Skip to comments.Iraq war cost: $6 trillion. What else could have been done?
Posted on 03/19/2013 6:39:57 AM PDT by algernon_garnock
In case you were wondering, the price tag for the war in Iraq could eventually top $6 trillion.
Tuesday marks the 10th anniversary of the U.S. invasion, occupation and slugfest of Iraq, which, lest we forget, was begun in the name of protecting us from weapons of mass destruction that never existed.
A study by Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies finds that the war has cost $1.7 trillion so far, with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans.
Those costs could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next 40 years, the report concluded.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
$1.7 trillion is a drop in the bucket by today’s standard.
“that never existed”
Tell that to the Kurds
Well....think of all the benefits we got out of it.....
Wake me when you are done.
What a load of crap.
A false headline built on false premises promoted by an overtly left-wing university institute. Next....
I find that hard to believe especially since the cost of the war at the end of the the Bush administration was publicized at about $900 billion.
10 year price tag for the Iraq War (so far)
How about a REAL study on the 'war on poverty', eh?
How many trillions down the waste already? And what the projected gazillions (hundreds of trillions) over the next 40 years on today's Obama Phone youth mobs?
Not a problem.
GW told us the Iraqi’s would pay for it.
Just waiting for the check to clear, right?
A stronger Iran?
Worth every penny.
Monday morning QB...
Let’s ask the Christians in Iraq if they feel better off.
Mind you, I was fine with taking out Saddam, but the aftermath was a complete foul up.
Next time in the Mid-East, just arm both sides, and let them bash each other’s brains out.
The LibTards will feel stupid when the jihadists take over Iraq and dig up all those WMDs that “never existed,” but actually exist under the sand in places we never looked.
It worked in the 80s with the Iran-Iraq war.
That’s a lot o’ green spent for delivering an Arab client state to Iran.
What a friggin’ disaster...
hind site of a Monday mornin quarterback is realy not relevant.
Saddam is gone. The fruitbasket is turning over.
Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
There sure seems to be a lot of articles coming out of the left stream media the past week about Bush and Iraq. Why, it’s almost like they are trying to distract everyone from Obama’s foreign policy failures. I think it’s pre-emptive journalism to try and cover for Obama because something awful is ready to come out about the Democrats and the Middle East.
Frankly, if Bush I had finished the job in the first place in 1991, we wouldn’t have been in this mess.
Would have been had it not been run by a bunch of political generals and RINO Republicans.
But since it was....no....it wasn't.
As taxpayers, we're all on the hook for that estimated $6-trillion tab. That's nearly half the current national debt.
On a lesser note, simple arithmetic I learned from public schools was also wrong as I learned from the LA Times that 6 Trillion is one half of 16.7 Trillion.
“It worked in the 80s with the Iran-Iraq war.”
Except it didn’t.
I remember one soldier writing about the war “We were killing a lot of people that weren’t Iraqis”. We adapted to a new kind of warfare. We struck fear in the hearts of every country that needed to fear us.
The biggest problem was the casualties from the political war on GW Bush that vilified the people who fought over there.
These reports are so worthless—over 40 years. Dam fool. Hey, how about 14T over 80 years, or 28T over 160 years, ya friggin maroon. Itza a much bigger number.
At the time - everyone’s, and I mean everyone’s intelligence service said Saddam had WMD - even those intelligence services from country’s who did not support us. Saddam refused to allow confirmation of destruction of WMD’s over and over again. He violated the UN treaty several times over.
He acted as though he not only had WMD, but was expanding the program to possibly include nuclear weapons. Why did he do that? I don’t know.
We knew he was sponsoring terrorist actions against Israel. 9/11 had taught us that we were vulnerable and leaving Saddam and his regime intact was perceived as a definite threat.
The fear was, do we wait for definite proof of his having WMDs, which in the meantime he may use against us, or, do we remove the threat now. Bush staked his political reputation on this action and now we know what? There there definitely were no WMDs? Has that been truly verified? Has it definitely been proven that he wasn’t working with Al Quedia? The post-Saddam Iraq was a screw-up by us and I think that is what damaged out reputation most.
Still a lot of unanswered questions to me, but maybe I just do not have the whole story.
LA Times, right on the Obama narrative, trying to blame his deficits on Iraq. Headline, which surely is the only thing most of this fish wrap’s readers ever see, more than three times what this latest estimate claims.
$6 Trillion, adjusted for inflation, is more than the cost of WWII, at $5 Trillion.
[The LibTards will feel stupid when the jihadists take over Iraq and dig up all those WMDs that never existed, but actually exist under the sand in places we never looked.]
So, when were about to invade, he took his best weapons and instead of using them, he buried them all in the sand?
I don’t think so.
Can any accountants perform a Present Value calculation on that? My guess would be well under half a trillion.
It’s part of a current MSM-libtard push to make the Iraq war look like a failure in preparation for 0 declaring defeat and leaving Afghanistan. Bush victory, Obama defeat. They can’t handle it.
Don’t forget the sat-tracked trucks and ‘mystery ships’...
Agree. Something smells here.
The other thing that many people forget is that the war gave us the opportunity to kill thousands of terrorists in Iraq. The war attracted many of the nuts in the world into the Sunni triangle area. We killed many dangerous people there as opposed to having to hunt them down somewhere else.
How many of those terrorists would have eventually made it to the US or some other place in the world to kill innocent Americans?
They could be a United States Constitution, Christian Nation for less money.
This could have been fought with military surplus munitions and then we simply rolled out as fast as we rolled in and let the survivors fight it out, We would have been no worse off and it wouldn't have cost more than a little combat pay for a couple divisions.
It only fits into one logical category; order out of chaos. Check the CFR membership. Check the damage done by the NWO Bush Mafia clan.
I doubt this number is even close to true.
Thank you for those links. I appreciate it very much.
What else could’ve been done?
A massive bombing campaign, followed by the complete destruction of Iraq’s military and government, with a very pointed message sent before we went home:
“Mess with us again, and you’ll beg us to kill you.”
The purpose in a war of self-defense is to make the person threatening you so scared of you that he will never even think about threatening you again. Maybe if we did that instead of trying to win the world’s approval, we wouldn’t be getting dragged in to endless wars and occupations.