Posted on 02/26/2003 8:01:25 PM PST by Norm640
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. military planners believe the cost of a war with Iraq could balloon to $95 billion or more, eclipsing earlier estimates, administration and congressional sources said on Wednesday.
The White House and Pentagon cautioned that it was impossible to put a dollar figure on the potential invasion and its immediate aftermath because no one knows how long it would take and whether Iraqi President Saddam Hussein will destroy the country's oil wells as he did Kuwait's in 1991.
"In the event force has to be used, it's not knowable how long it would last, what kinds of weapons would be used, how many other countries would be participating," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters.
But Pentagon officials have discussed the $95 billion figure with the White House, which could scale back the package as it prepares an emergency spending bill that must then be approved by Congress. "That's the figure that's been put forward," said a senior defense official.
Sources involved in the deliberations said the price tag of a war could still come in at close to the $61 billion spent on the 1991 Gulf War. They called the $95 billion figure a Pentagon "wish list."
"The idea is to find out what we will need in terms of a relatively short, intense conflict," a defense official said, adding that deliberations at the White House were continuing for what would likely be the most intense and precise assault in military history.
It calls for more than 3,000 guided bombs and missiles ripping Iraqi military and leadership targets in the first 48 hours. Nearly 700 long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles, at a cost of about $1 million each, would be launched by U.S. warships and heavy bombers in opening high-tech strikes 10 times more potent than the beginning of the 1991 Gulf War.
In addition to direct war costs, the administration is prepositioning humanitarian supplies near Iraq and assembling multibillion-dollar economic aid packages for Turkey, Israel and other key allies in the region.
Administration officials say they planned to present detailed cost estimates to President Bush in the next week. "It's a big bill," said Robin Cleveland, associate director for national security programs at the White House Office of Management and Budget.
Rumsfeld held out hope that U.S. allies will pick up some of the costs.
But Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, dismissed talk of a coalition of willing, or "COW for short," saying: "It appears to me that the U.S. is the 'cow' -- the cash cow in this case. We are the ones being milked."
According to internal White House documents provided to key congressional committees, the Bush administration expects to spend about $1 billion on humanitarian relief and reconstruction in Iraq in the first year after any U.S.-led invasion.
U.S. officials say they are preparing for the worst, including up to 2 million refugees in the weeks after any American-led invasion.
They are already sending blankets, water, tents, medicine and other supplies for up to 1 million people to the region. Nearly 2.9 million daily rations were also being stockpiled to meet emergency food needs.
But they acknowledge the cost could skyrocket if Saddam sets the country's oil fields on fire and uses chemical or biological weapons against civilians.
Although the administration is counting on Iraqi oil revenues to help pay for long-term reconstruction, it has yet to say how the United States would manage the oil industry and whether oil income would cover the full cost.
"We don't know what's going to happen in the (Iraqi) oil fields" if there's a war, a defense official said, noting that Iraqi forces destroyed Kuwait's oil infrastructure before fleeing that country after the 1991 Gulf War. The Kuwaitis, he added, spent an estimated $22 billion to rebuild their smaller oil fields after that conflict.
In contrast to the 1991 Gulf War, the United States this time could be forced to pick up almost the entire bill.
COSTS MOUNT
But experts say occupation costs could far exceed the direct military costs of the war itself. The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments estimated the five-year costs at between $25 billion and $105 billion, depending on the number of U.S. troops on the ground.
Aid packages for Turkey and Israel alone could cost U.S. taxpayers more than $10 billion. Jordan is seeking more than $1 billion in grants and a supply of subsidized oil. Egypt wants duty-free access to the U.S. market for its goods.
Excluding these Iraq-related costs, Bush is already projecting record U.S. budget deficits of $304 billion for the current fiscal year and $307 billion next year.
"No one likes to talk about putting a price tag on national security, but these costs simply cannot be ignored," Byrd said.
No no, Mr. Byrd--you go doddle somewhere else. SHut up.
Knowing what I know about New York City, the real cost was probably about 10% of that, but they padded it by counting all the homeless people in the city and estimated how much money they "lost" after 9/11 as a result of their inability to play for the New York Yankees.
Next!
Not the cost should even matter here. When a nation has to do something, it has to do it regardless of the cost.
What do France and Germany sell here? Other than cars and water.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.