or two? I believe that the freedom and happiness of the Iraqi people is well worth any monetary cost.

Finally, stop trying to blame the cost of oil on Iraq. Iraq has little to do with the current run in oil prices. The fact that 2.3 billion Chinese and Indians are learning the virtues of driving is the cause of high oil and its only getting worse.

With Saddam in power, a tyrant absolutely, a balance was struck. The tyranny in Iran did not escalate. Now with the chaos in Iraq, Iran is gaining momentum in it’s nuclear ambitions. We are ruining our economy to destabilize Iraq and allow Iran to seize power in the region. How many wars can we fight? We think the cost is high now…Just wait…

Its nieve to believe the war in Iraq will end in our life time.The noecons have got there eye on Iran next.

Well… we really did not need the money (rather “debt increase as we have no real money left) for anything. N.O rebuilt,education, all have great health care, economy is fine, military turning away volunteers, record “campaign contributions”, record CEO bonus’s and foreclosing, unemployment fine as only 10,000 PLUS show up for 400 Wal Mart jobs. So it seems all is just fine. We did not need the nat debt 1-2 Billion per week for anything else but the war. and let’s not even discuss the 9 trillion Nat debt… No we did not need the money for anything but war..

“Unlike what most liberals claim, the Iraq war was not a choice, it was necessary. While the cost of the war is an important issue, it is not as important as our safety.”

Whoever posted this is extremely moronic. How do you justify a war based on lies? A war that was pre-conceived before 9/11? PNAC ring a bell? No? Please do some research before posting such stupid nonsense to a publuc website!

What is the ‘war on poverty’ costing. I think that we are still fighting that war. 43 years and counting.

Posted By Peter Hindrup Sydney, Australia : January 11, 2008 10:33 pm

This jackass should just stick to doing his bong hits and leave political commentary to those who can analyze and cite facts. His hate filled emotional scribe sounds like he’s trying to compensate for the lack of something else.

The “hidden profits from war” are the less exposed advancements in technology that will bring about new benefits and profits to the U.S. (as well as to the rest of the world). As history has constantly revealed, humans’ best creativity stems from survival (even as this involves ending other humans’ lives). To name a few, nuclear energy, the internet, and computers stemmed from past war efforts. As the war subsides and becomes a memory, world energy reserves aside, advances in robotics, nanotechnology, security, and many other fields will emerge in the wake of the declassification of research and technology transfer to industry.

The problem with Mr. Lindsey’s analysis is that he takes Bush administration propaganda, rhetoric, demagoguery and fear-mongering as fact. He should base his arguments on reality, not words used by politicians to gain political advantage.

As an example, he makes a serious error by calling what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan a “war.” The war ended years ago and we won it. What’s going on now is better described as “occupation” or “colonization”. And neither Bush, Congress nor the leading presidential contenders express any desire change direction. Indeed, the policy is likely to continue for decades and to expand into Iran, Syria and Lebanon.

As a professional economist Mr. Lindsey could do his readers a valuable service by quantifying the financial costs and benefits of perpetual colonization of hostile foreign countries that have natural resources essential to our American way of life. Unfortunately, he is so far off base with his assumptions that we will not find such an analysis in his article and probably not in his book.

Here’s the deal people. It’s about time the United States quit meddling in foreign affairs and get our own house in order. We give billions away every year to support “democracy” in nations we deem to be strategic allies. We pour billions into wars to bolster democratic feelings in otherwise dictatorial regions. WE NEED TO PROTECT OUR HOMELAND WITH ALL THIS WASTED MONEY. I’m not advocating that the United States not have foreign policy but we need to quit using an open checkbook as an influence to politics. That money should be spent on the ones who actually generated the funds in the first place, U.S. people.
I would like to see the wasted funds going toward our own security, like the borders and ports.
Imagine what the world would be like if we pulled our troops from every nook and crany that we have them in and beefed up our borders and ports. Let the world decide for themselves what they want to be. It’s not our place to force our beliefs and form of governance upon others. Our Constitution even explains this.
Thanks, A former G.I.

Why does war cost so much?

MRAPS - $1,000,000 a pop
C-17 - $202,000,000 a pop in 1998 $$
F-22 - $330,000,000 a pop
F-35 - 233,000,000 a pop (and it doesn’t fly above 40,000 ft.)
147 Tomahawk missiles on an Ohio class submarine - $2,002,000,000

Meanwhile, the US military establishment burns 340,000 barrels of oil a day.

My grandkids will paying for this adventure for a long, long time.

Cost of Iraq war:
1)Opportunity cost of not providing Healthcare to all US citizens.
2)Throwing economy into recession. Dear President Bush and Peoples representatives think your strategy again, you are benefiting no-one by this ridiculous war against WMD. Think of growth and peace in the world not destruction.

It seems like a small price to pay for freedom. I didn’t shed any of my blood so it really seems like a bargain.

The rule of ‘WAR” go in with overwelming force.Not a small force like we did.Now we are paying for not “REMEBERING LESSONS OF THE PAST”.

Part of the war was for oil no questions. Now that we are there, we better succeed. To remove Saddam was good, the way it was done was possibly one of thw worst. Before we get totally out of Middle East we need to get rid of the oil thirst we have. Are all of us ready to leave the comfy life of suburbs and move somewhere closer to the work place near the downtown ?. We blame Bush and his advisors, and of course we should, he practically runied this place, how much are we to blame ourselves ?

As a republican, the author clearly has tried to justify the republican view of why we went to war in Iraq. He tries to put a historical context to loss of life in comparison to prior wars and points to the cost of the alternative. He states, in the broader scope the price we paid and the soldiers we’ve lost is ‘statistically’ low compared to what we’ve suffered through in the past. It’s all just bad justifications of a truly failed policy. Why can’t these guys just come out say, “Look, we screwed up and we’re sorry. Let’s fix this thing.” First of all, even though everyone feels better about Sadam out of power, leaving him in power would more than likely have been of little consequence. The area is unstable and always will be. You’d think that instead of trying to fix their problems for the last 30 years we spend our resources on trying to reduce our dependence on oil. If we weren’t so petro addicted, there would be no reason to be in the middle-east. The bottom line is the region’s only political and economic significance is oil. Disruption in oil supplies can potentially cause economic collapses all around the world. So clearly until we significantly reduce our oil thirst, preserving some sort of stability will be a necessity. Hence, the ‘eternal vigilance’ the author claims as the alternative (to going to war) would still be required after the war. Military conflict just adds to the cost. The Bush Administration failed to see the inherent fallout of toppling Sadam’s regime. Yes Libya revealed its WMD in the wake Sadam’s fall and its possible Iran stopped their program shortly after, but nuclear proliferation is still a real threat in area. So I guess we haven’t really achieved our objective. It has never been the US policy to fight nuclear armament by invasion… until the Bush Administration took over. Ultimately, though we all agree that the war has done some good, it’s clearly not enough for the price we’re paying (and will pay in the future). It’s like paying for a Ferrari and getting a Ford.

On the night of ’shock and awe’ I remember telling my wife that it would have been a better idea to drop the actual billions of dollars instead of bombs on the people of Iraq. This way the Iraqi people could collect it from their neighborhoods using it to oust Saddam, buy a couple of HD TVs, thank the USA, and generally become a more entreprenial/democratic society.

President Bush was right when he decided to invade Iraq. The drive by medin (including CNN) seem to hate the President. GO George, give them hell!

This is the most disingenuous, deceptive, bootstrapping, fact-selective, fact-twisting, self-serving, inaccurate, revisionist, deluded, intellectually dishonest rationalizing that the current administration’s people have ever attempted… Well, actually and unfortunately, it isn’t. But it’s up there.

US would be far more secure today, if only a portion of $1 trillion spent on Iraq war, could have been wisely spent to make the borders more secure, increase and upgrade local law enforcement in US cities and provide better laws to manage criminal illegal alien population in US.

Increasing the opportunities for youth in US to pursue their dreams and providing them the proper channels to exercise their imagination would have been more fruitful, than pursuing a fruitless war in Iraq.

It is strange that as soon as Democrats took control of congress, President Bush has not even talked about caputring Bin Laden or other high order Al-Queada leaders. Perhaps President Bush feels he is no longer in control of US Forces, in terms of setting goals for US Forces.

As for Lindsey, he made his case, did his best and sometimes it does happen that ground realities are different from the one projected from Satellites in space. And no one can be faulted for that. That is the limitation of technology, that US has to live with, until the time when technology has advanced to a level, where such errors will become insignificant and within tolerable limits.

The Iraq invasion destroyed the American spirit and crippled the economy. Such a shameful waste, both of American lives and taxpayer dollars.

Lindsey writes: In Iraq the war toppled an outlaw regime that not only had been flouting international law but had been a systematic abuser of human rights. It’s fair to claim that America cannot afford to liberate all the people who live under oppressive regimes, but the causes of human freedom and dignity have certainly gained by his downfall.
They have?
A country’s infrastructure utterly destroyed. Some millions of Iraqis slaughtered. Treasure of great international significance looted. Kidnapping, incarceration without charges being laid, or trial now the norm, torture, rape, murder have become recognised world wide as the US methods of subduing the people of a country it unlawfully invaded, a puppet government installed that has no authority outside the green zone ad no end in sight to the horror.
Yes, there can be no doubt that the world has benefited greatly from tis exercise! The world now knows exactly what the US stands for, and the US has become the most despised/hated/feared nation on earth.
An unmitigated disaster!

I am a liberal, but not a devoted Democrat because I think for myself. I don’t like Bush at all, but I do keep a perspective based on history. This war is small and cheap by any definition. While certainly most tragic, 4,000 deaths in 5 years is remarkably low considering we lost more than 50,000 in Vietnam. $1 trillion for a war over 5 years in today’s money is not so bad either. We spend more than $1 trillion each year on welfare, which is a bottomless pit. Everyone should also remember that 80% of the public was for going to war in Iraq in 2003 although most now oppose it. Funny, the same was true of Vietnam. Everyone was for it in the beginning, but when it lasts more than a couple of years, everyone turns against it and conveniently forget that they supported the idea just a few short years ago. All in all, I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. But it is certainly not a big deal. We can afford this war financially for a long time, certainly longer than we can afford Social Security. Emotionally, we Americans get bored very quickly and just want to move on. It’s too bad that we are so frivolous about something as serious as armed conflict. To most it is just another thing on the news every night.

War what is it good for?
It had absolutely nothing to do with freedom…..We did not free anyone or bring freedom. We are responsible for the ongoing deaths in Iraq. We now owe the civilian population of Iraq for what is certainly going to be a blood bath because of the constant revenge tribal killings that have gone on for centuries.
Let’s get it straight in facts. We created Bin Laden in Afghanistan. We supported Bin Laden in the efforts to remove the Russian military from Afghanistan. We also dropped The Afghanistan people and Bin Laden as soon as the Russians retreated.
We pissed of a lot of people.
Now to the present time…. Bin Laden and his group are responsible for the September 11 attacks. Most of the Terrorist were citizens of Saudi Arabia. (Our Friends In that region)
Many of these men were trained in the USA right under our noses for the attack on 9/11.
We were told these groups were based in Iraq, when in fact they operated freely to make their plans right here. Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.Bush Used 911 and Americans and its soldiers for his own means.
We needed to keep our full military strength in Afghanistan to complete the real mission of removing Bin laden from this earth and hunt down anyone involved in the 9/11 attacks. We did not need some trumped up distracting from the Chicken Hawks.
If the need to kill is so great go after the enemy.
The COST!!!!!!!!!!!
Men and woman from our military that have survived will surly need our support for mental and physical damages sustained in Iraq for decades. If you now anyone from WWII or Korea or Viet Nam then multiply that by 10 because these people are going to suffer, most likely the rest of their lives with nightmares, trauma , night sweats and many other problems that we cannot even imagine
So much for Bushes tax relief… Somebody has to pay for this butchery.
War what is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This criminal assault on the Middle Class should be met with outrage and end with a cry of, “Off with their heads!

Invading Afgahnistan and helping the AFGAN’s was the RIGHT thing to do (I was one of the 1st troops in country Dec 2001/May 2002 and again in Nov 04-May 05) and is still the right thing to do today. Iraq was completely unjustified and a waste of US troops and dollars

What is our ROI in fighting this “war?” If it’s anything like the return we got from CIA training the 9/11 hijackers at Naval Air Station Pensacola, we should back out.

This administration makes me ashamed to be American. I really hope there has been fraud on both elections, because otherwise the problem is much more serious with our people. “fool me once…” Well they fool us (actually not me, nor a whole bunch of people that I know… then who voted them?) twice and we should learn the lesson. We will be paying for this war for a long time. And the media is responsible for the brainwashing:
waterboarding is not torture?
WMD’s, mushroom cloud, Osama… where are they? maybe in oil industry pockets (record profit)
We let go of privacy, personal freedoms and our constitution and in exchange we get rich that are richer and a recession for the rest. The truth is that I can say a lot more, but now I’m afraid…

One trillion dollars would have provided free education and healthcare to every man women and child in this country. The more educated everybody is, the better jobs, government, and more tax dollars we have, which will give us even better schools, roads, technology, research, universities, healthcare, etc.

Not to mention the more educated the public, the less violent crime and waste in society. It’s a positive feedback loop and we need to take care of our own country and invest in ourselves first rather than wasting billions of dollars.

We must answer to terrorist attacks on our own soil. But we don’t need to worry about nuclear proliferation, we can defend against it already, and Bin Ladens no longer a major threat. My problem is our reason for being in the Middle East..to secure the worlds oil supplies. With just a tiny bit of foresight, our government could have invested the trillion spent on wars to develope complete US energy sufficency utilizing solar and wind energy. Already proven it can be done with existing technology…twice over with what has been spent so far on wars. How about a major work program such as FDR’s to build this energy grid, creating hundreds of thousands of US jobs? When are we going to wake up to the reality of global warming and rouge governments which will keep coming up? Let the rest of the world alone…lets take care of America for a few decades.

im sick about the invasion of irak. it is self defeating. also im offended by the complicit acceptance of tens of thousands of civilian deaths in these cool named operations. operation this operation that. these arent really wars. wars should be necessary. it was necessary to get al queda not occupy another country. its not my war. not my president. condi should step down too, even if she does play nice piano and talk like a yaley..

While people are quick to point out the direct cost of the Iraq war, more than $500 billion, with no end in sight, there are other hidden costs, such as oil and national-debt interest that push the costs higher. Moreover this “investment” has no return.

Imagine if just some of that vast amount of money was spent on subsidizing US-made hybrid vehicles ? For a mere $100 billion, we could have given 4 million hybrids away, FREE, and saved about 2 billion gallons of gasoline. There would be other benfits, too. More US jobs, more profits for US automakers, and almost $6 billion saved on un-needed oil imports, every year.

Then, what if we spent $10 billion (chump-change) to give every US household FREE compact fluorescent bulbs ? The annual savings of 120 billion kilowatt hours would save at least another $6-8 billion, per year.

Lastly, with the $400 billion leftover, we could have converted 12 million homes to run on solar electric power.

But why would we do such a stupid thing ? After all, the pro-life kind hearted neocon Republicans just love to invade sovereign nations and murder their civillians for oil. And God forbid if we reduce our oil, coal, and natural gas usage to the chagrin of US energy companies and their share-holders. Oh, the shame!

I think its costing close to 500 billions with a B.. Its really frustrating to see so much time spend to unearth the truth of Osama and not get him.

The war is worsening our economy and society.War causes,Deaths,Divorces,Inflation.Lets get real the only ones who are really benefeting from this war are the manufacturers of guns,tanks,helipopters,fighter jets and possibly our president etc. The ones who pay and suffer are the troops famiies and ours. The troops should be at home right now with their families, They should also be contributing and trying to make a diference in our society not iraqs.Is war what we really want for our children and possibly our grand children.Create jobs and make a difference for our country and our defecit not iraqs.

The current estimate ($500 B) of the cost of the war is obviously greatly underestimated as it does not include the cost of capital (since we are ostensibly borrowing the money and have to pay interest like a mortgage), the cost of veterans’ care (many brave heroes with debilitating injuries), the cost of oil at the current inflated price due in a significant part to the war, and the lost-opportunity costs. The lost opportunity costs include things like using the money for improving the countries infrastructure (remember that bridge collapse) and improved education. I just read an article in Scientific American that estimated that we could solve a significant part of our energy needs with solar power with an investment of about $500 B – that’s what the war has cost so far according to the administration. Imagine independence from Mideast oil. I bet that would improve our security immensely.

I was deeply angered by 9/11 and supported going to Afghanistan to destroy the terrorists led by bin Laden. That we did not put the resources on the ground there to do the job (get bin Laden dead or alive) is a travesty. But even more of a travesty is that we wasted (and will continue to do so in the future) so many resources on Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11 and which did not have WMD (these things were known before the war and to continue to say otherwise is simply lying). To say that the war has prevented a terrorist attack in the US cannot be proven or disproven. However, logic suggests that the Iraq war could not prevent an attack on our soil. For example, the war cannot prevent terrorists from coming to the US, as the task of prevention would actually be due to border security and intelligence activities. And surely, the terrorists could spare a few people (it only took a few for 9/11) from the war to try to attack us here. So, fighting them there cannot prevent them from coming here. That we have not had an attack here since 9/11 is undoubtedly due to our heightened awareness after 9/11 and not the Iraq war. By the way, does anyone remember when the last foreign terrorist attack on mainland US soil was before 9/11? The answer is 1993, which was 8 years before 9/11. So, a little over 6 years between attacks here is not unusual.

To reiterate, the true cost of the Iraq war is greatly underestimated by the administration, as the monetary outlays -now and to come – have not been fully considered. On top of that, the lost-opportunity costs to the country are probably even greater than we could imagine.

If it’s about the oil some good that has done for us

Please people. Stop putting Iraq and 9/11 together! The first Bush got more help from other nations and it was a big difference in cost. If Bush#2 would have done the same we would have had other troops to help control Iraq. Sorry, that means there would not have been a “No Bid” contract for Halliburton!

Lindsey has the dollars correct sadly. A nice way to provoke a response…as 65 comments are on the board.

1) Please people. Stop putting Iraq and 9/11 together. You sound like Bush looking for an excuse to invade Iraq.
2) The US never leaves a country after we take it over. At least not willingly. Look at all the countries we have bases in now. The US has acted somewhat like Rome did. Always attack a possible threat, that is how Rome grew so vast. Want to prove me wrong? Find out how many military bases are open world wide…it will shock you. But where the military goes so does McDonalds,Coke, Pepsi…etc. We never leave.

3) The “Old boy club” runs our country.
Look back at previous administrations and see who is still working today in the same roll or maybe a new one. You will be surprised at how many are friends with the CEO of a major company. They all know each other either by family or college. Once again don’t believe what I write, check for yourself. Example…Dick Cheney. Check him, he is the easy one.

I wish a safe tour of duty for our troops. Plan on being there for the next 50 years…at least. It is all about money.

One of the most poorly thought and written economic analyses I’ve ever read.

Why is Fortune accepting to post such low quality content?

The Iraq war was totally unjustified. We are a capitalist society. We ought not try to change governments to the way we think. Democracy is not for everyone. Iraq will prefer to follow an Iman, like Iran follows an Ayatollah. You needed a Hussein to control the people of Iraq. Bush has destroyed peace in the middle east. Truly this war is more about oil and power, rather than ideology. We should have come to terms with Saddam with the first Bush. We put Saddam there and he would have listened if we did not think we were so great that we could not have a dialogue with Hussein. It would have been a lot cheaper to have negotiated a price for oil and power rather than kill almost 4000 of our troops and mutilate about 16,000 of our young men. We have accomplished nothing except give Bush’s friends contracts and power costing us billions, plus using our troops to protech their businesses and even protect Blackwater. You need an army to maintain peace. This is subsidizing big business by using our young boys as cover. Most other US businesses in other countries do not need the Marines. Now it will cost us into the trillions as there is no one with to negotiate.

The sad thing is that it’s not Bush’s War, it’s OUR war, because we’ve allowed him to continue it. The cost to us is that OUR war has diminished our standing as a people in the world. The dollar is worth 2/3rds of what it was 8 years ago. Oil at $100/barrel. Health care in shambles. None of this is going to change for another decade.

Don’t care for OUR war? Use your vote to change that in November 2008 just as you should have done in November 2004

In the end it was mostly about black gold.

That’s why we leave North Korea alone who actually has WMD!

I think Ron Paul is right. We’ve got to get out now and spend the money at home. This is insane. We try to help, we screw it up, we get no thanks, and our economy and country suffers. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who really understands the economy of the country. We can’t keep going with this insane system of printing money and bailing out big corps all the time. Middle class suffers!

It’s always good to keep in mind who benefits from the 1/2 Trillion $’s being spent on Iraq. Let’s see…. Halliburton and the other insiders with military contracts.. check. Oil industry … whether you think it’s a conspiracy or not.. oil prices have sky rocketed since the invasion and show no signs of scaling back… oh yeah.. wasn’t Bush an oil guy and Cheney the CEO of Hillburton….

It’s amazing that a significant % of the population still does not question the war and the politicians responsible. Maybe now that the US economy, value of the dollar, stock market correction and almost all other economic factors - could these have anything to do with Iraq and the squandering of $500 Billion??

If the USA was a corporation - Bush would have been fired as the CEO by 2003, maybe 2004 at the latest. Chaney would be in jail along with Rumsfeld and some of the other insiders pulling the strings for personal benefits and we would have changed our policies to reflect market conditions (like the cival war that we are not a part of that has NOTHING to do with the war on terror)

The barrel of oil before the Iraq war was around $30.00 which was close to all-time low when you adjust it for inflation. The barrel of oil now? $100.00, which is close to all-time high. $500 billion is just the money that was paid to rebuild or re-destroy (depending on weather you’re for or against the war). We’re also paying for the war when we fill our gas tanks or buying groceries, and helping big oil companies turn their billions into trillions.

I can’t believe how many of you idiots keep making a comment about fighting a war with borrowed money.

How do you think we paid for all of the other wars?

What happened to all that Iraqi oil money that was supposed to pay for this lame-brained fiasco? The real tragedy is that the government is BORROWING this money and running up the national debt to 10 trillion dollars………..and counting.
You know even your bookies won’t lend you anymore money when you get in too deep. And if you can’t even pay the vig…..well we all know what happens then, don’t we.

Instead of spending trillion $$$s in war , it should be used in US credit crisis which result in improving the economy and good to US people. After all, those trillion $$$ are earned by people who live here. Atleast now, govt should stop this to reduce the tension which might reduce the oil price and inflation that is moving the economy to “R”.

Did any of you nay-sayers even read the entire article before posting your Bush-bashing rhetoric?

Read the entire article (not just the title and first paragraph.

1. It is very likely that we would have needed at least 50,000 US troops in the region in order to force Sadaam to comply with UN weapons inspections.

2. Libya mysteriously gives up their nuke program six months after the invasion.

3. There is strong evidence that Iran abandoned their nuke program after the invasion in 2003.

4. If we would not have invaded and if we would have withdrawn all troops from the region, Iraq would most probably have nukes by now.

The real question here is what would it cost if we did NOTHING. What is it worth to keep nukes out of the hands of fundamentalist Muslim nations who NEVER liked the US. I know it may be hard for some of you to believe, but most of the middle eastern nations hated us even BEFORE George W. Bush was president.

Saddam was never a danger to the US, he was a danger to his neighbors. Cut the nonsense about freedom not being free, that’s mindless sloganeering which has nothing to do with the case. We were free and would have remained free without invading Iraq, perhaps even more free. Nobody has shown a shred of evidence that invading Iraq prevented another terror attack. It even turned out more than half the guys brought to Guantanamo weren’t dangerous enough to hold. Meanwhile, cargo is still uninspected at ports, honest businesspeople are being turned back at airports because of dumb US ICE inspectors, and our economy has lost more in tourism revenue that it lost in the economic damage from the attacks on September 11.

It’s interesting to see the same old tired, discredited lies still being used as justification. I’ve learned a lot about willful ignorance in the last few years years.

Why not give each American 18 years old & up $1 million to spend [each Jan. 1st].That would only cost about 250 mill.,a drop in the bucket!We could keep it going for 40 years & still not spend as much as in this phony/greedy war.

We used to say in Viet Nam,”For those who fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected never know.” Does that mean anything in the context of Iraq? How many of the protected did we harm? How many of the bravest people we have died or are permanently wounded in one way or another? Bush said,”I am not a nation builder.” He also gave up his wings. Does anyone out there, ANYONE, know a pilot who would voluntarily give up his wings? Why would a fighter pilot give up his wings? I have so many more questions for MR. Bush.

O.B.L. is C.I.A asset,Q.why is OBL not wanted for 9-11 attacks.see FBI website 10 most wanted list.

Daddy Bush stays with the Bin ladens when hes in Saudi Arabia.FACT!