How Much Does the Iraqi Civil Service Cost?

|

Try to factor that number into your April 15 calculations, you're paying for it. Uncle Sam will pay two million Iraqi bureaucrats during the U.S. occupation—and I'm betting—far beyond. The Bush administration absolutely refuses to put a price tag on this, but the reality that U.S. taxpayers will pay for garbage collection in Baghdad is just the first of many nasty little details that will trickle out in the coming days.

Next up, let's nail down some of these "donor nations" the Bush team keeps saying will help foot the bill. Who are they and how much are they down for? Right now I'd believe a crate of olives and a nice bottle of port from Spain and that's about it.

NEXT: Blair Watch

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. That link takes us to the Washington Post, who will not let those older than 103 in. Try it.

    I wonder how much we will pay these bureaucrats. Will we pay them competitive wages, and be viewed as the next Nike? paying sweat-shop wages, or will we instead impose western wages, creating the highest paid people in the country, as we did with peace keepers in Serbia?

    I think the donor nation is Iraq, and it is about to give its liver. You mean you can’t survive after giving a liver?

  2. Which is going to hurt more, paying the garbage collectors, or paying the garbage collectors’ 57 “supervisors”?

  3. compared to the other ridiculous crap that my taxes pay for, this sounds like a drop in the bucket.

  4. Paying for a civilian administration at Middle Eastern heartland pay scales is probably a lot cheaper than waging a war for the same amount of time. Hell, it’ll probably be offset many times over from the drop in oil prices that would follow an end to the hostilities.

    In any case, one result of a “successful” war will be the effective handover of Iraq’s oilfields to a coalition of American and British oil companies. If the gummint is going to divert to them vast amounts of money that would otherwise go to the Iraqi federal budget, the least we can do is pay for the government agencies that will need to maintain public order, schools and safe drinking water. Or do y’all suggest we expel all the pesky Iraqis to neighboring countries and repopulate Iraq with American consultants?

  5. Isn’t looting the time-honored way of paying for things war-related? Maybe if we just sell all of Saddam’s junk from his palaces we can pay the civil service for a few years. If any are left standing…

  6. Madog,
    Looting is the whole point. But Bush is going to spend our blood and treasure and line his (and his fishing buddies in the oil biz) personal pockets.

  7. Hey Mountain Goat–

    I noticed that about the Post’s site, too. However, they will let you register as a one-year-old female living in Antarctica (that’s what they think I am.)

  8. how dare bush rob saddam of his hard earned cash!

  9. All the people who are routinely accused of wanting to “line their pockets” already have well-lined pockets. Was there something Bush wants that he can’t afford without Iraqi oil? Chenney could drop dead any day now. What does he care if his net worth goes up or down by a few (thousand)bucks?

  10. Was there something Bush wants that he can’t afford without Iraqi oil?

    Shush, you’re ruining a perfectly good paranoid conspiracy theory.

  11. The thing about being paranoid is; You only have to be right once to make it all worth while.

    Also, having amassed vast amounts of wealth/power is a pretty good indication that you will never be satisfied with what you’ve accumulated thus far, and will likely expend your dying breath attempting to add to your trove. In fact, impending death simply removes the consequences of corruption.

  12. Make no mistake, this war is going to cost us a bundle. Expect higher taxes and inflation, further delaying economic recovery.

    But it is cheaper than the alternatives.

  13. Lazarus Long,in his post, maintains that:

    Make no mistake, this war is going to cost us a bundle. Expect higher taxes and inflation….
    But it is cheaper than the alternatives.

    In fact the opposite is true. The no war alternative is far cheaper not only in monetary terms, even more so when you condider the cost of occupation that is being planned post war. But, whats more is that as George Tenent(head of CIA) said, the risk of a terror attack being visited upon this country is greatly elevated under a war and occupation senario. Also, Tenent stated that he could think of about two dozen better places for a terrorist to obtain WMD then Iraq. Bush chafed at these statements ofcourse but that doesn’t bare on their voracity. So, if we attack and occupy Iraq were doing so to a country that has little or no capacity to hurt us while simultaniosly empowering and encoureging those who can…A very costly war indeed!

  14. Excuse me, Koppelman (5th from the top) “the effective handover of Iraq’s oilfields to a coalition of American and British oil companies.” ??

    You mean the scorched earth that madman has planned for them? Of what value will THAT be!

  15. Rick is incorrect of course. Plus he has bought the Adminstration’s covers story — hook, line and sinker. Doing nothing, which appears to be Ricks alternative, will put us at risk for a terrorist nuclear attack, which is far more expensive than destroying Saddam’s regime.

    Saddam supporting terrorism, giving terrorists nukes, etc. has NOTHING to do with the upcoming war. This is just misdirection by the Administration. The goal is really destroying Radical Islam politically before they nuke us — and to do so will require regimes in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan fall in line and do our bidding. Destroying Iraq is a Machiavellian squeeze plan on our “allies” the Saudis and Paks (plus it is a warning to N. Korea).

  16. “a crate of olives and a nice bottle of port from Spain”

    Given that port wine has nothing to do with Spain, that would be quite remarkable in itself.

    Umm… hasn’t anyone spun a conspiracy theory stating that the war is really a plot by Iraqi civil servants?

    Wait a minute, knowing civil servants, that may actually be accurate…

  17. I’d rather have sherry with those olives myself, anyway. But don’t despair, port drinkers! Even if you won’t be getting any port from Spain unless they stop in Portugal before deploying, coalition partner Australia produces some really good port too these days.

  18. Lazarus said:

    .” Doing nothing, which appears to be Ricks alternative, will put us at risk for a terrorist nuclear attack, ”

    Simply repeating the claim does not rufute the argument and evidence of my previous post. Attacking Iraq will be like a recruiting drive for Al quida. We will be in much greater danger not less. Then multiply by a factor of who knows what when you consider an occupation. It almost seems that this is an attempt to make us more vulnerableto attack. It isn’t of course. Whats going on is that the neocons who have been pushing this war for years have as their main goal to make the world safe for Sharon as they are quite sure that THEY know whats best for Isreal. Other considerations seem to be secondary. And yes, in their plans other nations will fall to US military might. Also, Its important to remember that the claim that we are hated because we are free and rich is largly off the point; they hate us because of our governments foreign policy and that we can do something about as we hunt down and destroy those who attacked us.

  19. And since we’re talking of wine, does anyone else think that the Islamic prohibition of alcohol explains quite a lot about the Middle-East?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.