Iraq war 'will cost each US family $3,415'

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#1
Iraq war 'will cost each US family $3,415'

Julian Borger in Washington
Friday June 25, 2004
The Guardian

The United States has spent more than $126bn on the war in Iraq, which will ultimately cost every American family an estimated $3,415, according to a new report by two thinktanks.

The report, published yesterday by the leftwing Institute for Policy Studies and Foreign Policy in Focus also counts the human costs.

As of June 16, before yesterday's nationwide attacks, up to 11,317 Iraqi civilians and 6,370 Iraqi soldiers or insurgents had been killed, according to the report, which is titled Paying the Price: The Mounting Costs of the Iraq War.

The death toll among coalition troops was 952 by the same date, of which 853 were American. Some 694, were killed after George Bush declared the end of major combat operations on May 1 last year. Between 50 and 90 civilian contractors and missionaries and 30 journalists have also been killed, the report says.


In a separate USA Today/ CNN/Gallup Poll released last night, for the first time a majority of Americans said the US-led invasion of Iraq was a mistake. In all, 54% of those polled said the move was a mistake, compared to 41% three weeks ago.

"We are paying this enormously high price for failure," Phyllis Bennis, the report's lead author, said yesterday. "It's not as if we are becoming more safe. It's not as if we are bringing peace to Iraq or democracy to the Middle East."

There was no immediate re sponse to the report from the White House yesterday, but the administration has insisted it will stay in Iraq until it has brought peace and stability in the country.

It was reported yesterday that the US central command had put 25,000 more troops on standby in anticipation of an upsurge in attacks after the formal transfer of sovereignty to a caretaker administration next Wednesday.

Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defence secretary, said he could not confirm the figures in volved, but the US military "definitely has plans to deal with whatever may confront us". He denied US forces were facing an insurgency in Iraq. "An insurgency implies something that rose up afterwards ... It is a continuation of the war by people who never quit," he told NBC television.

"We know the enemy, which is a mixture of al-Qaida-type terrorists like [Abu Musab al] Zarqawi and the killers of Saddam's regime, who have basically made an alliance with each other, are going to target this next six-month period to create as much chaos ... as they can." However, he added: "The longer-term goal is to get Iraqis in the frontlines."

On top of the $126.1bn war spending approved by US Congress to date, another $25bn is likely to be spent by the end of this year.

The report predicted the war will ultimately cost each US household $3,415; its annual costs would be enough to provide healthcare for more than half of the 43 million US citizens who lack medical insur ance. Danielle Pletka, an analyst at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, rejected such budget comparisons as intellectually dishonest. "That's not the way budgets work," she said. "I don't think healthcare has been robbed to pay for Iraq."

Paying the Price quotes a University of Texas economist, James Galbraith, as predicting that although the expenditure would initially boost the economy, long-term problems were likely, including an expanded trade deficit and high infla tion, with the spike in oil prices adding to the downward drag on the US economy.

However, Mr Wolfowitz predicted Iraqi oil would begin to flow at faster rates and help offset the cost of the reconstruction of Iraq. "There's been $20bn of Iraqi money that's almost never mentioned. Ten billion of it was leftover [UN] oil-for-food money. Ten billion is brand-new oil revenues. There's another $8bn that's projected, if the killers don't destroy the pipelines, by the end of this year," he said.
 
Dec 18, 2002
3,928
5
0
38
#5
I want to ask tadou and hatch if they think the war was a good move and why?

Oil companies (all affiliated with the president and his cabinet) have been contracted to take oil out of Iraq, the president never mentioned that were at war because of oil, he said something about "were in grave danger and must act now" and "saddam has ties to al quaeda" . . .and something like "WE MUST STOP THESE TERRORIST KILLERS...NOW WATCH THIS DRIVE *Whack*"
 
Dec 18, 2002
3,928
5
0
38
#7
Couldnt fight my own battles? Who did i have fight what? Running away? You can say what you want but when the internet gets shut off and im broke the last thing im worried about in life is this kid from aberdeen makin a battle rap against me, so i apologize for not jumpin on a computer at a local library to come explain my situation to somebody i could give a fuck about.

all that aside

and whats with the backlash? I wanted your opinion on the matter and you come at me like this? Why are you SO sensitive? I agree with you to the fullest -- THE ECONOMY/MONEY/OIL doesnt make the world go round, but Halliburton (sp) and Bush co. are making BILLIONS from this war and the pipeline theyre making from the caspian sea all the way to Iraq. My only problem with the war is that so many innocent mothers, babies, fathers, sisters, mothers, aunts, etc. are being SLAUGHTERED everyday because of our involvement in a country that did NOT provoke us. Im so patriotic that it angers me that my country did this and the president is getting away with blood for oil money, how can you say this is a justified struggle?
 
May 8, 2002
4,729
0
0
48
#10
KrypticFlowz said:
I want to ask hatch if they think the war was a good move and why?
yes it was a good move. and i will give you one answer and that alone is more that sufficient. SADAM HUUSEIN is no longer in power.

KrypticFlowz said:
Oil companies (all affiliated with the president and his cabinet) have been contracted to take oil out of Iraq
those same oil companies were contracted to do all the work under Bush 41 and under Clinton as well. so what is your point?? they are one of a handful of companies that have the capability of doing the job. and probly if i am not mistaken the only american company capable.

KrypticFlowz said:
the president never mentioned that were at war because of oil
thats because we arent.

KrypticFlowz said:
he said something about "were in grave danger and must act now" and "saddam has ties to al quaeda" . . ."
Sadam DID have ties to Al-Qaeda.