2007 April 30 Monday
Iraq War Cost Approaches Half Trillion Dollars

What a waste.

WASHINGTON - The bitter fight over the latest Iraq spending bill has all but obscured a sobering fact: The war will soon cost more than $500 billion.

That's about ten times more than the Bush administration anticipated before the war started four years ago, and no one can predict how high the tab will go. The $124 billion spending bill that President Bush plans to veto this week includes about $78 billion for Iraq, with the rest earmarked for the war in Afghanistan, veterans' health care and other government programs.

This cost does not include the lost wages of debilitated soldiers, their long term care, the interest on the debt, and other costs that will show up in future years. This is easily a trillion dollar war and probably more.

For a very small fraction of this war's cost we could have a very rigorous system for tracking and deporting illegal alien Muslims in the West. We could make visas hard to get from Muslim countries. We could have much better border security. We could deploy many more CIA agents to track and disrupt terrorist organisations. We could pay other governments to track down Muslim terrorists. If enhanced US security is the goal then the war in Iraq offers very bad value per dollar spent.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2007 April 30 10:54 PM  Mideast Iraq Costs


Comments
Wolf-Dog said at April 30, 2007 11:53 PM:

The $500 billion that was "lost" as a result of the Iraq war, was in reality GAINED by those corporations and individuals who were paid for this activity. And understandably, the most significant share of this "lost" money, did not to to soldiers as salaries, but to hardware companies and also civilian consultants. The continuation of this war and throwing another $500 billion to make it $1 trillion, would help those groups who are employed in that capacity. Thus this was a transfer of wealth, in the sense that the "lost" money does not evaporate, it is just transferred to some other person's bank account.

And we ain't seen nothing yet. This war was just Iraq. Imagine how much another war, this time with Iran cost.

Basically, the emerging Islamic Empire correctly calculated before 9/11 that it is possible to provoke the US and Europe to invade distant Islamic countries in Asia, and this was the trap of the century what we have walked into. This war will bankrupt the US both economically, socially and psychologically, and this was the plan of Al Qaeda's leaders who were very forward-thinking.

Just like the Versailles Treaty created a monster, we are now dealing with a situation that is going to cause unintended consequences, but this time it is even worse: Germany did not plan to lose World War I in order to suffer the Versailles Treaty so that the Nazis come to power as a result of this suffering(the Nazis did not even exist during WW II as a conscious and influential group). But the Emerging Islamic Empire, must have correctly calculated that provoking the West to attack their countries, will ultimately give them the power they want.

But seriously, within 20 years, the Emerging Islamic Empire will almost certainly mass produce not a few dozens, but many hundreds or more nukes that will be very portable.

And within 25 % of Europe will be Muslim, and many of these European Muslims will be white, and they will not have foreign accents.

Vee said at May 1, 2007 1:04 AM:

Wolfdog, first you talk about the transfer of money to corporations, then you say it will bankrupt the US?
Does the US capitalists and neo-Cons who have interest in military, oil etc. not gain influence in the oil production through the war, and do ITS companies not benefit the most from continued expenditure?

Wolf-Dog said at May 1, 2007 5:41 AM:

Vee said:
Wolfdog, first you talk about the transfer of money to corporations, then you say it will bankrupt the US?
Does the US capitalists and neo-Cons who have interest in military, oil etc. not gain influence in the oil production through the war, and do ITS companies not benefit the most from continued expenditure?
---------------------------------------------

I am also a capitalist by profession and by inclination, but this time it appears that we the capitalists fell into the trap of making easy money while not paying attention to the future aggravation. When I said this situation will bankrupt the US, I mean not the relatively small number of corporations who accumulated the money, but the other corporations and other people who will be the majority.

In the mean time, it is important to emphasize that although the Emerging Islamic Empire will gain power by using their image of "victim of European imperialism", they will be even more imperialistic and ruthless if given the opportunity. This is a universal property of human psychology: the victim becomes the victimizer, i.e. all vampires were initially bitten by another vampire, but this time the new vampire will out-drink the previous vampire. While we the capitalists often feel guilty and give freedom to conquered nations and slaves (such as in South Africa), the Emerging Empire will not even know the meaning of the word guilt.

gcochran said at May 1, 2007 8:13 AM:

There is no emerging Islamic Empire.

Vee said at May 1, 2007 8:14 AM:

Randall says at the end of his posting : "If enhanced US security is the goal then the war in Iraq offers very bad value per dollar spent."
I agree, but it's still money better spent than the war in Afghanistan (which I believe was meant to find Bin Laden who is still at large!)

Vee said at May 1, 2007 8:22 AM:

gcochran... I believe that should be emerging with a capital "E"
Sounds scarier to people who are intimdated by foreign accents.
Wolf-Dog ... fyi... the US did not liberate any slaves in South Africa. The transition to democracy was helped by international sanctions but happened relatively peacefully through internal dialogue (and external pressure). Slavery was abolished sometime in the 19th century.
by the former president FW de Klerk after the release of Nelson Mandela.
Yes, it can happen peacefully.

Tom said at May 1, 2007 1:25 PM:

I have no doubt that the transition from the responsible, effective apartheid gov't run by whites to the corrupt, inept and clownish regime run by blacks was peaceful. I don't recall there being much violence, I actually watched the ceremony on TV (just don't tell Amy Biehl's family). Of course the results of that transition of power have hardly led to peace, prosperity, or societal calm. SA is in worse shape than ever and getting worse. But as long as the transition was peaceful, then I guess it is OK. You poor bastards were better off when the Boers ran things. Wait, you'll see you are on your way to being Southern Zimbabwe. Anything else is just wishful thinking.

Mensarefugee said at May 1, 2007 2:42 PM:

Hmm...
500 bil , 300 mil people

Ergo 1667 per person...

About 40% gainfully employed, ergo 4167 per worker.
Say 30% of those workers either affirmative action bimbos, or governmental sinecures.

= Roughly US$6000 per real worker.

Mensarefugee said at May 1, 2007 2:44 PM:

That means YOU, gfs ;)

Randall Parker said at May 1, 2007 5:53 PM:

Greg Cochran is right. There is no emerging Islamic Empire. The Muslims are disunited. The Muslims are not capable of fielding powerful armies. They have small economies, low IQs, and limited ability to produce goods and services which are the sources of wealth.

The Muslims can only overrun the West by emigrating to it and having lots of babies.

All we have to do to keep the Muslims from taking over the West is to keep them from moving to Western countries. That is very easy to do if we insist to our governments that they do it.

Wolf-Dog,

The money spent on the Iraq war is not just a shifting of money between people. The money is shifted from productive to unproductive uses. Therefore it destroys wealth.

Wolf-Dog said at May 1, 2007 7:52 PM:

Randall Parker wrote:
"Wolf-Dog,
The money spent on the Iraq war is not just a shifting of money between people. The money is shifted from productive to unproductive uses. Therefore it destroys wealth."
-------------------------------------------------------

I agree 100 %, but my statement includes your statement. Since the funds got accumulated in the hands of people who are inherently opposed to alternative energy, this would be a method of sabotaging alternative energy. Only a few symbolic millions of government dollars are being allocated to energy and battery research.

Wolf-Dog said at May 1, 2007 8:01 PM:

Randall Parker wrote:
"Greg Cochran is right. The Muslims are disunited. The Muslims are not capable of fielding powerful armies. They have small economies, low IQs, and limited ability to produce goods and services which are the sources of wealth."
------------------------------------------------------------

The goal of Al Qaeda is to unite the Muslims by causing the West to invade Muslim countries. If the US get involved in another guerilla war with Iran, and ultimately if we are forced to kill many of them while invading Iran to stop their nuclear programs, this might unite the Muslims against us.

And like you said, if the Muslim population of Europe becomes 30 % by 2025, and if the Muslims become united and armed with hundreds of portable nukes by 2005, then we can be certain that we are dealing with a "united" adversary.

James said at May 2, 2007 7:53 AM:

Wolf Dog,
Pakistan is one bullet away from being a jihad exporting nation (not withstanding the lunatics that come from there to plague England). They have nuclear arms already. You can be sure that nuclear technology will find its way into the hands of islamic lunatics to be used against the US. Muslims don't have to build and create technology, they can buy, steal or simply take it over via demographics. I often wonder what % of the French military is muslim. How close are muslims to the French atomic forces and weapons? I imagine the French don't want to know the answer to this question either. Muslims don't need to be united or have strong armies to wreak havoc upon the West, their terrorism will do that just fine once they get nuclear devices. Hamas is in the US and so are agents operating under the al-Qaeda umbrella as well as Iranian agents (I passed one of their safe houses on Sunday as I went to the Yankees game, it is called the United Nations). When one of those groups detonate an atomic bomb in the US, and they will, it will make 9-11 look like a picnic outing.
As for the war in Iraq and the possible war with Iran, it is plain to see that the US is being economically, socially and psychologically bankrupted because we are fighting these savages on their terms and playing nice because we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. We could crush these barbarians in a week, but we fear bad press and bad PR. Our own institutions are doing their best to undermine this nation. It is beyond fucked up. The muslims China as much as they hate the US (they are infidels, shoot muslims in Xinjiang, meddle in muslims nations) but I have not seen any muslim terror against the PRC because the PRC doesn't have lawyers attached to the military deciding what targets are legal to hit with rockets from a drone. The PRC doesn't fuck around and muslims know this.

pu said at May 2, 2007 2:26 PM:

James the one problem with fighting terrorist is also a matter of PR. And they have been winning that war for a long time in their home countries and other muslim countries. If we loose that war, it doesn't matter how many actual terrorists are killed, because that will produce 2 more to replace them, this is a hydra head monster of global proportions. It is a battle for the hearts and minds of people not in the actual fight. But al-qaeda and other extremists sometimes choose the wrong targets and make things worse for themselves as well.

Wolf-Dog said at May 2, 2007 5:47 PM:

The following article says that according to many military analysts, when
the US abandons Iraq, then that place will become a major center of terrorist
training what will propagate far beyond the ones trained in Afghanistan. Also
this article says that the Saudi oil will be at risk after Iraq is abandoned
by the US.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/02/iraq.scenarios/index.html

In retrospect, the US cannot leave Iraq, and we are in deep trouble.

John Smith said at May 2, 2007 8:02 PM:

How does Islam threaten the West?

Having lots of babies in Western countries
Letting off nuclear devices
* Forcing the West to forsake out liberal, democratic values in order to confront them. Possible dictatorships that suppress multiculturalism.

Anyway, I don't think IQ is that important of an issue. Sure, in order for Islam to spread en masse, the average Muslim probably has to have an IQ120. And if anyone has seen Dr. Zakir Naik, there are some very intelligent, and very devoted Muslims out there. Ergo, very dangerous Muslims. The vulnerability of our society will only increase as technology becomes more powerful and world destroying abilities are within our grasp.

Anyway, partition Iraq. Screw oil revenues.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright