An excellent article by UPI. Just the facts, ma'am.

i

In article <Uoutsideview-iraqURoFT_Da4@clari.net>, United Press International wrote:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 4 (UPI) -- The cost in human lives of the
continuing conflict in Iraq occupies headlines on a daily basis. As
it rightly should. The hallmark of America's military operations
throughout our history has always been a higher concern for the
human rather than the dollar cost of war. Yet, as a nation facing
pressing budgetary problems and priorities, sooner or later it would
be irresponsible not to consider the financial cost of this
operation.
Gen. George Washington faced financial hardships every bit
as dire as those dished out by the Redcoats' armed might in the
bitter snows of Valley Forge. Economic constraints played every bit
as much a role in the defeat of Lee's Army of Virginia as did the
strategic brilliance of Ulysses S. Grant.
By any reasonable measure, the current and expected cost of
the occupation of Iraq is staggering. Just how staggering, was
hinted at in recent testimony by the Secretary of Defense and the
outgoing military commander, Gen. Tommy Franks, in a day of
testimony before a Senate committee. Yet even the figures pulled
from the lips of the secretary do not reveal the full extent of this
drain on the U.S. taxpayer.
According to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the
continuing military occupation of Iraq is currently costing $4.0
billion per month -- and that's just the military cost, not the
costs associated with the social, economic and political rebuilding
of this Arab nation.
While the General and the Secretary may rather cavalierly
speculate that this high level of American military involvement
might continue for perhaps "four years or more," the fact of the
matter is that a drain on the Treasury of this magnitude is neither
cavalier nor necessarily wise.
The concerns raised by the administration's testimony are
magnified when one considers that maintaining hundreds of U.S.
civilian workers is costing additional hundreds of million of
dollars monthly. Concern gives way to great anxiety when it is
realized that to arrive at an approximation of the true cost of the
Iraqi occupation, one must also factor in such "incidental" costs as
up to $5 billion for oilfield restoration, $10 billion for emergency
infrastructure repairs, and billions more in direct input to help
the Iraqi economy. Pretty soon, as former Senator C. Everett
Dirksen, R-Ill., famously noted, "you're talking about real money."
Real money indeed.
Dirksen, who made his famous quip in the 1960s, would be
apoplectic if confronted with costs of the magnitude of those being
presented to the Congress today for the occupation of Iraq.
These figures are even more sobering when considered in the
context of $450 billion or more in red ink now being faced by
federal budgeters annually. For those who attempt a cheery
countenance by pointing to contributions from other allied nations,
the fact that thus far a total of only $1.7 billion has been raised
from nongovernmental and international organizations to help defray
the massive cost we are incurring is a slap of cold water.
We've fought other wars, and the cost of rebuilding in the
wake of earlier conflicts is certainly relevant when seeking to put
this latest reconstruction effort in perspective. Unfortunately,
when stacked up against other major post-war efforts, the cost of
Pax Iraqi fares no better.
Even if we focus just on the admitted military cost of the
Iraqi occupation, of some $4 billion per month, it alone adds up to
a yearly cost of nearly $50 billion and, if extended over two
decades, a logical time period as estimated by Yale Economics
Professor William Nordhaus, the bill rises to an incomprehensible $1
trillion. In contrast, the Berlin Airlift, a marvel of coordinated
reconstruction of a civilian population devastated by WWII and held
hostage by a Soviet blockade, lasted 15 months and cost the U.S.
some $345 million (close to $3 billion in today's dollars). A real
bargain when compared to the situation in Iraq.
While the Marshall Plan cost $13.3 billion then (akin to
$450 billion today), it must be kept in mind its scope was far
greater than that faced by American planners in Baghdad today. The
Marshall Plan took on, and succeeded in, the rebuilding of the
economies of the nations comprising the entire region of western
Europe.
In more recent times, the cost we've incurred as a result of
our involvement in Bosnia, is "only" $12 to $14 billion for the
entire past decade. Peanuts compared to the cost of Iraqi
reconstruction.
What else could we be getting for our investment of nearly
$50 billion per year for the military occupation of Iraq? Oh, not
much; just the combined 2003 budgets for the Departments of Justice
and State, the entire legislative and judicial branch budgets, and
the budget for the Environmental Protection Agency thrown in for
good measure.
Certainly, important national security policy decisions
should not be looked at only in terms of their dollar cost. But
sound policy must similarly dictate that it would be grossly
irresponsible to ignore the cost to America's taxpayers for such
endeavors. After all, it is they who are the ones being forced to
foot the humongous bills for Pax Iraqi.
Representatives from 1994 to 2000.
outside writers who specialize in a variety of important global
issues.