OT - War-Related Costs Approaching Half a Trillion Dollars

[NoMyths]

Link: AP: Army Equipment Costs Triple

Full Text:
AP: Army Equipment Costs Triple

WASHINGTON (AP) - The annual cost of replacing, repairing and upgrading Army equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan is expected to more than triple next year to more than $17 billion, according to Army documents obtained by the Associated Press.

From 2002 to 2006, the Army spent an average of $4 billion a year in annual equipment costs. But as the war takes a harder toll on the military, that number is projected to balloon to more than $12 billion for the federal budget year that starts next Oct. 1, the documents show.

The $17 billion also includes an additional $5 billion in equipment expenses that the Army requested in previous years but has not yet been provided.

The latest costs include the transfer of more than 1,200 2 1/2-ton trucks, nearly 1,100 Humvees and $8.8 million in other equipment from the U.S. Army to the Iraqi security forces.

Army and Marine Corps leaders are expected to testify before Congress Tuesday and outline the growing costs of the war — with estimates that it will cost between $12 billion and $13 billion a year for equipment repairs, upgrades and replacements from now on.

The Marine Corps has said in recent testimony before Congress that it would need nearly $12 billion to replace and repair all the equipment worn out or lost to combat in the past four years. So far, the Marines have received $1.6 billion toward those costs to replace and repair the equipment.

According to the Army, the $17 billion includes:

* $2.1 billion in equipment that must be replaced because of battle losses.
* About $6.5 billion for repairs.
* About $8.4 billion to rebuild or upgrade equipment.

One of the growing costs is the replacement of Humvees, which are wearing out more quickly because of the added armor they are carrying to protect soldiers from roadside bombs. The added weight is causing them to wear out faster, decreasing the life of the vehicles.

Congress has provided about $21 billion for equipment costs in emergency supplemental budget bills from 2002-06. All the war equipment expenses have been funded through those emergency bills, and not in the regular fiscal-year budgets.

Pentagon officials have estimated that such emergency bills would have to continue two years beyond the time the U.S. pulls out of Iraq in order to fully replace, repair and rebuild all of the needed equipment.

The push for additional equipment funding comes after the House last week passed a $427 billion defense spending bill for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, which includes $50 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. A separate $66 billion emergency funding bill for the two wars was approved earlier in the month.

War-related costs since 2001 are approaching half a trillion dollars.

[Franklinnoble]

First they bitch about underequipped soldiers. Now they bitch about the price tag.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

First they bitch about underequipped soldiers. Now they bitch about the price tag.

The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. You can say "Don't send people you aren't going to equip" and also say "We're spending too much and not getting enough tangible benefit for our expenditures" without being hypocritical.

If you're going to do the job, do it right. But don't go knocking out walls if you can't afford to finish remodeling.

[sachmo71]

That's a lotta scrilla.


Did i use that right?

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

First they bitch about underequipped soldiers. Now they bitch about the price tag.

Point out the bitching in my post and you'll win a kewpie doll.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Wasn't the oil supposed to pay for all this?

[NoMyths]

dola...

Here's a NY Times article from 2003 discussing the administration's $50-60 billion estimate for the cost of the war.

Link: NYT: White House Cuts Estimate of Cost of War With Iraq

Full Text:
NYT: White House Cuts Estimate of Cost of War With Iraq
By Elisabeth Bumiller

WASHINGTON, Dec. 30 (New York Times) — The administration's top budget official estimated today that the cost of a war with Iraq could be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion, a figure that is well below earlier estimates from White House officials.

In a telephone interview today, the official, Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., director of the Office of Management and Budget, also said there was likely to be a deficit in the fiscal 2004 budget, though he declined to specify how large it would be. The administration is scheduled to present its budget to Congress on Feb. 3.

Mr. Daniels would not provide specific costs for either a long or a short military campaign against Saddam Hussein. But he said that the administration was budgeting for both, and that earlier estimates of $100 billion to $200 billion in Iraq war costs by Lawrence B. Lindsey, Mr. Bush's former chief economic adviser, were too high.

Mr. Daniels cautioned that his budget projections did not mean a war with Iraq was imminent, and that it was impossible to know what any military campaign against Iraq would ultimately cost.

"This is nothing more than prudent contingency planning," Mr. Daniels said from his home in Indianapolis, where he was reviewing the fiscal 2004 budget at his kitchen table. "At this point there is no war."

Mr. Daniels's projections place the cost of an Iraq war in line with that of the 1991 Persian Gulf war, which cost more than $60 billion, or about $80 billion in current dollars. But the United States paid for only a small part of that conflict, with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Japan bearing the brunt of the costs.

This time, the gulf nations are less supportive of the United States and, diplomats say, Americans are likely to bear most of the cost of a war with Iraq.

Mr. Daniels declined to explain how budget officials had reached the $50 billion to $60 billion range for war costs, or why it was less in current dollars than the 43-day gulf war in 1991. He also declined to specify how much had been budgeted for munitions and troops.

"All of these are major costs," he said.

The driving expense for the military in any war would be the size of the American force and the length of the conflict. In the 1991 war, 550,000 American troops were based in Saudi Arabia, which picked up the cost of virtually all housing, fuel and food.

If President Bush orders an attack against Iraq, the American force would be half the size of that in the 1991 war. The Pentagon's war plans call for deploying as many as 250,000 military personnel, but the initial offensive should start with a much smaller number, with a sizable force in reserve.

The budget director's projections today served as a more politically palatable corrective to figures put forth by Mr. Lindsey in September, when he said that a war with Iraq might amount to 1 percent to 2 percent of the national gross domestic product, or $100 billion to $200 billion. Mr. Lindsey added that as a one-time cost for one year, the expenditure would be "nothing."

Mr. Lindsey was criticized inside and outside the administration for putting forth such a large number, which helped pave the way for his ouster earlier this month. He could not be reached for comment this evening. (Congressional Democrats have estimated that the cost would be $93 billion, not including the cost of peacekeeping and rebuilding efforts after a war.)

But today, Mr. Daniels sought to play down his former colleague's remarks. "That wasn't a budget estimate," he said. "It was more of a historical benchmark than any analysis of what a conflict today might entail."

Pentagon officials say the cost of munitions in a potential war with Iraq will not be materially more than the cost of munitions in the 1991 gulf war. The reason, they say, is that the military now uses more precision-guided bombs, which are far more accurate, so fewer are needed.

In 1991, about 10 percent of bombs and munitions were precision guided. In the conflict in Afghanistan, the share of precision weapons rose to about 60 percent.

Although precision-guided bombs cost more than conventional munitions, they are not always exorbitantly more expensive, at least by Pentagon standards. Many of the "smart" bombs used in Afghanistan, for example, were simply 2,000-pound unguided bombs with a $20,000 mechanism attached to the bomb's tail that allowed it to be steered to a target by satellite.

The major costs of an Iraq war, Pentagon officials say, will be those for dispatching tens of thousands of military personnel overseas, feeding and sheltering them, and maintaining equipment deployed to the gulf.

Mr. Daniels said that Mr. Bush had been kept apprised of the budget projections for a war with Iraq and that all preparations were still in the realm of the theoretical. "At this point," he said, "our position is that the president has made no decision."

The cost of any war with Iraq would not be part of the budget for the 2004 fiscal year that Mr. Daniels is reviewing. Rather, the money would have to be appropriated as emergency spending by Congress. The cost of a war would also not be part of a record $355 billion military spending measure approved by Congress this year.

Mr. Daniels declined to specify the amount of a likely deficit for fiscal 2004, but he described the tax cuts scheduled to take place that year as only a "minor factor" in the red ink. Critics of the administration's tax cut acknowledge that the costs of the tax cuts will grow to large numbers only in 2006.

He laid blame for the deficit on the sluggish economy and the slump on Wall Street and said there would be deficits without the administration's tax cuts. After four years of surpluses, the Bush administration announced a deficit of $159 billion for the fiscal year that ended on Sept. 30. It has projected a $109 billion deficit for the current fiscal year.

Mr. Daniels said today that the budget for the 2004 fiscal year is one of "moderate growth" and that he was not projecting any immediate return to a balanced budget.

"Last year was a year when we presented a lot of new spending," he said. "This year we've said we'll be looking at much lower growth. The big reasons for that are the flatness in revenue and the return of deficits, as well as the uncertainty in the potential expansion of the war on terror."

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Point out the bitching in my post and you'll win a kewpie doll.

I wasn't trying to imply that you were doing any bitching. I was just pre-empting the impending bitching.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

First they bitch about underequipped soldiers. Now they bitch about the price tag.

Wouldn't need to bitch if the idiotic decision to go in the first place hadn't been made.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Ah yes. Here it is!

"There's a lot of money to pay for this. It doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money. We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." -- Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Atlantic Monthly, March 27, 2003

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

I wasn't trying to imply that you were doing any bitching. I was just pre-empting the impending bitching.

So you were the one bitching, correct?

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by KWhit

So you were the one bitching, correct?

*gives KWhit a kewpie doll*

[duckman]

The fact is that many Americans will not give a crap about the cost of the war because of the wasteful pork spending we've seen in Congress. To them, they see the pork a bigger waste than the cost it takes to fund a war operation.

[Deattribution]

Originally Posted by duckman

The fact is that many Americans will not give a crap about the cost of the war because of the wasteful pork spending we've seen in Congress. To them, they see the pork a bigger waste than the cost it takes to fund a war operation.

Ding ding... winnah.

I'd rather see a approriately funded, or even overly funded military than the Congressman John Doe Asshole memorial bridge to a rural island with 2 people on it for 5 billion.

[MikeVic]

That is a lot of money. Can I get just, like, .01% of that amount and try to mediate this thing? .01% isn't much in addition to this, but it'll make me very happy....

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by duckman

The fact is that many Americans will not give a crap about the cost of the war because of the wasteful pork spending we've seen in Congress. To them, they see the pork a bigger waste than the cost it takes to fund a war operation.

Yeah, until you try to touch the pork that their district gets. Then you are stealing money that is owed to them .

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Ah yes. Here it is!

"There's a lot of money to pay for this. It doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money. We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." -- Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Atlantic Monthly, March 27, 2003

Now you know why he used the qualifier "relatively".

[AgustusM]

they buy something from company XYZ

then XYZ pays its employees and those employees are taxed

those employees buy stuff - and pay more taxes

then XYZ pays company LMNOP for materials and pays tax on that

then LMNOP pays it employees and so on and so on.

large government expense pumps money into the economy AND gets money back in tax revenue.

war is good for the economy always has been, always will be.

not taking a stand right or wrong about the war the reasons and all that - it is just I think it is important to remember that just because the government spends money doesn't automatically = bad.

[Dutch]

So now the left is suggesting we steal their oil? Politics are confusing!

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by AgustusM

they buy something from company XYZ

then XYZ pays its employees and those employees are taxed

those employees buy stuff - and pay more taxes

then XYZ pays company LMNOP for materials and pays tax on that

then LMNOP pays it employees and so on and so on.

large government expense pumps money into the economy AND gets money back in tax revenue.

war is good for the economy always has been, always will be.

not taking a stand right or wrong about the war the reasons and all that - it is just I think it is important to remember that just because the government spends money doesn't automatically = bad.

AgustusM=GeorgeOrwell?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Dutch

So now the left is suggesting we steal their oil? Politics are confusing!

Wolfowitz is a liberal? That's news to me.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

So now the left is suggesting we steal their oil? Politics are confusing!

We did? Where was that?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by AgustusM

they buy something from company XYZ

then XYZ pays its employees and those employees are taxed

those employees buy stuff - and pay more taxes

then XYZ pays company LMNOP for materials and pays tax on that

then LMNOP pays it employees and so on and so on.

large government expense pumps money into the economy AND gets money back in tax revenue.

war is good for the economy always has been, always will be.

not taking a stand right or wrong about the war the reasons and all that - it is just I think it is important to remember that just because the government spends money doesn't automatically = bad.

I'm just going to take a wild guess that you're not an economist.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

dola...

Here's a NY Times article from 2003 discussing the administration's $50-60 billion estimate for the cost of the war.

Right in line accuracy-wise with most of the other predictions the administration has made since launching the war.

[Daimyo]

Originally Posted by Dutch

So now the left is suggesting we steal their oil? Politics are confusing!

How about we just keep spending money and cutting taxes and just keep interest rates artifically low and let the already inflated housing market keep driving the economy. That has to at least get us through 2008 and then if a Dem is in charge they can be blamed for the subsequent collapse. Win-win!

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by clintl

Right in line accuracy-wise with most of the other predictions the administration has made since launching the war.

Hey now, substituting "flowers" for "IEDs" was an honest mistake!

[AgustusM]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I'm just going to take a wild guess that you're not an economist.

no but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night AND broke a window with a rock while I was reading this.

[Flasch186]

i concur in not knowing that Wolfowitz was a liberal, hmmm...if that's true, than I concur with duckman that Politics is confusing especially when the conservatives are actually the liberals and vice-versa.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

How about we just keep spending money and cutting taxes and just keep interest rates artifically low and let the already inflated housing market keep driving the economy. That has to at least get us through 2008 and then if a Dem is in charge they can be blamed for the subsequent collapse. Win-win!

Are you suggesting that would be a new strategy or just one that will suddenly become popular then for the media to actually push?

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

i concur in not knowing that Wolfowitz was a liberal, hmmm...if that's true, than I concur with duckman that Politics is confusing especially when the conservatives are actually the liberals and vice-versa.

Actually, I was saying that about both sides of the aisle, but thanks for not paying attention!

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

We did? Where was that?

I keep forgetting your mantra of "Blood for Oil" was not based on reality. My apologies. You accused the US of killing Americans for Oil. But when we didn't actually take the oil, now you are mad at us because we didn't take it. Win-Win! Politically speaking.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by duckman

Actually, I was saying that about both sides of the aisle, but thanks for not paying attention!

oh, im sorry when you said "left" I thought you meant left of the aisle. sorry.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by AgustusM

they buy something from company XYZ

then XYZ pays its employees and those employees are taxed

those employees buy stuff - and pay more taxes

then XYZ pays company LMNOP for materials and pays tax on that

then LMNOP pays it employees and so on and so on.

large government expense pumps money into the economy AND gets money back in tax revenue.

war is good for the economy always has been, always will be.

not taking a stand right or wrong about the war the reasons and all that - it is just I think it is important to remember that just because the government spends money doesn't automatically = bad.

Here is a few quotes from the immortal Sun Tzu. Apparently he does not agree with your concept of War is good for the economy.

1. Sun Tzu said: In the operations of war, where there are in the field a thousand swift chariots, as many heavy chariots, and a hundred thousand mail-clad soldiers
2. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength.
3. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain
4. Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.
5. There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.
6. It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on.
7. Poverty of the State exchequer causes an army to be maintained by contributions from a distance. Contributing to maintain an army at a distance causes the people to be impoverished.
8. On the other hand, the proximity of an army causes prices to go up; and high prices cause the people's substance to be drained away.
9. A wise general makes a point of foraging on the enemy. One cartload of the enemy's provisions is equivalent to twenty of one's own, and likewise a single PICUL of his provender is equivalent to twenty from one's own store.
10. In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.

To sum it up, going in was not a bad thing at all. In fact it was the right thing to do. We should have kicked azz more viciously, not worrying so much about who gets hurt, etc. It is war kill people fast and efficiently. If they oppose you, kill them. Take what you need to fuel your efforts and destroy opposition. Then get the hell out. If you want to setup a provincial government, then beat down any opposition with finality first.

War is brutal.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I keep forgetting your mantra of "Blood for Oil" was not based on reality. My apologies. You accused the US of killing Americans for Oil. But when we didn't actually take the oil, now you are mad at us because we didn't take it. Win-Win! Politically speaking.

i never bought the "stealing oil" stuff, wouldnt make sense. It would be easier for the companies to fleece the gov't in the situation, which some say did happen instead of the given excuse of "accounting issues". Anyways, I think Bush did think he was doing the right thing for the world at the time with input from his circle of trust.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

oh, im sorry when you said "left" I thought you meant left of the aisle. sorry.

I never said "left."

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by duckman

I never said "left."

YOU are absolutely right and I apologize. I attributed Dutch's post to you, the "Du" played tricks on my brain and Im sorry.

as such, Dutch confused me with saying that the left thought that when it was Wolfowitz and the right who thought it initially.

[AgustusM]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

Here is a few quotes from the immortal Sun Tzu. Apparently he does not agree with your concept of War is good for the economy.

Sun Tzu was alive in the 6th century BC - just a tad ahead of the invent of income taxes in around 1799. Which was my original point - money spent by the government, tends to make its way back because the people who earn it, tend to spend it and the government has convinced us all that earning and spending are both taxable offenses.

a better example to dispute my post would have been the Broken Window Theory - but even that theory is debated and doesn't account for the tax benefit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by AgustusM

Sun Tzu was alive in the 6th century BC - just a tad ahead of the invent of income taxes in around 1799.

a better example to dispute my post would have been the Broken Window Theory - but even that theory is debated and doesn't account for the tax benefit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory

You would be surprised at how relavent Sun Tzu's principles are today.

Just look at reality. America rightfully went to war with Iraq and the prolonged nature of the conflict is causing the leader to be out of harmony with his people, to use Sun Tzu's terminology.

[AgustusM]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

You would be surprised at how relavent Sun Tzu's principles are today.

Just look at reality. America rightfully went to war with Iraq and the prolonged nature of the conflict is causing the leader to be out of harmony with his people, to use Sun Tzu's terminology.

I am not going to debate Sun Tzu's relevancy in the modern era, I read "art of war" in college over twenty years ago and I remember next to nothing of it (but there was a great game based on it)

However I think you are missing my point. I am not debating the war, I think that is too complex an issue to explore on a internet board - but my point was that government spending on war has TAX implications, certainly something that Sun Tzu did NOT consider, the idea of capitalism in its earliest forms is a 16th century idea, income taxes 18th century- Sun Tzu could not in his wildest dreams fathom the modern economy.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by duckman

The fact is that many Americans will not give a crap about the cost of the war because of the wasteful pork spending we've seen in Congress. To them, they see the pork a bigger waste than the cost it takes to fund a war operation.

Duck, not taking a stance on the issue, the pork spending, while frustrating, is nowhere near the cost of the war (and this, if I recall, is a point made by an NR editor, or the Economist). Its a valid point that cuts can be made elsewhere, but this is the kind of data that one could reasonably argue whether that money could have been spent better at home. I think the actual number is less (some of the spending would have happened in any case - a certain amount of this was the "opportunity cost" ), but not that much less.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Duck, not taking a stance on the issue, the pork spending, while frustrating, is nowhere near the cost of the war (and this, if I recall, is a point made by an NR editor, or the Economist). Its a valid point that cuts can be made elsewhere, but this is the kind of data that one could reasonably argue whether that money could have been spent better at home. I think the actual number is less (some of the spending would have happened in any case - a certain amount of this was the "opportunity cost" ), but not that much less.

I agree with you that the cost of the war is much higher than the amount of pork being spent by our government. However, perception is reality. People are more likely to be upset about some highway being build in the middle of the desert leading to nowhere than the cost to equip our troops for battle.

Should we be spending our funds on this war? Personally, the more I think about the war the more I am against it. It has gotten us nowhere. We should have been using our resources (in limited numbers) helping the Afghans. But, I think we should use every means necessary to help supply our troops with up-to-date equipment. To me, I would rather spend it there than on that highway.

[Buccaneer]

I agree with you that the cost of the war is much higher than the amount of pork being spent by our government.

That's not true if you believe that budgetary and bureaucratic wastes are "pork". Perhaps not in the true definition of earmarks but is there really a difference than the hundreds of billions wasted by Congress on domestic programs/legislations and than the hundreds of billions wasted by the military?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I keep forgetting your mantra of "Blood for Oil" was not based on reality. My apologies. You accused the US of killing Americans for Oil. But when we didn't actually take the oil, now you are mad at us because we didn't take it. Win-Win! Politically speaking.

Who said anything about taking the oil? Read the Wolfowitz quote. It's quite clear that he states that Iraq would finance its own reconstruction with its own oil. That's what is meant by the "oil" supposively paying for all this.

Apparently there is plenty of oil in Iraq for everyone.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

That's not true if you believe that budgetary and bureaucratic wastes are "pork". Perhaps not in the true definition of earmarks but is there really a difference than the hundreds of billions wasted by Congress on domestic programs/legislations and than the hundreds of billions wasted by the military?

But if you could only choose one, which of the two evils would rather have? Personally, I take the billions "wasted" on the military.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by duckman

But if you could only choose one, which of the two evils would rather have? Personally, I take the billions wasted on the military.

This word "wasted," I do not think it means what you think it means.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

This word "wasted," I do not think it means what you think it means.

Better?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by duckman

But if you could only choose one, which of the two evils would rather have? Personally, I take the billions "wasted" on the military.

It's hard to separate, though. When you think of an expensive weapons program amounted to $20+b that 1) the Pentagon did not want, 2) the President did not want, 3) the DoD or any of our allies did not want but 4) a few Congresspersons still kept it in the budget and dared to have it removed, it becomes like a lot of Congressional spending.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Wasn't the oil supposed to pay for all this?

That was the plan where we go in and steal the oil. Somehow the administration lost that part of the plan. Well either that or they stored it with the rest of the plan.

Edit: Apparently I should read through a thread before responding several hours late. I too was referring to the fact that many on the left have held blood for Oil signs over their heads and anti-war rallies, and how that simply just doesn't ring "true". As for Wolfowitz's comment. That would be the reconstruction of Iraq he was talking about. The article is talking about what it has cost us to invade and secure Iraq to this point, not the reconstruction costs. For what it's worth, I agree with Wolfowitz. I think they should be using oil revenues to pay for the reconstruction. The administration was actually quite against that approach soon after the invasion, and sent Colin Powell all over the world to drum up money and loans for the new Iraqi government. The administration was against making the Iraqis pay for their own reconstruction with their oil revenues, because there would be more than enough for them to spend their money on moving forward. So while I agree with Wolfowitz, I think the admin made the right call on that issue.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

That was the plan where we go in and steal the oil. Somehow the administration lost that part of the plan. Well either that or they stored it with the rest of the plan.

Edit: Apparently I should read through a thread before responding several hours late. I too was referring to the fact that many on the left have held blood for Oil signs over their heads and anti-war rallies, and how that simply just doesn't ring "true". As for Wolfowitz's comment. That would be the reconstruction of Iraq he was talking about. The article is talking about what it has cost us to invade and secure Iraq to this point, not the reconstruction costs. For what it's worth, I agree with Wolfowitz. I think they should be using oil revenues to pay for the reconstruction. The administration was actually quite against that approach soon after the invasion, and sent Colin Powell all over the world to drum up money and loans for the new Iraqi government. The administration was against making the Iraqis pay for their own reconstruction with their oil revenues, because there would be more than enough for them to spend their money on moving forward. So while I agree with Wolfowitz, I think the admin made the right call on that issue.

So you are saying opponents of Wolfowitz skewed his comments? No way.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Dutch

So you are saying opponents of Wolfowitz skewed his comments? No way.

Are you telling me you want to defend Wolfowitz's pre-invasion statements? The neo-con agenda he so rabidly pushed has been pretty much refuted in it's entirety, so much so that the PNAC is disbanding.

I guess he was such a success in the State Department, that's why he was moved to the World Bank.