Punji Stuck?

Not to use the awful, defeatist "q-word" or anything, but USA Today makes a comparison of the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan to that of the V-word War and finds that we are in the ballpark at $60 billion per year.

The one big difference is that the American economy is much larger now than it was 35 years ago, so in theory we could spend much, much more before quitting and going home.

Comments

[Zathras]

The economy is bigger, but so is the amount of money the government has already borrowed. The obligations it has incurred, to people retiring over the next 15-20 years for example, are substantially larger as well. Make no mistake, the bill for this will be very large, and will be paid mostly with borrowed money.

This makes it imperative to look at a couple of things that have not gotten much media attention, and for all I know have not gotten much attention within the government either. The first is the methodology behind reconstruction cost estimates (the methodology behind security and intelligence cost estimates is obviously important as well, but presumably we have a better handle on that). Do these estimates adequately take into account, for example, the very low cost of both skilled and unskilled labor in Iraq, or the fact that most of the people who built the power plants, sewers, roads and bridges we are proposing to repair are still in the country? Do CPA cost estimates reflect information it have gotten from American contractors about what the contractors would charge for the work, and if so is that information close to what we need to pay?

The second thing we need to look at is how all this work will be paid for. Despite the brave talk of resolve, staying the course and so on, it won't be too long before Congress starts to balk at gigantic reconstruction bills. And it should. Reconstruction of infrastructure damaged as a result of Iraq's former government should be paid for by Iraq's future government, and in the same manner people are talking about America paying for it now -- with borrowed money. The problem is that Iraq's next government will begin life saddled with vast amounts of debt that the Baathists ran up for weapons, Saddam's construction projects, and other things. Much of that debt is owed to France, Germany, Russia, and other Arab countries.

To allow Iraq to finance much of its reconstruction most of that debt will have to be written off. It is in this area, not in the sending of troops or issuance of loans for specific development projects, that Iraq's creditor nations can make their greatest contribution to future stability in the region. It is Iraqi debt forgiveness that needs to be put on the table as the Bush administration seeks help in rebuilding the country -- the former government's creditors helped create this problem, and their assumption of the debt owed them now will help solve it.

[joe]

I'm sure Haliburton will use local know-how and labor, instead of reinventing the wheel and bringing in "consultants" with whom they have longstanding relationships, in order to keep costs to a mini- ha ha ha ha ha!

Well, I almost got through it.

[Justin Barstow]

Isn't 60 Billion the yearly cost for the drug war? Why can't they simply change drug to terrorism and it'll be paid for already?

[SteveInClearwater]

Justin, they're already trying. Ever since last year's Super Bowl which tied smoking pot to terrorism, it's been an escalating campaign.

One state attorney in North Carolina is attempting to charge methamphetamine sellers (of any quantities at all) under the Patriot Act provisions which address profits that might possibly maybe eventually at some point trickle down thru six dozen degrees of economic separation to end up buying groceries for Al Quada.

Not sure how it works on accounta the money I give to my own pot dealer helps him create about a twenty dollar profit every couple weeks which he uses to buy literal groceries for his family.

Thus my own slogan, Smoke a Joint, Feed a Baby.

S