• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Cost of Iraq war could top $2 trillion: study

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Cost of Iraq war could top $2 trillion: study

    Cost of Iraq war could top $2 trillion: study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    HIGHER COSTS

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

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

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

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

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

    (Additional reporting by Charles Aldinger in Washington)
    ------------------------------------------------------------

    $2 trillion - surely that would have been enough to find cure from AIDS, cancer, baldness and impotence?!?!?!

    #2
    What a fecking collossal waste of life, money and time.

    All so the Iraqi people can vote in a puppet leader and US secure oil reserves for the next 20 years.....

    Comment


      #3
      Well, US GDP was $11,750,000,000,000 in 2004 alone so although it is a lot of money, spread over the 50 or so years the $2,000,000,000,000 figure has been calculated from, it's absolute peanuts.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Lucifer Box
        Well, US GDP was $11,750,000,000,000 in 2004 alone so although it is a lot of money, spread over the 50 or so years
        What 50 years? RTFA!

        The projection of a total cost of $2 trillion assumes U.S. troops stay in Iraq until 2010 but with steadily declining numbers each year.
        That's just 4 years away and I really can't see US pulling out much earlier.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by AtW
          What 50 years? RTFA!
          Iraq war could top $2 trillion, far above the White House's pre-war projections, when long-term costs such as lifetime health care for thousands of wounded U.S. soldiers are included
          Do read a bit more closely.

          Comment


            #6
            They said a portion of the rise in oil prices -- about 20 percent of the $25 a barrel gain in oil prices since the war began -- could be attributed directly to the conflict and that this had already cost the United States about $25 billion.

            Richly ironic I recall that several of the pro war folks on this board at the time gave keeping Oil prices low as one of the many reasons for justification for the conflict.

            Speaking of which I wonder how many of the pro war folks prior to the conflict still think it was all worthwhile ?
            Last edited by AlfredJPruffock; 10 January 2006, 14:49.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Lucifer Box
              Do read a bit more closely.
              Where do you see 50 years figure?

              Comment


                #8
                That is my estimate of how long "long-term costs such as lifetime health care for thousands of wounded U.S. soldiers" might be incurred for. I agree this is conservative given improvements in medical care and it might easily be 60, 70 or even 80 years.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Lucifer Box
                  That is my estimate of how long "long-term costs such as lifetime health care for thousands of wounded U.S. soldiers" might be incurred for. I agree this is conservative given improvements in medical care and it might easily be 60, 70 or even 80 years.
                  Do you think a 30-year old soldier with blown off limbs would require 50, or even 60 years of medical care?

                  Comment


                    #10
                    If he lived to 80, yes, and there's no reason why he wouldn't. Besides, most US grunts on the front line are in their late teens and early 20s.

                    If you have an issue that the major constituent of the total cost of $2 trillion is, as the article says, "long-term costs such as lifetime health care for thousands of wounded U.S. soldiers" and should only have included spend from the next five years, drop Jason Szep at Reuters a line. I'm sure he'll be happy to rewrite it as "cost of the Iraq war up until the end of 2010 will be about $350 billion."

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X