Cost of Iraq Occupation (CBO)

[Joe]

PDF, if you want to read the whole thing

Dear Senator [Byrd]: In response to your request, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has analyzed the ability of the U.S. military to sustain an occupation of Iraq. In performing this analysis, CBO has made no assumptions about how long the occupation might last or about the size of the force that might be needed. Over the near term, that is, about the next 12 months, the Department of Defense plans to deploy a substantial fraction of its ground forces for occupation duty in Iraq. Over longer periods, however, the need to maintain training and readiness levels, limit family separation and involuntary mobilization, and retain high-quality personnel would most likely constrain the U.S. occupation force to be smaller than it is today (more than 180,000 U.S. military personnel in and around Iraq). Accounting for those needs, CBO's analysis derives "steady-state" levels of forces that could be assigned to occupation duty and maintained indefinitely. CBO's analysis considers the costs of various options and their effects on the size of a steady-state occupation force. Several of those options involve using existing forces; others involve creating up to two new Army divisions, which CBO estimates would take five years to accomplish. If all existing U.S. ground combat forces in the active and reserve components were used to support an occupation, with units periodically rotated into and out of Iraq, the steady-state U.S. occupation force that could be sustained over the long term would comprise 67,000 to 106,000 military personnel. At that level, the occupation would cost $14 billion to $19 billion a year.

Emphasis mine.

So the "1 billion a week" line is BS, fortunately.

[weemadando]

What I'm really enjoying at the moment is the US gov't saying:

We want other nations to pitch in because we risk losing public support because of continuing American casualties. Who cares if you didn't support the war. I declared the war officially over, so what are you afraid of? C'mon, bring the Americans home and put your boys on the firing line while we rake in the oil money. What - you think thats unfair? Thats damn unpatriotic and un-American of you! I don't care if you are from Europe! I'm not taking this from you! Can we invade them Rumsfeld? Please... Please can we?

[Crown]

What I'm really enjoying at the moment is the US gov't saying:

We want other nations to pitch in because we risk losing public support because of continuing American casualties. Who cares if you didn't support the war. I declared the war officially over, so what are you afraid of? C'mon, bring the Americans home and put your boys on the firing line while we rake in the oil money. What - you think thats unfair? Thats damn unpatriotic and un-American of you! I don't care if you are from Europe! I'm not taking this from you! Can we invade them Rumsfeld? Please... Please can we?

Little Johnny announced that we wont be sending any more troops, which I am delighted to hear, and as for GB, their personnel is over stretched as it is at the moment, if I have my facts correct, which means if Blair wants to send more troops he will have to call up reserves.

[Sea Skimmer]

At that level, the occupation would cost $14 billion to $19 billion a year.

Emphasis mine.

So the "1 billion a week" line is BS, fortunately.

I guess the fact that those figures represent a future projection for a force half the size has escaped you. One billion a week is currently accurate and has been openly stated by the Pentagon.

[Howedar]

Christ but thats a lot of money.

[Sea Skimmer]

What I'm really enjoying at the moment is the US gov't saying:

We want other nations to pitch in because we risk losing public support because of continuing American casualties. Who cares if you didn't support the war. I declared the war officially over, so what are you afraid of? C'mon, bring the Americans home and put your boys on the firing line while we rake in the oil money. What - you think thats unfair? Thats damn unpatriotic and un-American of you! I don't care if you are from Europe! I'm not taking this from you! Can we invade them Rumsfeld? Please... Please can we?

You just wait until we activate the entire Army reserve and National Guard, to serve as a cadre for America's new Grand Army. You just wait. You'll know its coming when the DoD changes back to THE WAR DEPARTMENT.

[HemlockGrey]

I never understood the change. Defense? Who defends? We care about ATTACK!

[Sea Skimmer]

Christ but thats a lot of money.

Compared to the 2+ trillion in total our government spends every year in total its not very much at all.

[Howedar]

I was thinking in terms of my (former) local school district, which was about to shrivel up and die when I left because the state of Oregon was going to pass a $4.9B education budget instead of a $5.4B budget.

[Sea Skimmer]

I was thinking in terms of my (former) local school district, which was about to shrivel up and die when I left because the state of Oregon was going to pass a $4.9B education budget instead of a $5.4B budget.

Well that's a rather different scale. As it is US Federal deficit alone is greater then military spending, both from the regular budget and additional funds voted for Iraq IIRC. Anyway even all that is hardly a crippling or record level. Heck the US defence budget in the mid 1950's was over 500 billion a year adjusted for inflation. That's 25% greater then the most recent defence budget, which was 399 billion. And that was drawing off a far smaller economy. Course we also had far fewer other federal programs sucking down cash.

[Howedar]

I know...

[Darth Wong]

So ... are the American people genuinely happy with the way this Iraq thing has turned out so far? I can see Internet polls and media reports, but since I don't live there, I can't "put my ear to the ground", so to speak.

[Howedar]

I'm not sure. I certainly know popular support has dwindled since wartime (as it always has and always will), but I don't know to what level.

[TrailerParkJawa]

So ... are the American people genuinely happy with the way this Iraq thing has turned out so far? I can see Internet polls and media reports, but since I don't live there, I can't "put my ear to the ground", so to speak.

It is turning out as I expected. Long term and expensive. So I really cant say Im happy about it, but I was opposed to the war. Im happy with how the troops performed in battle and that things went smoothly. One thing I find amazing is how many Americans still believe Sadam had something to due with 9/11.

[Howedar]

I don't know anyone who believes that, but that could just be the company I keep.

[Darth Wong]

One thing I find amazing is how many Americans still believe Sadam had something to due with 9/11.

Is that really a common belief? No wonder they think the rest of the world "turned their backs on them in their time of need"; they think they're going after the architect of 9/11 and the rest of the world is unsympathetic to their grief. Who is responsible for this misconception? The media? The government? Rampant stupidity? All three?

[Stormbringer]

What I'm really enjoying at the moment is the US gov't saying:

We want other nations to pitch in because we risk losing public support because of continuing American casualties. Who cares if you didn't support the war. I declared the war officially over, so what are you afraid of? C'mon, bring the Americans home and put your boys on the firing line while we rake in the oil money. What - you think thats unfair? Thats damn unpatriotic and un-American of you! I don't care if you are from Europe! I'm not taking this from you! Can we invade them Rumsfeld? Please... Please can we?

Little Johnny announced that we wont be sending any more troops, which I am delighted to hear, and as for GB, their personnel is over stretched as it is at the moment, if I have my facts correct, which means if Blair wants to send more troops he will have to call up reserves.

And I eagerly await hearing Europe bitch when we pull peacekeepers out of Bonsnia/Kosovo. If you guys want to play the screw you game, fine. Just remember it works both ways.

The troops have to come from some where and if Europe and the UN won't help then we'll find the troops somewhere. Just don't expect to like it.

[Darth Wong]

Little Johnny announced that we wont be sending any more troops, which I am delighted to hear, and as for GB, their personnel is over stretched as it is at the moment, if I have my facts correct, which means if Blair wants to send more troops he will have to call up reserves.

And I eagerly await hearing Europe bitch when we pull peacekeepers out of Bonsnia/Kosovo. If you guys want to play the screw you game, fine. Just remember it works both ways.

Perhaps you should check Crown's location (hint: not in Europe).

The troops have to come from some where and if Europe and the UN won't help then we'll find the troops somewhere. Just don't expect to like it.

Crown doesn't want any more Australian troops sent. How is it an appropriate response to bitch about Europe?

[Howedar]

One thing I find amazing is how many Americans still believe Sadam had something to due with 9/11.

Is that really a common belief? No wonder they think the rest of the world "turned their backs on them in their time of need"; they think they're going after the architect of 9/11 and the rest of the world is unsympathetic to their grief. Who is responsible for this misconception? The media? The government? Rampant stupidity? All three?

The government tried to make the case, which the media reported, and people's stupidity/short attention span prevented some from realizing later that there was no connection.

Ultimately, blame Powell's speach to the UN I guess.

[TrailerParkJawa]

One thing I find amazing is how many Americans still believe Sadam had something to due with 9/11.

Is that really a common belief? No wonder they think the rest of the world "turned their backs on them in their time of need"; they think they're going after the architect of 9/11 and the rest of the world is unsympathetic to their grief. Who is responsible for this misconception? The media? The government? Rampant stupidity? All three?

I dont think it is common in my part of the country. Im listening to the radio and the person speaking says a Washington Post poll stated 70% of the respondents believed a connection.

I know a few people who believe it, but they were always pro war. They are also former military but none of them were front line combat troops. However, since the war they have said they no longer believe the connection exits. I think sometimes people let emotions rule them. A common reason I heard for going into Iraq was to prevent a mushroom cloud from appearing over NYC.

[Vympel]

The blatantly wrong belief about Saddam and 9/11 was continuously peddled by the administration in the lead-up to war- rhetorically, Iraq and the events of 9/11 were linked repeatedly and often (for a recent example, see the May 1 end of combat operations speech)- and people bought it. Including US forces in Iraq, one guy was interviewed and said "I wanna go home, but this is payback for the WTC".

[Stormbringer]

Perhaps you should check Crown's location (hint: not in Europe).

He's Australian. I know that very well thank you.

I'm saying that if those opposing any intervention in Iraq by the UN or by individual nations want to carry on that route expect peace keeping by the US to be cut. That means no begging the US to intervene here and there. No more troops here, no more bases there. Bosnia/Kosovo merely being the most likely and prominent of the likely reductions.

That means no interventions in places like Liberia (which Crown agrued we ought to have done, though I could be wrong).

Crown doesn't want any more Australian troops sent. How is it an appropriate response to bitch about Europe?

Actually I mentioned the UN as well. If the nations opposed to helping fix Iraq want to continue that route then expect the US to pull out of UN peacekeeping operation so we can get the troops from somewhere.

And it's not bitching about Europe, it's merely pointing out that the US will have to get the troops from somewhere. And that it'll most likely mean cuts in things the Europeans and UN-ophiles won't like.

[Stuart Mackey]

What I'm really enjoying at the moment is the US gov't saying:

We want other nations to pitch in because we risk losing public support because of continuing American casualties. Who cares if you didn't support the war. I declared the war officially over, so what are you afraid of? C'mon, bring the Americans home and put your boys on the firing line while we rake in the oil money. What - you think thats unfair? Thats damn unpatriotic and un-American of you! I don't care if you are from Europe! I'm not taking this from you! Can we invade them Rumsfeld? Please... Please can we?

Little Johnny announced that we wont be sending any more troops, which I am delighted to hear, and as for GB, their personnel is over stretched as it is at the moment, if I have my facts correct, which means if Blair wants to send more troops he will have to call up reserves.

I dont think Blair will do that, he is on very thin ice at the moment.

[Alex Moon]

One thing I find amazing is how many Americans still believe Sadam had something to due with 9/11.

Is that really a common belief? No wonder they think the rest of the world "turned their backs on them in their time of need"; they think they're going after the architect of 9/11 and the rest of the world is unsympathetic to their grief. Who is responsible for this misconception? The media? The government? Rampant stupidity? All three?

It seems to me to be a brain bug that has stuck in the collective conciousness. The Bush Administration made it clear early on that the war against terror would not be against just Al-Qaeda, but against terrorist groups and those nations which give them aid and comfort. When the debate began over using military force to oust Saddam Hussain, the Administration tried to strengthen its case by illustrating Iraq's connections to terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda (a good listing of connections can be found here). Of course, part of the arguement for going in was that September 11 changed the way we dealt with terrorism, and those states that sponser it. They're no longer a low level threat that operates overseas, now we were seeing just how determined they were to kill Americans and to bring the war onto our soil. In light of this, a nation that both supports terrorist groups (like Iraq is accused of) and seeks WMD (like Iraq is accused of) could no longer be seen as something to be left unattended to, because the risks were simply too high that they would become a source for groups seeking to use Chemical/biological/nuclear weapons in attacks against the US or her Allies.

Naturally, the media condenced this down to: Iraq...September 11...WMD, and let people draw their own conclusions. Of course, the story that Mohommed Atta had alledgedly met with an Iraqi official in Prague also encouraged this idea because people assumed that it meant the Iraq had to be in on the Sept 11 plotting. If the report turns out to be true though, all it means is that Iraq had contacts with Al-Qaeda and was willing to meet with/ possibly help terrorists in some manner. This is still a serious issue however.

[Alex Moon]

One thing I find amazing is how many Americans still believe Sadam had something to due with 9/11.

Is that really a common belief? No wonder they think the rest of the world "turned their backs on them in their time of need"; they think they're going after the architect of 9/11 and the rest of the world is unsympathetic to their grief. Who is responsible for this misconception? The media? The government? Rampant stupidity? All three?

It seems to me to be a brain bug that has stuck in the collective conciousness. The Bush Administration made it clear early on that the war against terror would not be against just Al-Qaeda, but against terrorist groups and those nations which give them aid and comfort. When the debate began over using military force to oust Saddam Hussain, the Administration tried to strengthen its case by illustrating Iraq's connections to terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda (a good listing of connections can be found here). Of course, part of the arguement for going in was that September 11 changed the way we dealt with terrorism, and those states that sponser it. They're no longer a low level threat that operates overseas, now we were seeing just how determined they were to kill Americans and to bring the war onto our soil. In light of this, a nation that both supports terrorist groups (like Iraq is accused of) and seeks WMD (like Iraq is accused of) could no longer be seen as something to be left unattended to, because the risks were simply too high that they would become a source for groups seeking to use Chemical/biological/nuclear weapons in attacks against the US or her Allies.

Naturally, the media condenced this down to: Iraq...September 11...WMD, and let people draw their own conclusions. Of course, the story that Mohommed Atta had alledgedly met with an Iraqi official in Prague also encouraged this idea because people assumed that it meant the Iraq had to be in on the Sept 11 plotting. If the report turns out to be true though, all it means is that Iraq had contacts with Al-Qaeda and was willing to meet with/ possibly help terrorists in some manner. This is still a serious issue however.

Here's another article that sums everything up. At the very least, Saddam's regime seems to have maintained contact with al-Qaeda for a number of years.