Analysis Says War Could Cost $1 Trillion
Budget office sees effect on taxpayers for decade
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff August 1, 2007
WASHINGTON -- The war in Iraq could ultimately cost well over a
trillion dollars -- at least double what has already been spent --
including the long-term costs of replacing damaged equipment, caring
for wounded troops, and aiding the Iraqi government, according to a new
government analysis.
The United States has already allocated more than $500 billion on the
day-to-day combat operations of what are now 190,000 troops and a
variety of reconstruction efforts.
In a report to lawmakers yesterday, the nonpartisan Congressional
Budget Office estimated that even under the rosiest scenario -- an
immediate and substantial reduction of troops -- American taxpayers
will feel the financial consequences of the war for at least a decade.
The calculations include the estimated cost to leave some US forces
behind for at least several years to support the Iraqi government, but
they also predict other long-term costs, such as extended medical care
and disability compensation for wounded soldiers and survivor's
benefits for the families of the thousands of combat-zone fatalities.
The cost of the war in Iraq and other military operations has soared to
the point where "we are now spending on these activities more than 10
percent of all the government's annually appropriated funds," said
Robert A. Sunshine, the budget office's assistant director for budget
analysis.
Those costs -- both to sustain the current mission in Iraq and to pay
longer-term "hidden" expenses like troop healthcare and replacement
equipment -- are far more than US officials advertised when Congress
gave President Bush the authority to launch the invasion in March 2003.
At the time, the White House and then-defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld
predicted a quick, decisive victory and counted on Iraqi oil revenues
to pay for the war. And when Lawrence Lindsey, one of Bush's top budget
advisers, estimated in 2003 that the entire undertaking could cost as
much as $200 billion, he was fired.
Even that estimate -- which the Bush administration described at the
time as far too high -- was still well off the mark. The Congressional
Budget Office estimates that as of June, up to $500 billion has been
spent on combat operations in Iraq.
In the coming years, the price tag will be substantially higher.
Testifying before the House Budget Committee yesterday, Sunshine told
lawmakers that he used two scenarios -- an optimistic one in which most
US troops are withdrawn, and another in which a sizable contingent
remains for several years -- to calculate anticipated costs.
If the United States gradually reduced its troop level in Iraq to
30,000 by 2010, the US Treasury would still have to provide up to $500
billion more to sustain those troops, as well as pay other expenses, he
said in the report.
In the alternative scenario -- in which 75,000 US troops remain
stationed in Iraq over the next five years -- the nation would have to
pay an additional $900 billion, according to the analysis.
Members of Congress welcomed the report, noting that the Pentagon has
requested only annual expenditures and has refused to provide long-term
estimates.
When the committee yesterday asked Gordon England, deputy secretary of
defense, whether he agreed with the estimates, he maintained that "we
don't have that degree of certainty" about the future costs of the war.
Representative John Spratt a South Carolina Democrat and the Budget
Committee chairman, responded that the budget office numbers are "an
extrapolation from existing costs. And we've got five years of
experience, so they're . . . not building an assumption out of the air.
They're extrapolating from known costs to what future costs are likely
to be at certain force levels."
Some of the future costs will be incurred long after major combat
operations end, according to the report.
The 16-page analysis estimated that the medical costs would be more
than $9 billion if the United States stations 30,000 troops in Iraq,
and would cost almost $13 billion if 75,000 troops remain there for the
next several years.
The report estimates that training police and ground forces in Iraq and
a relatively smaller number in Afghanistan over the next decade will
require at least an additional $50 billion. Meanwhile, the government
will have to spend at least $20 billion more for US diplomatic
operations, to assist local governments, and to promote economic
development in Iraq through 2017 -- regardless of how many US troops
remain in the country.
Lawmakers expressed concern that the White House is not adequately
preparing the country for the financial burden.
Representative James P. McGovern, a Worcester Democrat and a member of
the budget panel, said that England couldn't give a firm answer when
asked how much the Pentagon needed to pay for Bush's decision to
dispatch 30,000 more troops to secure Iraq earlier this year. England
said the costs the Pentagon anticipated a few months ago for military
operations in fiscal year 2008 -- about $142 billion -- will no longer
be enough.
The military will need more money because of the "surge" and the
purchase of hundreds of armored vehicles capable of withstanding the
roadside bombs responsible for most of the US combat deaths. England
said the Pentagon will provide a revised 2008 cost estimate in
September.
But McGovern said he is worried about the long-term financial impact of
the war, adding that his primary concern is that the United States is
borrowing money to pay for it. Some leading economists have predicted
that, depending on how long troops remain in Iraq, the endeavor could
reach several trillion dollars as a result of more "hidden" costs --
including recruiting expenses to replenish the ranks and the lifelong
benefits the government pays to veterans.
"It is being paid for on the national credit card," McGovern said. "It
is being put on their backs of our kids and grandkids. That is
indefensible."
McGovern said he is considering proposing that a "war tax" be levied on
all Americans to cover the ballooning expenses.
"We should find a way to pay for it so that when this war is over we
are not bankrupt," he said.
Bryan Bender can be reached at bender@globe.com.