Cost of escalation may reach $40 billion.
By on Aug 1st, 2007 at 7:55 am
Cost of escalation may reach $40 billion.
According to testimony provided by Congressional Budget Office (CBO) during yesterday’s House Budget Committee Hearing on Iraq and Afghanistan Reconstruction, the cost of sustaining the President’s surge strategy in Iraq for two more years will reach $40 billion dollars:
DangerRoom notes that CBO predicted in Feburary that the surge would be “much more costly” than the administration’s estimated $5.6 billion.
Also during the hearing, the Pentagon promised to provide the committee with the estimated “costs of various redeployment timelines” within the next 30 days.
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
Bush
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
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
it’s important to keep in mind that, from the outset, this war was intended to be SUSTAINED… that flood of money that keeps pouring out of government (OUR) coffers is precisely what a war is supposed to produce, all directed, of course, to those who stand to profit from it… that’s the principal reason why the bush administration is constantly connecting it to the war on terror, an endless conflict initiated for the express purpose of keeping that money flowing…
And, yes, I DO take it personally
August 1st, 2007 at 8:08 amThe country’s future circles the bowl, ready for the courtesy flush that will send it down.
August 1st, 2007 at 8:09 am$40 billion to occupy a country but no money for health care. Is this a great country or what?
August 1st, 2007 at 8:15 amRepublicans lie automatically; they have to slow down and think in order to tell the truth, which is why they never do. A whole party full of traitors and America-haters.
August 1st, 2007 at 8:18 amO/T but as the previous thread is long enough…
The US troop casualty rate wasn’t supposed to be the major metric of “surge” success–in fact it was predicted to go up as they moved to “secure” sections of Baghad.
August 1st, 2007 at 8:21 amWhat WAS supposed to be the metric for success was a reduction in sectarian violence which has shown little relevant variation–so what we’ve got is a double failure; more US dead at a high rate for no result.
Go ahead and spend the money – we’ll print more!
August 1st, 2007 at 8:23 amJust wondering…is it treason to kill your country economically?
August 1st, 2007 at 8:27 amOT :
Constitutionally, the vice president serves as the Senate president, with the power to vote in the Senate to break a tie. But unless a tie is in the offing, vice presidents in recent times have rarely presided over the chamber and have instead taken on a larger policy role within the administration.
“I have a foot in both camps, if you will,” Cheney told CNN.
Oh, so Cheney will be serving consecitive life sentence at 2 internment camps…
August 1st, 2007 at 8:28 amShouldn’t the 20 billion for the Sunni/Saudi arms package be included as that’s part of the talks Condi/Gates are having with the Saudis, that so far, has not gotten any new promises of helping with securing Iraq?
Russia, meanwhile, is thinking of selling some 250 Su-30 two seat fighter jets to Iran and other equipment.
Crazy.
I understand the balance of power in the region to stabilize the ME, but isn’t this also helping to restart the cold war?
August 1st, 2007 at 8:32 amLenin was wrong. He said:
“Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we hang them”.
What he really meant was:
August 1st, 2007 at 8:34 am“Capitalists will borrow the money from us to buy the rope with which they hang themselves”.
Go ahead and spend the money – we’ll print more!
Comment by Marcus Arueliu
I wonder if it wouldn’t be easier to just make more computer chips and hard drives. After all that is basically what money is today. The paper is the new gold standard.
The word treehugger takes on a whole new dimension =)
Jes’ sayin’…
August 1st, 2007 at 8:34 am450 billion dollars so far to fund Iraq War.
Instead we could have paid for 59,358,769 children to attend Head Start.
Instead we could have insured 268,358,713 children to have healthcare for one year.
Instead, we could have hired 7,766,655 teachers for one year.
Instead, we could have built 4,035,256 additional housing units.
Instead, we could have provided 21,725,798 students four-year scholarships at public universities.
August 1st, 2007 at 8:36 am68 dead in Iraq: FUEL TANKER packed with explosives EXPLODES killing 50
August 1st, 2007 at 8:39 amWas the cost of O’Hanlon-Pollack report included ?
August 1st, 2007 at 8:55 amThis can’t be good:
BAGHDAD (AP) – Iraq’s largest Sunni Arab political bloc announced its withdrawal from the government Wednesday, undermining Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s efforts to seek reconciliation among the country’s rival factions.
Can we get our guys out of there now?
August 1st, 2007 at 8:55 amJust wondering…is it treason to kill your country economically?
Comment by Innocent Bystander — August 1, 2007 @ 8:27 am
I think that’s what Reagan did to the USSR. Bush likes to compare himself to Reagan so this must be part of his master plan to bring the US the same fate that Reagan brought to the USSR.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:00 amWWII was expensive too.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:00 amDear China,
How you hangin’? It’s sure hot here in Murka. It’s summer and there’s some brush I got me to clear.
Okay, yeah, erm, we need a bigger overdraft thingy. Damn eye-rackie surge costs money, wouldja believe it. Ungrateful Arabs won’t pay us out their oil money. Who do they think they are?
Sh*t, anyways, just write the check. You know I’m not good for another 40 billion, but I’m finished in 18 months and some other sucker will deal with the mortgage.
Thanks,
George :-)
**bows**
Ps. Dunno what this means, but Dick says leave Tie-one alone.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:02 am16 Ann… what will we become then, a kleptocracy? Or is that what we are now?
August 1st, 2007 at 9:02 am#17 WWII was expensive too.
Comment by Jake D. — August 1, 2007 @ 9:00 am
For the record, WWII lasted less than Iraq’s war, and two of the military superpotences of the time (Japan and Germany) were won.
Nowadays? Bush can’t win a war with a third world country of 22 million inhabitants, after a decade of economic blockade.
Hardly a success for all that money, isn’t?
August 1st, 2007 at 9:04 amI disagree, Evil Spaniard — if Bush would have spent the percentage of GNP on this war that FDR did in WWII, we would have been done in half the time.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:08 am“450 billion dollars so far to fund Iraq War.”
And lest we not forget, we borrowed this money. It is money that we will be paying back for generations to come. Unless we were to start taxing corporations at the same rate they were paying in the 1950’s in which case we could pay it back in a couple of years.
I really to fear the day that China starts calling in our debt. It will make the Great Depression look like nothing.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:08 am“#17 WWII was expensive too.
Comment by Jake D.”
Yes, but we paid for that war as we went, we did not go 400 billion dollars in debt to fight it. And, don’t forget that it was a shared sacrifice. Corporations pitched in and helped. And they didn’t profit from the war the way Corporations are profiting today. Harry Truman would be rolling over in his grave if he knew about the war profiteering that is going on with the Iraq fiasco.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:11 amAs I said, bilbobaggins, if Bush would have spent the percentage of GNP on this war that FDR did in WWII — and put every man, woman, corporation, and child on a wartime footing, we would have been done in half the time and probably had 10 times the casualties and more 9/11-type attacks here at home. I like Bush’s alternative better.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:18 amI think that’s what Reagan did to the USSR.
Comment by ann
That lie is amazingly used here and there. Reagan sealed the fate of 400 millions of Russians that won WWII? Yeah, right. Reagan was a bad actor, nothing more. The CCCP fell because its bureaucreacy and corruption of the elite class were overwhelming.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:21 amThis expensive war has been designed to be one that Americans don’t feel in their pocketbooks. Unprecedented tax cuts. Funded by borrowing. Eventually, our children and grandchildren will be paying the debt that righties will have burdened them with. And then there’s the cost of rebuilding the military and caring for wounded veterans, easily into the trillions.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:30 amYou do a grave disservice to the men and women who fought in that conflict by equating it to this fiasco. Sir, you are a cad and a scoundrel.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:33 amThat’s right, Candyce — what a great country and economy we have — never before has a war been fought so easily (economically speaking). Of course, every American casualty is a tragedy beyond dollars and cents — see thread below — those who gave the ultimate sacrifice deserve our unending honor and gratitude. The last thing we should do is surrender.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:34 am#17 WWII was expensive too.
Comment by Jake D. — August 1, 2007 @ 9:00 am
This is a false comparison. If you try to rebutt it factually, you’re legitimizing it. IGNORE!!! IGNORE!!!
August 1st, 2007 at 9:35 amdont forget the Bush Blackwater republican Guard get 40 cents in every Dollar
August 1st, 2007 at 9:35 amThe last thing we should do is surrender.
Comment by Jake D. — August 1, 2007 @ 9:34 am
Another meaningless, dishonest statement.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:35 amMarcus:
Considering Hilter never got a nuke, in that way at least, the war on terrorism is MUCH MORE serious. Since I FOUGHT in Korea, I think I know what I’m talking about.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:36 amIf you can answer this question, I’ll support your position: Surrender what to whom?
August 1st, 2007 at 9:36 amConsidering Hilter never got a nuke, in that way at least, the war on terrorism is MUCH MORE serious. Since I FOUGHT in Korea, I think I know what I’m talking about.
Comment by Jake D. — August 1, 2007 @ 9:36 am
Meaningless statement.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:37 amWhy don’t you confine your arguments to 1950s Korea, then? You may or may not have fought in Korea, but you certainly don’t know what you’re talikng about.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:38 amNorth Korea got nukes – how’d that happen, and why are we not there now? Since you are a Korea/America geopolitics expert, maybe you can provide some analysis and a recommended course of action to remedy this situation.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:43 amExactly my point, Jake. As long as you don’t feel the pain or have to sacrifice anything for this “war” then everything is splendid. Would you still support the occupation if it meant we funded it with pay as you go? Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is, literally?
You are trying to compare the cost and funding of this fiasco with WWII and the Korean War, and that’s a false comparison, quite frankly.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:51 amYou are trying to compare the cost and funding of this fiasco with WWII and the Korean War, and that’s a false comparison, quite frankly.
Comment by Candyce — August 1, 2007 @ 9:51 am
Yep, when you’re right, you’re right, and Candyce, you’re right!
August 1st, 2007 at 9:55 amJake D did not fight in Korea. He made $hit up, was caught name jacking, got defensive about his mythical service, and then cut and pasted a true American Hero’s biography.
Because I’m a permanent member of his ludicrous Ignore List, he will not address me, but for those newbies out here that haven’t the joy of being on said list yet, I thought that info would be useful.
Jake’s here to derail, not discuss, and when cornered with facts, will simply ignore and change posting names
August 1st, 2007 at 9:57 amThat’s right, Candyce — what a great country and economy we have — never before has a war been fought so easily (economically speaking). Of course, every American casualty is a tragedy beyond dollars and cents — see thread below — those who gave the ultimate sacrifice deserve our unending honor and gratitude. The last thing we should do is surrender.
Comment by Jake D. — August 1, 2007 @ 9:34 am
All LIES
1> Poverty is on the increase
2> Wages are down.
3> 4.* % unemployment does not count those no longer able to collect.
4> Personal savings are down
5> Foreclosures are on the increase
6> National crime rate is on the increase (which always happens when people get poorer)
I’ll leave it up to you to debunk all of these with factual links from reliable sources.
August 1st, 2007 at 10:04 amTP, I would like to know how they figure these costs, because I think we’re getting hosed. If it is $40 Billion to sustain 30-40,000 troops for an additional 24 months, that equals $20 Billion/yr, which equals $500,000 per soldier. How can it possibly costs $500,000 per soldier per year?
August 1st, 2007 at 10:10 am#17 Jake D.
” WW II was expensive too”
———————————-
World war II started by two superpowers at the time,Germany and Japan.
Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941 to take over the Pacific,and Germany was already in control of most Europe.
Germany and Japan then were superpowers.
Germany had the best army,navy and airforce of its time.
Japan was the dominant power in the Pacific.
We and the rest of the world had to fight this war,after England,Russia,USA,France were all attacked,besides most of European and Eastern Asian countries
How can you compare WWII to Iraq,which was under sanctions by all countries for over 12 years (as a result of UN Security resolutions imposed on Iraq);
have no airforce,no navy,no modern army.
Item Iraq imported were subjected to approval by the UN.
Even Iraqis had no control over their oil revenues.
It was controlled by an escrew account run by the UN[Oil For Food Program]
We controlled the Iraqi skies for years over Iraq.
Iraq also has nothing to do with 9/11.
So how can you compare this to WWII?
August 1st, 2007 at 10:46 amDRxJ ~ Thanks for pointing out that Jake the Fake has zero cred.
August 1st, 2007 at 10:53 amDon’t let them keep splitting the statistics. That $40 bill is only for the increase due to the surge. That is on top of expenditure 1 which is on top of expenditure 2 on top of…….
Remember, the GAO report concluded that it couldn’t conclusively determine a figure for the total War on Terror and / or Iraq War
August 1st, 2007 at 11:28 amSo far “Operation Punt Bush’s Mess” has been a huge success and is worth every penny.
August 1st, 2007 at 11:41 amThis can’t be good:
BAGHDAD (AP) – Iraq’s largest Sunni Arab political bloc announced its withdrawal from the government Wednesday, undermining Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s efforts to seek reconciliation among the country’s rival factions.
Can we get our guys out of there now?
Comment by Menehune — August 1, 2007 @ 8:55 am
—————————————————————————
Actually, that IS a good sign.
Why would the US leave when the reconciliation process had flushed out members of separatist factions in the Iraqi govt.?
It sounds to me like the anti-reconciliation agenda some Iraqi officials has been exposed, so I say “Good riddance!!!”
August 1st, 2007 at 11:42 amIt sounds to me like the anti-reconciliation agenda some Iraqi officials has been exposed, so I say “Good riddance!!!â€
Yeah, good riddance to the “democratic experiment” that was the Iraqi government. Why can’t they pass laws? Because they can’t get enough consensus, and this is the reason why.
August 1st, 2007 at 11:49 am“It sounds to me like the anti-reconciliation agenda some Iraqi officials has been exposed, so I say ‘Good riddance!!!’”
Comment by Philonous
And the oil facilities these disgruntled Sunnis will turn their wrath to will just turn on their terrorist deflector shields?
August 1st, 2007 at 11:50 amHow much will Mr. B. Hussein Obama’s war with Pakistan cost? How many lives?
ROTFL, ROTFL
August 1st, 2007 at 12:45 pmI really to fear the day that China starts calling in our debt. It will make the Great Depression look like nothing.
Comment by bilbobaggins — August 1, 2007 @ 9:08 am
I wonder if that could be the reason we’re reluctant to interfere much in Sudan.
And makes me wonder how much we’ll actually get involved with Iran. Do you think China would lend us money to bomb a country they’re signing oil deals with?
August 1st, 2007 at 1:47 pmHow much will Mr. B. Hussein Obama’s war with Pakistan cost? How many lives?
ROTFL, ROTFL
Comment by Happy & Stoned Guy — August 1, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
You really don’t offer much for debate, do ya?
Ya know, cannibis used in excess can affect one’s memory.
Pick yourself up, sir, and step away from the bong!
August 1st, 2007 at 1:49 pmHow much will Mr. B. Hussein Obama’s war with Pakistan cost? How many lives?
ROTFL, ROTFL
Comment by Happy Guy — August 1, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
Awwww, Happy Guy is smitten with Barack Obama. Instead of using his first name (which means “blessing”) he’s using his middle name Hussein (which means “little beauty”).
When will we see the YouTube music video starring you and your little crush?
August 1st, 2007 at 1:52 pmFYI, Your figures don’t add up across the top row–I think it should be 11 vice 10 billion, but what’s a billion when the Pentagon can’t account for 19 billion?
August 1st, 2007 at 3:21 pm“How much will Mr. B. Hussein Obama’s war with Pakistan cost? How many lives?”
Scared?
August 1st, 2007 at 9:12 pmAt least you are thinking Pakistan…a REAL supporter of terrorists. Now, turn your sights west to Saudi Arabia. What do you think of them?
August 1st, 2007 at 9:26 pmDon’t worry! The Republicans will just continue to tax-cut and spend.
The new national debt limit will be raised to 9.85 trillion and they’ll cut useless entitlement programs like social security or medicare to pay for the boost to the military industrial complex (you know, all those Bush/Cheney – favored businesses with no-bid contracts, no oversight and only a slim majority of gutless Democrats to correct) and the 70 plus billion in military aid to Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the Gulf States.
Spend, spend, spend, spend they call it Republican fiscal conservatism, don’t they!
August 1st, 2007 at 9:44 pmDoc, it isn’t cut and spend. It is borrow and spend. China is happy.
August 1st, 2007 at 10:20 pmWe should send the Bushnik bastards to a hotel in Baghdad.
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:30 amWhen will the Bushniks pay for this?
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:33 amThe taxpayers are paying for the LIES! Cut domestic programs to pay for the War! What a shame the BUSH Administration has created!
WE’RE FED UP! PATIENCE HAS RUN OUT!
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:38 pmI would like you all to know that because of Bush’s fiasco in Iraq and his turning a blind eye to Afghanistan and Pakistan,Pakistan has been overwhelmed by the Taliban and al-qaida and is on the verge of civil war according to reports out of that country.The real scary part is that Pakistan has roughly 50 nuclear warheads.Now if that isn’t a case of us being a lot less safe with fuerer Bush in office i don’t know what is.And to you folks{jake d} and the rest of the bush cheerleading section,if you make less than $250,000.00 a year you simply are not invited to the party no matter which way you vote.Every time you vote for these guys just go to your kitchen drawer and pull out a knife and stab yourself in the back with it hard and repeatedly because thats about what you’re doing anyway.Wake up you dunderheads.BTW i’m not left or right just a concerned american watching his beloved country overun by a bunch of old buffons with to much money and no brains.
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:45 pm