$280 Billion, Maybe More, Was It Really Worth It?

[SOB]

I just don't believe that invading Iraq has made the U.S. any more secure, and I don't think we've gained anything.  And while I do feel sympathy for the Iraqis who had to suffer under Saddam, I don't feel 1,110 American lives and $280 Billion dollars worth of sympathy.  We're not the keepers of the world, or at least we shouldn't be.  And where does it end?

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6617215

Bush Could Seek Up to $75 Billion in War Funding
Tue Oct 26, 2004 02:46 PM ET
By Adam Entous

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration, faced with a growing insurgency and record fuel costs, plans early next year to seek $60 billion to $75 billion in emergency funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, administration and congressional officials said on Tuesday.

The White House Office of Management and Budget said it was premature to discuss the size of the upcoming supplemental spending request, which would bring total U.S. funding for military operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan to as much as $280 billion.

Officials acknowledged that rising fuel costs could add billions of dollars to the price tag in Iraq. World oil prices have skyrocketed 70 percent since the start of the year, in part because of the turmoil in Iraq.

The White House said President Bush, if re-elected on Nov. 2, would submit the funding request to the U.S. Congress in late January or early February, following a full assessment of the Pentagon's needs in the coming months.

White House officials initially said Bush could seek $60 billion in new funding for military operations, though actual outlays may be closer to $50 billion. But officials said the final package could grow to closer to $75 billion, and possibly more, if the anti-American insurgency intensifies and the United States is forced to send additional troops to Iraq.

"It's too early to be discussing amounts, but the figures will sustain current operations overseas," said Pentagon spokeswoman Rose-Ann Lynch.

The Pentagon is considering delaying the departure of some troops in Iraq and speeding the arrival of others already due to deploy to boost force levels for the January elections, officials said.

UNDERSTATING COSTS?

Democratic critics accused Bush and his top advisers of understating the costs to bolster support for war.

Before the invasion, then-White House budget director Mitch Daniels predicted Iraq would be "an affordable endeavor," and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz assured Congress: "We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."

Yet so far, Congress has approved $120 billion for Iraq and another $60 billion for Afghanistan, according to White House estimates. On top of that, Congress has set up a $25 billion contingency fund for the Pentagon.

"This is the incredible price of going it almost alone in Iraq," Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said in Wisconsin. "How much more will the American people have to pay?"

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California blamed the administration's "poor planning," adding, "Incompetence has a cost."

Administration and congressional aides said the increase in funding comes in response in large part to the spreading insurgency in Iraq, where some doubt the security situation will allow voting across the country.

Under financial strain, the Pentagon said last month that it was already tapping into its $25 billion "contingency reserve" fund.

The Pentagon said $2.2 billion of the $25 billion fund was being used to ramp up production of armored Humvees and to buy body armor and bolster fuel supplies.

Another $5.2 billion from the reserve fund has been earmarked for the Army to cover its "cash flow" needs over the next three to four months.

So far, $966.3 million has been set aside for fuel costs, the Pentagon said. Rising fuel costs could add another $3 billion to next year's bill, sources said.

Officials said the size of next year's supplemental would depend on the Pentagon's needs, and how much of the $25 billion contingency fund can be applied to next year's spending needs. Congressional aides doubted much of that money would be left.

Administration officials said Bush would provide whatever money the Pentagon needs. "Like the $87 billion supplemental request for 2004, our 2005 request will be absolutely critical to supporting our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq," White House budget spokesman Chad Kolton said.

[Toad]

I'm guessing it ends maybe 5 years from now, with a slowly increasing drawdown to that point.

Was it worth it? Short term, probably not. Probably not in my lifetime.

Over 50 years? Maybe it will. Maybe.

All depends on whether or not this is the pebble that starts the avalanche of democracy in the middle east.

Of course, it could also start the shirtslide of Islamic extremism, too.

Enjoy.

[GtoRA2]

I imagine there were articals like this in 1946 and 47, and we are still in both Germany and Japan....


I am with Toad on this, only time will tell.

[Murdr]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but the true answer to that will only be decided by history.  As toad pointed out, it is a part of a larger long term objective.

[Nash]

This is a good link.

You can scroll to see what each state is paying.

[NUKE]

Short term, American is not any more secure due to the war in Iraq.

Was it worth it?

Well, I'd say it was necessary in light of what we understood at the time. I have never been upset that we have found no WMD. We did the only thing we could do given the intelligence and warnings we had received regarding Iraq. We had to take out Saddam and put  end to his game.

If we had not gone in, Saddam would still be playing games today would be making WMD again at some point.

Long term I believe it will be a watershed event in history, for the good.

I don't think the view now is going to seem as bad to people against the war, after a few years have passed.

[Otto]

Was it worth it ?  

    That's going to depend on whether trying to establish democracies in the Middle East reduces the attraction of Islamic Extremism and bring stability to the region and conversely threats to the Western World.  It too early to tell at this point.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by Toad

Of course, it could also start the shirtslide of Islamic extremism, too.

That's the part I fear the most.

[SOB]

Toad, if Iraq can actually maintain a democratic system of government after we pull out, then I could probably stomach the bill, but do you really think that'll be the case?  Honestly, I hope so, but I just don't believe it.  Either way, it's hard to justify the American lives lost, but I suppose there are very few things you can make a solid comparison of worth vs human lives.  WWII would probably be one of them, but I think any comparison of Iraq to Nazi Germany and what happened in WWII is, at the very least, a stretch.

[SaburoS]

What definition of democracy are we talking about? The USA version of what's right for the Iraqis? What if THEY want a Theocratic religious fundamentalist Islamic state? Democracy is different things to different people/cultures. Iraq has a 60% Shi'i population. Once they start truly free elections, guess what kind of gov't they're going to vote in?

[Eagler]

history will prove that it was worth it

$$'s will be paid back tenfold, it's the lives that can't be replaced, on all sides

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Nash
This is a good link.

You can scroll to see what each state is paying.

As of this posting, Wyoming has only paid 193 Million.  Cheney is from Wyoming...  coincidence? I didn't realize the conspiracy was this deep.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

The first election is actually going to be a faux election.

Who votes? Right now, it's all up in the air - but it also looks like not the entire country, and by the time election time over there rolls around it will be based on safe areas. Rationalize that however you wish, but it's still not a real election.

So in the mean time - it appears it could be a democracy. In the long run... well the worst could happen. If I were a betting man, that's where I'd put my money.

Was it worth it? The money I am displeased with being allocated to that, it could have gone to our debt. The lives, no it wasn't worth it. If a people aren't willing to fight for their own freedom, I don't believe their freedom is worth another people's blood.
-SW

[-MZ-]

Originally posted by GtoRA2
I imagine there were articals like this in 1946 and 47, and we are still in both Germany and Japan....
 

That was not a war of choice like Iraq.

[Torque]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
As of this posting, Wyoming has only paid 193 Million.  Cheney is from Wyoming...  coincidence? I didn't realize the conspiracy was this deep.

Homeland Security funds distributed to each state

Wyoming leads the pack, receiving $40.60 per person while New York ranks 35th in 2004 funding at $10.03 per person.

coincidence?