« Like Me, But Not Real | Main | The Lowest of the Low »

The Bill Comes Due

06 Feb 2007 09:13 am

One of the many scandals of the Iraq War has been the way in which its real budgetary cost has been obscured from the American people. Not only were we told boldfaced lies before the invasion, but ever since the invasion happened the White House has for years not only refused to budget for the war in advance, but requested supplemental appropriations that clearly weren't covering the actual cost. In particular, we've seen a lot of what you might call war-related capital depreciation as military equipment breaks at a much higher rate during an intense operation. Nevertheless, through almost four years of combat this was never really accounted for. And now the bill's coming due in the 2008 Pentagon budget request.

At this point, obviously, one can hardly avoid spending the money. The equipment has already been damaged, so it may as well get repaired. We're not, however, talking about a small sum of money. This is $37.6 billion, and had this slice of expense been counted up front you would have seen less support at the margin for incurring it in the first place. The other giant source of hidden cost -- which has remained hidden thus far -- is the expense of long-term care for all the wounded soldiers.

Share This

Comments (14)

It would be interesting to see a pie chart with the degree of political connection between the leaders of the Republican Party and the companies that manufacture and supply goods to the Pentagon. X dollars flowing to the companies. Y monies flowing back to the politicos pacs. Z number of shares owned by republicans. Z' number of retired GOP politicos on the boards of the companies. Do the Dems too. See the disparity. Thhink.

Military Industrial Complexe indeedy.

It's "bald-faced" lies.

Yes, it's "bald-faced". And it's an ugly example of "reverse beardism" if you ask me. I hate to see such prejudice creep into everyday language.

What "T" said. Lies come in the baldfaced variety, letters boldfaced.

It was an absolutely genious move by the neocons. If this were sports they'd be applauded for figuring out a competitive advantage, a way to slip around the rules. Clearly though this side step carries much more weight. In my mind it clarifies glaring holes in the system that need to be fixed. Obviously those in power should be held responsible but they didn't do anything illegal, per se, in order to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. They hid the cost of the war by mortgaging our country's future and by not stopping them we were all somewhat complicit in this act.

So how do we correct for this? I'm not sure we can besides making a more vigilant public. Any ideas as to how to fix the system so this could never happen again?

Remember how only a few years ago all the warmonger pseudo-Dems were saying our party needed to be the party of Truman again (even as they were labeling Trumanesque containment policies for our "war on terror" as tantamount to capitulation and calling Trumanesque political rhetoric "unhelpful", "overly partisan" and "inappropriately attacking the CiC in a time of war")? Well, IIRC my history classes, Truman gained prominance investigating war profiteering.

So indeed -- we do need to be the party of Truman: universal health care, containment rather than hot war and investigating war profiteering. So where's our Harry Truman?

Oh and BTW: what's with all these non-binding resolutions? Ya know how wimpy that sounds to the general public? If Dems. wanna be seen as strong enough to keep our country safe rather than as effetist-defeatists, we need to do better than non-binding resolutions. Of course, yanking the funding is a political no-go. But haven't they heard of the idea of attaching strings to money?

Congress should fund whatever GWB says is necessary for the troops (maybe even give more money when GWB plans to short-change the troops: and make a big deal out of doing so and the GWB short-changing) -- but they should put major strings on that money -- e.g. trap GWB and Dick-Dick into testifying under oath (they're guaranteed to lie, in which case we can impeach them), etc. And if Bush & CO balk at the strings, it's they (Bush & CO) who are not willing to fund their own war!

$37.6 billion is many times the original estimate of the total cost of the war, which was variously predicted to be "self-supporting" or cost in the neighborhood of $4 billion. Man, that was a long time ago.

Hmmmm . . . $37.6 billion . . . divided by the top million households (or around the top 1 percent) would average $37,600 per household.

That doesn't seem to high to me, especially since this is the slice that has made out best from the Bush tax give-aways. Hell, call it the "Patriot Tax" and people will be clammoring to pay it.

. . . doesn't seem TOO high to me.

Crimminy! Is there something about this site that generates typos?

The Washington Post breaks down the DOD budget this way: "The nearly $440 billion defense budget contains $110.8 billion for military personnel, including a modest 2.2 percent pay increase, as well as $84.2 billion for weapons systems and $73.2 billion for research and development."

The Post also notes that some of that $84.2 billion for weapons systems includes "$6.6 billion for the Army's program to expand and modernize its brigades for easier deployment, and $3.7 billion for the Army's next generation of vehicles...[and] $1.9 billion will go toward developing and purchasing new unmanned aerial vehicles." That leaves, let me see, $72 billion for weapons systems other than these, not to mention $73.2 of 'research' (which presumably contains such huge boondogles as 'Star Wars' in whatever version it continues in), where big cuts could take place.

And of course, the Democrats in Congress will be enthusiastic to cut boondoggle projects to big defense contractors, right?...Right???

The saddest aspect for me is that the democrats are going to rubber stamp further increases to the "defense" i.e. military/ industrial complex, budget. Just like they went along with the Iraq war authorization, they are scared silly of being attacked as weak. And, by the way, up to their elbows in the spoils that result from this unprincipled stance. Aside from the waste fraud and abuse, this build up will press all concerned to continue to use our military in neocolonial adventures. Use it or loose it.


'American troops would have to remain in Iraq for five or ten years. The United States probably would have to spend $5 billion to $10 billion on reconstructions over that same period of time, plus as much as another $10 billion to $20 billion to maintain a military presence in the country - perhaps more if our allies are unwilling to contribute to the effort.' (Kenneth Pollack, The Threatening Storm, p. 410)

I don't think anyone expected allies to contribute more than half the 'military presence', so 'more' would be at most another $20 billion. That makes $40 billion for the military effort, $50 billion max for the whole shebang.

As ben mentions above, the genius in this is that all the dirty anti-war hippies that get voted into office in the years following the Muslim Pacification Campaigns will be forced to pay the political price for having to actually pay down this war debt. Thus the seeds for the conservative anti-tax revolution in the future are being sown today. Talk about having your cake and eating it too!

The problem that the progressive types need to answer is how to ensure that the public memory does not forget just what ideology it was that caused this financial difficulty in the first place.


Comments closed February 20, 2007.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.