The Cost of the War

The CBO has estimated the cost of the war based upon two scenarios:

Summary At the request of Chairman Spratt, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has totaled the funding provided through fiscal year 2007 for military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other activities associated with the war on terrorism, as well as for related costs incurred by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for medical care, disability compensation, and survivors’ benefits. In addition to totaling the funding provided to date, CBO has projected the total cost over the next 10 years of funding operations in support of the war on terrorism under two scenarios specified by the Chairman. Those scenarios are meant to serve as an illustration of the budgetary impact of two different courses in the war on terrorism but are not intended to be a prediction of what will occur.

Appropriations for U.S. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and for the War on Terrorism (Billions of dollars)

Including both funding provided through 2007 and projected funding under the two illustrative scenarios, total spending for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other activities related to the war on terrorism would amount to between $1.2 trillion and $1.7 trillion for fiscal years 2001 through 2017 (see Table 1). A final section of this testimony briefly compares parts of CBO’s estimate to a frequently cited estimate prepared by two academic researchers, Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz. ...

According to this, there is an additional $700 billion in interest expenses bringing the total (under the $1.7 trillion dollar scenario) to $2.4 trillion. There is more to say but, unfortunately, I am short on time, so I will leave it to you to add more detail in comments. [Update: More here.]

Comments

[anne]

By summer 2002, the decision had been made on war an occupation and from this time Administration members both acted in concert to prepare the way at all costs and to make sure dissenting voices were not heard or were belittled and intimidated. The case for war was continually shown to be false and as continually the falsity was denied and ignored and successfully covered over with a language meant to arose fear.

Though the physical and mental and moral costs of the war and occupation are terrible beyond proper description, even the material costs have been subject to continual deception from University of Chicago warriors assuring in a comical accounting that drew no ridicule of a costless war.

Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes were mocked at a trillion dollar material cost for war and occupation, while the mocking for $2.4 trillion is now all but irrelevant. We should be terrified of what we have done, but too few will be to stop what we are doing.

[anne]

The Administration has just slashed Medicaid spending for disabled children and adults, a slashing that would have been restored by the health care bill the President vetoed and Congress would not override. Health care for 3.8 million needy children at a cost of a mere $7 billion a year, ready to be funded, was vetoed and the veto upheld. But, $2.4 trillion for a needless war in and occupation of Iraq unfunded is forever fine.

[anne]

We have spent more in not rebuilding Iraq than we spent in rebuilding Japan after the World War amid the terrifying destruction that was Japan. Still, how often have I read and heard the material cost of war dismissed by those who drove us to war, and by those who drove us to war I mean the pretend thinkers of think tanks?

At a cost of $2.4 trillion, 4.7 million Iraqis have been driven from homes or even from country. At a cost of $2.4 trillion, there were already at estimated 650,000 Iraqi excess deaths by June 2006. At a cost of $2.4 trillion, we are bombing by air in urban Iraq continually. What have we come to?

[anne]

To suggest that we should not go to war was difficult enough, but to suggest leaving Iraq immediately and completely was more difficult with ridicule from the right that had driven us to war and the left that could not understand Iraq was not ours to colonize for the "good." I would suggest leaving Iraq years ago, and lunatics would ask me to explain how.

Even as the tragedy continues to unfold, the tragedy has spread beyond and we can scarsely go a day not threatening another people. The President is even now threatening Cuba, having earlier threatened Iran in a double threat special for the day. Can there be a triple threat day coming?

[ken melvin]

This relentless pursuit of war, now pointed toward Iran; what really motivates these people? Disregarding the Neocons, does Cheney honestly see war as the only solution to the danger few other he himself perceives? He and Bush talk of WWIV! Do they see themselves as Roosevelts, leading the nation in a great war? Or, is it that they wish to be remembered as such and are willing to start such a war? There needs be preliminary then annual sanity testing for those in high office, the first set being given next week to Bush and Cheney.

[anne]

I am wondering now if Iran seems too much of a problem, will we go after Cuba instead? We have an Aministration that even this day, this very day, is found censoring scientific study on climate change. That is the way in which war and occupation have been handled, deception and censoring. The fear of fear was that too many people might bother to read the reports of the International Atomic Energy Agency to the Security Council and understand that an immoral war, a completely immoral war, was about to be waged.

[ken melvin]

I know, Newsweek? But it gives perspective.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/57346

[anne]

When Linda Bilmes dared to point to what will be the terrifying need for care of American soldier casualties, an Assistant Secretary of Defense called the Dean of Harvard's Kennedy School to complain. Then, the data on casualties was effectively hidden. Where was shame, let alone honor?

The President of a university makes a point of showing off as a frightened buffoon when the example of Martin Luther King is wholly forgotten and hidden. But, when do Administration leaders not set an example of bullying buffoonery in lieu of diplomacy?

[bakho]

Spratt has a pretty good website and posts what the House has accomplished so far:

http://www.house.gov/budget_democrats/analyses/08fiscal_responsibility_web.pdf

[anne]

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/the_restive_base.php

October 24, 2007

The Restive Base
By Matthew Yglesias

I saw Paul Krugman speak last night to a packed house at Temple Sinai at a book event organized by DC's famous Politics & Prose bookstore for his "The Conscience of a Liberal." The audience was clearly interested in what Krugman had to say about his book, which focuses almost entirely on the political economy of wealth and income inequality, but by far the biggest moment of the night was when he mentioned offhand in response to a question that he's "very disappointed" in the Democratic congressional majority's inability to end the war.

That prompted enormous applause from the crowd. So enormous, in fact, that I think he felt the need to start walking it back, taking account of the objective difficulty of the math in the House and (especially) Senate and putting the real onus where it belongs -- on the Republicans. And those are, of course, fair points. But still it is hard to shake the sense that a lot of Democratic members and strategists and assorted other hacks basically just don't think there's any wastage of lives and money in Iraq that it's worth taking political risks to prevent.

[anne]

John Spratt has worked against the moral and strategic disaster of Iraq, and I am grateful for the request of a confirming cost of war and occupation for which the Representative will be much criticized. I only hope there is much notice.

[anne]

What I am not sure is much evident yet is the extent to which the we have suffered a terrible strategic loss in Iraq, which may explain the evient desperation of the Administration in finding new countries to threaten almost daily.

[Bruce Wilder]

Is Iran Attack Next?

What does one suppose the cost of this item will ultimately be? $88 million? Or, the nation's honor? The rule of law? The Constitution? Peace in the World?

[BJ Feng]

Anne, when we entered Iraq, it was to create a better nation. It doesn't matter if you agree with that statement or not, what matters is that when we entered Iraq, for whatever reason you want to give, we also acquired an obligation to do our best to create a stable Democracy for the Iraqi people. We have a moral responsibility to try our best to leave Iraq a better place than when we entered. The costs are indeed high, but they are ours to bear and we should not try to shirk from our duty. If it would be better for the Iraqi people for us to leave right now, then we should do it, but neither I, nor the Iraqi people through their representatives, think a pullout would be best right now. Surely we should leave as soon as possible, but not before fulfilling our obligations. To betray the Iraqi people to save even a couple of hundred billion would be utterly disgraceful and repugnant.

[SanFranciscoJim]

$2.4T is $90,000 for each and every Iraqi. I wonder what else we could have bought for them with that much money, other than a destroyed country.

[Sandman]

Hardly. The Iraq war was more a zionist crusade, nothing more nothing less. The "Insurgancy" is in better shape than ever. The Sunnis control the areas around Bagdad while the Shiites have all the western provinces that the Brits could no longer control. Iran would love to join essentially the 2 countries together.

This "unofficial" cease fire won't last to 2009. The other Arab nations will want Saddams old chums over the Shiite extremists.

The US economy can no longer afford the war going foward. The Citizenry is tired of it and won't pay extra taxes for it.

The only thing being betrayed is American blood for the pigmens amusement. Yet, Iraq will be as it was in 2002.

No more, no less.

[SanFranciscoJim]

A new WPO poll of the Iraqi public finds that seven in ten Iraqis want U.S.-led forces to commit to withdraw within a year. An overwhelming majority believes that the U.S. military presence in Iraq is provoking more conflict than it is preventing and there is growing confidence in the Iraqi army. If the United States made a commitment to withdraw, a majority believes that this would strengthen the Iraqi government. Support for attacks on U.S.-led forces has grown to a majority position—now six in ten. Support appears to be related to a widespread perception, held by all ethnic groups, that the U.S. government plans to have permanent military bases in Iraq.

Indeed, let us respect the Iraqi majoritarian position and commit to withdrawing within the year.

I agree that we owe the Iraqi people reparations, enough to rebuild their shattered infrastructure, but that should come after we leave.

[anne]

"----, when we entered Iraq, it was to create a better nation. "

"----, when we bombed Iraq, it was to create a better nation. "

"----, when we invaded Iraq, it was to create a better nation. "

"----, when we occupied Iraq, it was to create a better nation. "

"----, when 650,000 died needlessly in Iraq, it was to create a better nation. "

"----, when 4.7 million were driven from homes needlessly in Iraq, it was to create a better nation. "

[anne]

"We have a moral responsibility to try our best to leave Iraq a better place than when we entered."

Imagine a moral lunacy, that is beyond imagining. Hundreds of thousands dead, millions homeless, trillions squandered in needless destruction. And words of lunacy.

[anne]

"----, when we entered Iraq, it was to create a better nation."

Notice the language and be astounded at the deceit and moral vacuity.

[anne]

There were 1,140 air bombings in Iraq from January through September, and about 70 as of a few days ago in October. We are bombing repeatedly in urban areas, we were condemned for such bombing by a United Nations human rights panel just this October. Nonetheless, we persist.

Think of 1,140 urban air bombings in 9 months, and ask what America has come to.

[anne]

"----, when we entered Iraq in 2003, it was to create a better nation."

"----, when we bombed in urban Iraq 1,140 times in 9 months in 2007, it was to create a better nation."

"----, when we bombed in urban Iraq about 70 times in 3 weeks in October 2007, it was to create a better nation."

We have been bettering Iraq to the death since March 2003, and scarcely a mention of our bettering through bombing. What sort of America is this betterer?

[anne]

We "entered" Iraq to shock and awe and have been shocking and awing Iraqis ever since from the destruction of Fallujah on. We destroyed the city of Fallujah, a city of about 250,000 residents, as a reprisal. An entire city made hostage. A city where even to this day, limited and ruined as it has been and is, there is no vehicle traffic allowed.

[anne]

Since when has America destroyed a city in reprisal, destroyed a city to save a city, an entire city, as though this had been 1942 and 1943 and 1944 and 1945. Fallujah has been bettered though since we lay siege in 2004 and possibly in 2008 we may even allow vehicles to enter again.

[S Brennan]

What BJ Feng says...

"We have a moral responsibility to try our best to leave Iraq a better place than when we entered."

What BJ Feng does...

"Enlist? I've got better things to do...besides real men put a yellow magnet on their SUV and make war movies afterward."

[duncan]

"If it would be better for the Iraqi people for us to leave right now, then we should do it..."
Impossible to create a legitimate government or lasting peace in a country under violent occupation. Coalition withdrawal is a precondition for any kind of stability in Iraq. We kid ourselves if we think our presence there does any good.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/opinion/25thur1.html

October 25, 2007

Another $200 Billion

President Bush waited until he had vetoed a relatively inexpensive children’s health insurance bill before asking for tens of billions of dollars more for his misadventure in Iraq. The cynicism of that maneuver is only slightly less shameful than the president’s distorted priorities. Despite a pretense of fiscal prudence, Mr. Bush keeps throwing money at his war, regardless of the cost in blood, treasure or children’s health care.

Mr. Bush is threatening to veto most of the 12 domestic spending bills now before Congress because Democrats want to provide $22 billion more than the $933 billion he has requested. His argument? Something about the president’s responsibility to rein in lawmakers’ “temptation to overspend.”

This from a leader who turns federal surpluses into deficits, believes that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars can be financed on a separate set of books with borrowed money, and keeps having to go back to Congress for “emergency funding” because he cannot or will not tell the truth about what it is costing to fight these wars.

Mr. Bush’s latest emergency request is for $46 billion. That would bring the 2008 price tag for Iraq and Afghanistan to $196.4 billion. Starting at Sept. 11, 2001, war-fighting expenses total a staggering $800 billion or more. The nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments says that by the end of the year spending on Iraq will probably surpass that on the Vietnam War.

Mr. Bush has said most of the new money would go for “day-to-day” military operations and “basic needs” like bullets, body armor and mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles, which are designed to withstand bomb attacks, a rising threat to American forces in Iraq. The troops need safer vehicles and better armor, but it is beyond our ken why Mr. Bush could not cover this in his original budget submission, unless he wanted to confuse the public and limit Congressional oversight.

And there is no end in sight. Mr. Bush clearly plans to keep fighting this pointless war until his last day in office. The new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, told The Times that he will press Congress to sustain current military spending levels even after the Iraq war ends so the Pentagon can repair and replace worn-out weapons and rebuild ground forces.

The Pentagon will certainly need help recovering, but the country cannot keep signing blank checks. The next president, and Congress, will finally have to impose some discipline, starting with an honest review of what is needed to keep America safe, not just enrich military contractors and their lobbyists.

Democrats have failed repeatedly to end the Iraq war or to substantially change its course. Now they face another test. Mr. Bush will try to ram his spending request through Congress before Christmas, using the impending holiday to create a false sense of urgency. They must resist that, and try again to use their power of the purse to force the president to begin serious planning for a swift and orderly exit from Iraq. They cannot have it both ways — opposing the war and enabling Mr. Bush to keep it going full speed and full cost ahead....

[anne]

There was a moment in Europe, only a moment, when the Secretary of Defense explained that an anti-missile European anti-missile system against a dread Iranian attack on Poland could possibly be delayed against increasing Russian opposition. Shortly after, George Bush made clear there would be no such delay then going on to threaten Cuba since we are obviously worried about a dread Cuban attack on Poland as well. This is where we have come, as though we would all of us be living in tanks soon.

[Oupoot]

Anne, they are probably employing the people from Enron to help them keeping the books :)

[anne]

Even as on this very day, we are threatening anew, as though incapable of not threatening, we have been engaged in an imperial enterprise from the time the decision was taken to invade Iraq at all costs. Though I do not know just where the difference begins, this war and occupation is different than the wars that have come before in being beyond any previous self-defense justification and seemingly beyond influence by advocates for peace. This is war and occupation with deception practiced from beginning to this day while we would hold we arte democratic.

We have been after controlling a single city, Fallajah, at all costs since April 2004. Now in October 2007, what is this wrecked brooding city that was once 250,000? A single city, as metaphor.

[Patricia Shannon]

You can listen to Kemp Jones beautiful, great song "Children of War" at

http://www.myspace.com/kempjones

He wrote it after seeing a TV program on a war, that showed a child who said "We children don't need war, we need chocolate".

If the air waves weren't mostly owned by a few very large corporations, this song would be big on the radio.

And the FCC wants to make the problem even worse.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/18/business/main3379863.shtml

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-US-Iran.html?hp

October 25, 2007

New American Sanctions Levied Against Iran
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson today with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who said the policy is meant to “confront the threatening behavior of the Iranians.”

[Remember, the day is new, there is time to threaten another country this day if we hurry.]

[Patricia Shannon]

I don't think we should have invaded Iraq, I don't think we should invade Iran (at least not now). But I don't think it is in the interest of the world for Iran to have nuclear weapons.
Do you disagree? If not, what should we do?

BTW, why do we still have an embargo on Cuba, while China is ranked as a "most favored nation". Of course, that's a rhetorical question. It makes the pseudo-macho bullies feel powerful. To the rational person, it just shows that they are silly. (I don't like macho or pseudo-macho, either one).

[ken melvin]

I doubt it possible to forever prevent Iran from going nuclear as long as the US, Israel, Pakistan, India, South Africa, .... (I know France and UK, but they're of the less likely to use sort) have the bomb. Suspect the intelligent way would be to engage Iran in every way possible way including trade and treaties. Isolating them reminds me too much of 'keep doing the same thing and expecting different results'.

[anne]

Patricia asks a fine blunt question, which I will think about, but I find no reason to believe Iran wishes to become a nuclear power and find no reason why diplomacy cannot insure that Iran will limit nuclear developoment to energy production. War would be unthinkable.

As for Cuba, I find no reason for an embargo; none. But, the decision has been made that the embargo will continue through this Administration.

[Don Quijote]

The costs are indeed high, but they are ours to bear and we should not try to shirk from our duty

Go Army

Marines.com

Put up or shut up. If you need a ride let me know, It'll be my honor to drive to the USMC recruiting station.

Unless you're just another ChickenHawk ready to send other people' kids to fight the wars that you support but aren't willing to fight in.

[ilsm]

War is their first choice.

The militarists are in charge.

To question it is unpatriotic.

This America knows only the military response, shock, awe, long war, expensive, profitable, and wrong.

All political problems are not solved by bombs and bullets.

The militarists, taking a lot of our money, run America.

That must end.

War is the last resort.

[anne]

Ilsm:

"War is the last resort."

At best, war is the last resort and my reading has told me repeatedly that we can draw productively closer to Iran. I cannot imagine a cause for war, as Iran cannot be a threat to us, but I cannot understand why we should be unable to cultivate improved relations when Iran needs just this and appears open absent the continual threats we make.

[anne]

Ilsm has a terse way of saying an awful lot.

[BJ Feng]

"but I find no reason to believe Iran wishes to become a nuclear power".

Anne, the President of Iran said that Iran does want to be a nuclear power. He's often contradicted himself by saying the above and then saying Iran doesn't want to develop nuclear weapons, but has the right to do so.

Can Iran be a threat, absolutely. Iran uses a very good tactic that I'll call proxy fighting. They have terrorists who are not officially part of the military go out and fight or suicide bomb. If those terrorists are caught or killed, Iran can deny any involvement. Will Iran give a nuclear bomb to one of their terrorists? Maybe not, but Iran's leadership is hard to read and understand.

And so far, diplomacy hasn't worked, Iran just keeps on stalling and making half gestures, then going back on them, all the while admitting to continuing nuclear development.

[Jeff]

You should take a look at the Wounded Warriors Project. It raises awareness for severely wounded combat U.S. combat veterans in Iraq and Afghanistan. It really puts a face on the cost of this war. Here's a link:

http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/aarwebshow

Jeff

[anne]

"----, the President of Iran said that Iran does want to be a nuclear power."

Another vicious crazed lie, but that is the point to lie viciously and crazily. That is always the point of war-mongers, lie at all costs and the costs in lives of of no concern. This is a complete utter lie; not a deception, not ignorance, which are always there, but a lie.

[anne]

Iran is a developing country of absolutely no threat to America, but a country that America threats continually, uses as an insane excuse to build an anti-missile system in eastern Europe as though Iran was preparing to overrun Poland to steal Polish women. The idea that Iran is a threat to America is rightist viciousness that knows no bounds in war-mongering now that Iraq has turned to such a disaster. So any lie and any viciousness from rightists is a mask and worse.

[anne]

Notice how the same vicious lies that brought us fear and hatred of Iraq and Iraqis, would do the same whether for Iran or Cuba or whatever country of the week we are threatenikng. An insane $2.4 trillion dollars for war and occupation even at the expense of American infants children is not enough for rightists who must further reduce America.

[anne]

This Administration is in the monster creating trade, in which at the cost of hundreds of thousands of Iraiq lives and millions of Iraqis homes an imagined monster Iraq must nonetheless be crushed even at the expense of American children. Now we would crush other lives and other homes to cover the insane tragedy of Iraq. Notice the words of the war-mongers, the naked lies, the endless viciousness. Moral-less soul-less people of perpetual destruction.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/opinion/l26krugman.html

War on Terror™

To the Editor:

There is a clever subtlety in Paul Krugman’s column “Death of the Machine” that might have been lost to many readers: It is a trademark designation on the phrase “War on Terror.”

Being in the branding business, I’m prone to notice such things, and while Mr. Krugman did not note or explain his use of the mark, I can only assume that he means to imply some desired ownership of that phrase by the Bush administration.

It seems likely to me that the administration would appreciate the protections the mark provides: denying its use by other parties (political or otherwise) and reserving the phrase as its exclusive property.

Randall Hensley
C.E.O., Industrie Brand Partners
New York, Oct. 19, 2007

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/opinion/19krugman.html

"The truth is that while the administration has lavished favors on some powerful, established corporations, the biggest scandals have involved companies that were small or didn’t exist at all until they started getting huge contracts thanks to their political connections. Thus, Blackwater USA was a tiny business until it somehow became the leading supplier of mercenaries for the War on Terror™."

Notice the trademark on "War on Terror™."

[anne]

http://www.juancole.com/2007/10/us-sanctions-on-iran.html

October 26, 2007

US Sanctions on Iran
By Juan Cole

The Bush administration announced wideranging new sanctions on Iran on Thursday, which target three Iranian banks, nine companies associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, and several individuals, as well as the IRGC (roughly analogous to the National Guard in the US, i.e. a populist adjunct to the formal Iranian army).

These unilateral sanctions clearly reflect frustration on the part of Bush/Cheney that they have not been able to convince the UN Security Council to apply international sanctions. (Iran has not been demonstrated to be doing anything that is illegal in international law.)

The sanctions may work but may not. The Dutch Shell corporation is thinking seriously of bucking the US and helping develop Iranian oil and gas production. China is negotiating a big deal with Iran. The world is energy hungry. Iran has energy. The US is a debtor nation, and has gone even more deeply into debt under Bush. It may just not be able to stand in the way of the development of Iranians energy.

The hypocrisy of the Bush case is obvious when it complains about Iran supporting Hizbullah and Hamas. The Kurds based in American Iraq have done much worse things to Turkey in the past month than Hizbullah did to Israel in June of 2006. Yet when Israel launched a brutal and wideranging war on all of Lebanon, destroying precious infrastructure and dumping enormous amounts of oil into the Mediterranean, damaging Beirut airport, destroying essential bridges in Christian areas, and then releasing a million cluster bomblets on civilian areas in the last 3 days of the war-- when Israel did all that, Bush and Cheney applauded and argued against a 'premature' cease-fire! Yet they are trying to convince Turkey just to put up stoically with the PKK terrorists who have killed dozens of Turkish troops recently and kidnapped 8 (again, more than the number of Iraeli troops that were kidnapped). Bush's coddling of the PKK in Iraq is not different from Iran's support for Hizbullah, except that the PKK is a more dangerous and brutal organization than Hizbullah....

[elvis]

anne wrote:
Iran is a developing country of absolutely no threat to America
absolutely.

There are plenty of real threats out there-- like subprime loans. Iran is nothing. What about Pakistan? They have nukes, terrorists seem to like the locale, and the government is shaky. That's scary. Don't know what I'd do about it, but it's a heck of a lot more scary than Iran.

[elvis]

Here's an interesting article: Putin says if you attack Iran, you attack Russia

Make bad moves on the foreign policy front and others will take advantage of it--smooth move, Bush.

[elvis]

Iran is a leading natural gas producer [as is Russia].
We need countries like that on our side.

Earth to Bush: more flies with sugar!

[ken melvin]

Feng,
If Iran is a threat to the troops in Iraq (it's certainly no threat to America), then, If we remove the troops from Iraq, problem solved, no?

[Elvis]

Iran a threat to troops in Iraq? According to the Army, most foreign insurgents in custody came from the Kingdom of Saud.

[ilsm]

The Iran going nuclear club is a strawman.

All it means is we do what we did with Russia in Europe from 1953 on: tell them: you use nukes, we use nukes.

Then the likelihood of conventional war in the Persian Gulf goes down just like the likelihood of war in Europe went to near zero.

Yes, then we can reduce our conventional commitments.

Israel can do what we would not allow the Germans to do; provide a level of mutual assured destruction and keep a lid on everyone.

[realist]

still the blatter.
messrs bush,cheney, and all the generals who
obeyed their clearly illegal orders are war criminals.
they must be brought to justice.
do the american people have the belly to do what
is right?

[real person from the real world]

O had this in another post, and it is appropriate here:

"As the investigative reporters Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele the October Vanity Fair, America has to date “spent twice as much in inflation-adjusted dollars to rebuild Iraq as it did to rebuild Japan — an industrialized country three times Iraq’s size, two of whose cities had been incinerated by atomic bombs.” (And still Iraq lacks reliable electric power.)"

Op-Ed Columnist - Suicide Is Not Painless - By FRANK RICH
Published: NYT October 21, 2007