Costs of Iraq and Afghanistan set to top Vietnam War.
By on Nov 17th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Costs of Iraq and Afghanistan set to top Vietnam War.
“The Pentagon is considering $127 billion to $160 billion in requests from the armed services for the 2007 fiscal year. … That’s on top of $70 billion already approved for 2007. Since 2001, Congress has approved $502 billion for the war on terror, roughly two-thirds for Iraq.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Makes sense when you recall that Vietnamese never attacked the U.S. on American soil. How does the cost of this war compared to WWII. That is a much more relavent comparision.
November 17th, 2006 at 1:11 pmThe geatest heist in the history of mankind…
…and daily on C-Span Americans call in to voice their opinions on this or that political topic of the day…
…and to date only about 1% in the realm of public discourse (media, movies, or elsewhere)…
…talk about how much money the American taxpayer is being robbed of…
…and virtually .001% talks about getting that money back from the principle architects of this CRIME of the millenium…
…through…
Investigation
Impeachment
Incarceration
Impounding
…in that order (and ALL being on the table)…
November 17th, 2006 at 1:16 pm#1 – Paul,
November 17th, 2006 at 1:17 pmWhat does that comment have to do with the price of tea in China?
Republicans are braindead zombies.
November 17th, 2006 at 1:18 pmRegarding $ 500 Billion for Iraq war:
“God is still up there!”
And who needs healthcare or education anyway?
$500 billion + Oceans of blood = Bush’s fundamentalist Islamistan
The New Middle East
Richard N. Haass
From Foreign Affairs, November/December 2006
Summary: The age of U.S. dominance in the Middle East has ended and a new era in the modern history of the region has begun. It will be shaped by new actors and new forces competing for influence, and to master it, Washington will have to rely more on diplomacy than on military might.
The End of the Bush Revolution
Philip H. Gordon
From Foreign Affairs, July/August 2006
Summary: The Bush administration’s “revolutionary” foreign policy rhetoric has not changed, but its actual policies have: after squandering U.S. legitimacy, breaking the domestic bank, and getting the United States bogged down in an unsuccessful war, the Bush doctrine has run up against reality and become unsustainable. The counterrevolution should be welcomed — and, if possible, locked in
Can Democracy Stop Terrorism?
F. Gregory Gause III
From Foreign Affairs, September/October 2005
Summary: The Bush administration contends that the push for democracy in the Muslim world will improve U.S. security. But this premise is faulty: there is no evidence that democracy reduces terrorism. Indeed, a democratic Middle East would probably result in Islamist governments unwilling to cooperate with Washington.
Beware of What You Wish For
F. Gregory Gause III
As I recently argued in Foreign Affairs (”Can Democracy Stop Terrorism?”, September/October 2005), however, Bush’s logic is flawed. There is no evidence that states ruled by dictators produce more terrorists or more terrorism than democracies. Moreover, al Qaeda and its affiliates and imitators see democracy as a Western innovation leading Muslims away from government based on Islamic law. They would certainly not give up their jihad even if all Muslim countries became democratic, particularly if the democracies proved to be the kind that the United States would like to see: tolerant, pluralist, pro-American, and at peace with Israel.
November 17th, 2006 at 1:19 pmWow all this for a few “terrorists”, and all our wars have done is create more terrorists, most cannot even afford food, and pose less threat to the USA than McDonalds, or Marlboro who kill more Americans daily than all the terrorists over the last 20 years have.
November 17th, 2006 at 1:20 pmThe Democrats can prove, when they take over the House in January, that they actually support and care for the welfare of the troops, by cutting off the funding for the war. This will give them an opportunity to separate themselves from the Republicans and, for a change, to act with courage by bringing this illegal war and occupation to an end. It took Congress about ten years before it acted to cut off the money supply for the Vietnam War. The Democrats will have an opportunity in two months to take a step in bringing this unnecessary war to an end.
November 17th, 2006 at 1:21 pmConservative….Pffft.
November 17th, 2006 at 1:22 pmMakes sense when you recall that Vietnamese never attacked the U.S. on American soil. How does the cost of this war compared to WWII. That is a much more relavent comparision.
Comment by paul
Please link to any incident when Iraq attacked the US on American soil. That should keep you busy for awhile.
November 17th, 2006 at 1:24 pmOsama Bin Laden must be very happy that the Republicans have thrown away all that money for nothing. Way to go terrorist loving right wingers.
November 17th, 2006 at 1:25 pmMakes sense when you recall that Vietnamese never attacked the U.S. on American soil. How does the cost of this war compared to WWII. That is a much more relavent comparision.
Comment by paul
I agree. The Iraqis never attacked the U.S. on American soil either. So when are the BushCo friends in Saudi Arabia going to answer for 911?
November 17th, 2006 at 1:27 pmPaul, when did Iraq attack the USA?
November 17th, 2006 at 1:40 pmIraq never attacked the US. Bush&Co went there for the oil.
“Investigation
Impeachment
Incarceration”
Big papa is right.
November 17th, 2006 at 2:20 pmI just assumed the Iraq War was going to cost 100 million like Dubya told us. I always believe what President George W. Bush tells us. Don’t you? Whatever the cost, Iraq’s oil revenue would pay for the war. We all knew that, too. Is the pope Catholic? Does Paris Hilton wear Wal-Mart clothes?
Here’s the real story. George W. Bush, and half of the Bush administrations’ propensity to pee in bed has governmental accountants scrambling to creatively deceive the American people. What are these accountants supposed to do? You know– every expenditure must be listed in the annual budget.
Here’s a sampling of current White House expenses:
1. Bibles——————–$8,000,000
2. State Dinners———–$10,000,000
3. Salaries——————50,000,000
4. Rose Garden expenses—3,000,000
5. Gay escorts———— 25,000,000
6. BED SHEETS————-438,000,000
White House accountants are smart. They know they can’t list bed sheet expenditures. Heck no!
The military establishment is fully aware that homosexuals are bedwetters ( Please read today’s article ). Plus, gay escorts can mess bed sheets up something fierce. That would be a red flag. You know–half of the Bush adminstration is gay. OMG! OMG! OMG! Darn, you could have fooled me. So what do the accountants do?
They just move the current 438 million bed sheet expense to the ever-escalating Iraq War costs. Smart accounting trick! How clever? The books are cooked. Yeah, the books are cooked all right.
Well, now you know. You didn’t know that Rumsfeld was history before the election. Well, now you know. You didn’t know why the Iraq War was so expensive. Well, now you know.
Think bed sheets! Think bed sheets! Think bed sheets
So you think the above story is silly and far-fetched. Ha! Ha! Bush is the real joke. He’s a joker–a bed wetting joker.
John
November 17th, 2006 at 2:30 pmWhat a monumental waste of money. I won’t even take the time to list all the things we should have spent that money on Domestically. What a shame…
http://www.getsomejosh.com
November 17th, 2006 at 2:31 pm#14, Marie: Iraq never attacked the US. Bush&Co went there for the oil
But that’s not all.
The invasion of Iraq was also undertaken for the sake of those in the defense industries which overwhelmingly give more cash to the GOP.
Defense Aerospace: Dems 41% Repubs 58%
Defense Electronics: Dems 40% Repubs 60%
Misc Defense: Dems 34% Repubs 65%
Those in defense suck ferociously on the teats of the US govt from the one side of their mouth and on the other whine endlessly about the biggness of the US govt from the other.
Fucting hypocrits!!!
November 17th, 2006 at 2:36 pm#3 You made a point about the PUBLIC DISCOURSE on STAYING THE COURSE– the wasteful spending.
You seem to like words that begin with “I”
Investigation
Impeachment
Incarceration
Impounding
The public discourse about not the STAYING THE COURSE is good.
Okay, you like words that begin with “I.” Here’s one!
The public discourse about the staying the INTERCOURSE sounds good, too.
Staying the course? No!
Staying the intercourse? Yes! Now, that’s a plan we can all back.
Bush is flubbing up his words, again. Can’t he get anything right? STAYING THE INTERCOURSE is the right course of action.
John
November 17th, 2006 at 3:17 pm#10. dlet and others. It was interesting. When I made the comment, the TP post headline was: Costs of war on terror… I was pretty quick with my post. Then I noticed that they changed the headline to the war in Iraq and Afganistan. It was a better way for TP to present the argument, but it doesn’t really change the my response. Afganistan is obviously part of the war on terror, and I believe that Iraq is a secondary front on the war on terror. We can debate endlessly the second point, but no one denies that Afganistan is a response to 9/11. Nice catch, TP.
November 17th, 2006 at 3:30 pmIs that inflation adjusted dollars or actual dollars?
After all I have paid more for my Ford Focus ZX3 than my dad did for his first house. So are we comparing apples to oranges with those numbers or are they adjusted for inflation to make the comparison relevant?
Just sayin’
November 17th, 2006 at 3:49 pmPaul,
November 17th, 2006 at 3:53 pmIraq has as much to do with the war on terror as Medicare has to do with children’s medicine.
WaltTheMan. Debating whether Iraq is a part of the war on terror with you is alot like Galileo arguing that the Earth revolves around the Sun with the Church.
November 17th, 2006 at 4:05 pmPaul,
November 17th, 2006 at 4:24 pmOf course, I’m on Galileo’s side- besides it was Copernicus who got into deep pooh on that one. Galileo was chastised for offering the opine that the Earth was not the center of the Universe, Saturn had rings and Jupiter had moons..
By the by, the total cost of WWII was 15.7 grand per capita, including veteran benefits. The total estimated cost of Iraq is $7 – 10 trillion when future costs and off-budget items are factored in. That works out to from 22 to 33 grand per capita. All numbers are in 1990 dollars.
Paul,
November 17th, 2006 at 4:43 pmHere is my link to war costs. I went to the NYTimes site for the Iraq war costs which excludes Afghanistan.
#17 Comment by goodscarrier
November 17th, 2006 at 5:49 pmAgreed.
When I start on a topic, I often get carried away and start ranting, so I try to be more terse – but you said it correctly.
The true reasons for entering Iraq were all political and monetary gain.
I listen to the comparasions with Vietnam with an open mind. But I did run across this about George Washington in a book on American Presidents written 40 years ago:
“Washington and his men spent the bitterly cold winter of 1777-78 at Valley Forge. Washington’s steadfastness to the American cause and his closeness to his troops held the army together, even while some of the leaders of Congress were wondering whether he should be replaced. ”
Although you can say it would be detrimental to stay the course in Iraq, image the consequences if the Congress had quit on Washington in 1778. Sometimes, it is simply a matter of will.
November 17th, 2006 at 8:37 pmpaul
Why continue spilling blood and treasure for a Islamic fundamentalist republic?
By all accounts, Al Dawa, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution of Iraq (sic!!), and Muqtada al-Sadr are pro-Hezbollah, pro-Iranian, pro-Islamic fundamentalism, anti-Western, anti-Israel.
During the twenty plus years prior to the deposing of Saddam Hussein, Al Dawa and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution of Iraq tried to depose Saddam Hussein and transform Iraq into a Shiite fundamentalist republic.
Al Dawa, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution of Iraq (sic!!), and Muqtada al-Sadr are not and never will be an ally of the USA.
Why should more oceans of blood and treasure be spilled for Al Dawa, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution of Iraq (sic!!), and Muqtada al-Sadr ?
SPIEGEL INTERVIEW WITH RICHARD HAASS
“Iraq Is Not Winnable”
What happens next in the Middle East? SPIEGEL spoke to Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, to find out. A widely respected foreign policy expert, Haass warns that the Middle East could become dangerous for years to come.
The New Middle East
Richard N. Haass
From Foreign Affairs, November/December 2006
Summary: The age of U.S. dominance in the Middle East has ended and a new era in the modern history of the region has begun. It will be shaped by new actors and new forces competing for influence, and to master it, Washington will have to rely more on diplomacy than on military might.
Iraq: Bush’s Islamic Republic
By Peter W. Galbraith
SCIRI and Dawa want Iraq to be an Islamic state. They propose to make Islam the principal source of law, which most immediately would affect the status of women. For Muslim women, religious law—rather than Iraq’s relatively progressive civil code—would govern personal status, including matters relating to marriage, divorce, property, and child custody. A Dawa draft for the Iraqi constitution would limit religious freedom for non-Muslims, and apparently deny such freedom altogether to peoples not “of the book,” such as the Yezidis (a significant minority in Kurdistan), Zoroastrians, and Bahais.
This program is not just theoretical. Since Saddam’s fall, Shiite religious parties have had de facto control over Iraq’s southern cities. There Iranian-style religious police enforce a conservative Islamic code, including dress codes and bans on alcohol and other non-Islamic behavior. In most cases, the religious authorities govern—and legislate—without authority from Baghdad, and certainly without any reference to the freedoms incorporated in Iraq’s American-written interim constitution—the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL).
The Iranian nightmare
November 17th, 2006 at 9:23 pmBy Michael Schwartz
Now, over two years after Baghdad fell and the American occupation of Iraq began, Kagan’s prediction appears to have been fulfilled – in reverse. The chief beneficiary of the occupation and the chaos it produced has not been the Bush administration, but Iran, the most populous and powerful member of the “axis of evil” and the chief American competitor for dominance in the oil-rich region. As diplomatic historian Gabriel Kolko commented, “By destroying a united Iraq under [Saddam] Hussein … the US removed the main barrier to Iran’s eventual triumph.”
#26, paul: Washington and his men spent the bitterly cold winter of 1777-78 at Valley Forge.
So Washington froze his ass off in Valley Forge.
What actual discomfort from the war in Iraq, or any other war for that matter, has Bush directly experienced?
Bad comparison.
You just pointed out what a puss Bush is in comparison to Washington.
ROTFLAMOL
November 17th, 2006 at 9:27 pmPaul,
November 17th, 2006 at 10:17 pmI can only hope that this nation will survive the administration of G W Bush. That’s the only will that matters.
#27. If it is such a bad idea to stick around in Iraq, why are Democrats backing away from the early withdrawl. Don’t take my word for it, listen to the Democratic leadership.
November 18th, 2006 at 8:39 am#27, paul
The US has suffered a horrible defeat in Iraq.
There is nothing that can be done.
The US simply failed to take into account the numerous factions of Shiite fundamentalists who were actively trying to depose Saddam Hussein during the twenty plus years prior to the invasion.
The Al Dawa, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution of Iraq, and Muqtada Al Sadr are now in charge.
The US needs to stop spilling of oceans of blood and treasure for the sake of the Al Dawa, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution of Iraq, and Muqtada Al Sadr.
November 18th, 2006 at 11:04 am