Cost of Iraq

Like I’ve said before, I’m trying to stay away from national politics on this blog, but being a fiscal conservative and a devoted Hoosier, the Bush administration’s wasteful Iraq policy gets me riled up.

Compare THEN:

Nightline: Project Iraq
April 23, 2003 Wednesday
Source: ABC News
TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) Our guest tonight is ANDREW NATSIOS, administrator of the Agency for International Development, the lead [Bush administration] agency that is responsible for rebuilding the infrastructure of Iraq.
. . .
TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) Well, it’s a, I think you’ll agree, this is a much bigger project than any that’s been talked about. Indeed, I understand that more money is expected to be spent on this than was spent on the entire Marshall Plan for the rebuilding of Europe after World War II.

ANDREW NATSIOS
No, no. This doesn’t even compare remotely with the size of the Marshall Plan.

TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) The Marshall Plan was $97 billion.

ANDREW NATSIOS
This is 1.7 billion.

TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) All right, this is the first. I mean, when you talk about 1.7, you’re not suggesting that the rebuilding of Iraq is gonna be done for $1.7 billion?

ANDREW NATSIOS
Well, in terms of the American taxpayers contribution, I do, this is it for the US. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries who have already made pledges, Britain, Germany, Norway, Japan, Canada, and Iraqi oil revenues, eventually in several years, when it’s up and running and there’s a new government that’s been democratically elected, will finish the job with their own revenues. They’re going to get in $20 billion a year in oil revenues. But the American part of this will be 1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this.

. . .

TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) And we’re back once again with ANDREW NATSIOS, administrator for the Agency for International Development. I want to be sure that I understood you correctly. You’re saying the, the top cost for the US taxpayer will be $1.7 billion. No more than that?

ANDREW NATSIOS
For the reconstruction. And then there’s 700 million in the supplemental budget for humanitarian relief, which we don’t competitively bid ’cause it’s charities that get that money.

TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) I understand. But as far as reconstruction goes, the American taxpayer will not be hit for more than $1.7 billion no matter how long the process takes?

ANDREW NATSIOS
That is our plan and that is our intention. And these figures, outlandish figures I’ve seen, I have to say, there’s a little bit of hoopla involved in this.
. . .

TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) If it’s cost plus, in other words, if they come back to you in another six months or in another year and say, gee, you know, we gave you best estimate we could but here’s what it ended up costing and it ended up costing double what we said it was gonna cost.

ANDREW NATSIOS
Oh, no, no, we have, that’s the amount of money we have to spend. We’re gonna do less if it costs more than that, because we have an appropriation, we’re gonna go within the limits of the appropriation.

TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) But what you are saying is, maybe, maybe fewer tasks will be accomplished. The amount of money, however, is gonna be the same?

ANDREW NATSIOS
That’s correct. 1.7 billion is the limit on reconstruction for Iraq. It’s a large amount of money but, compared to other emergencies around the world. But in terms of the amount of money needed to reconstruct the country, it’s a relatively small amount.

NOW:

The White House said Tuesday that President Bush will ask Congress for another $80 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an appropriation that would bring the total spent for the two wars to more than $300 billion.
. . .
The White House said additional war spending would push the federal deficit to a record $427 billion for fiscal 2005, according to administration budget forecasts unveiled Tuesday. Bush said the new infusion of money will pay for essential equipment and supplies.
. . .
Before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, estimates of the war’s cost were $50 billion, with assurances from administration officials that Iraqi oil revenues would pay for much of the effort.

Now, the Afghanistan undertaking seems pretty well justified to me. Taking that out of the equation, a fair estimate of the cost of the Iraqi adventure would seem to be $200 Billion (and counting.) Indiana’s population is roughly 6 million of the nation’s 270 million people or about 2.2% of the nation’s population. So, our share of the Iraq bill is roughly $4.4 Billion dollars. With that kind of money available, the state’s $800 million shortfall would seem trivial. We could have good schools, paved roads, and affordable healthcare. Given that sort of option, I’d much rather have those things even if it meant that Saddam Hussein was still in charge of his decrepit Army with no Weapons of Mass Destruction. Sure, the Iraqi people would still be under his bootheel. But, I favor a conservative foreign policy that is not motivated by bleeding-heart human rights considerations. I’m more concerned about the well-being of my fellow Hoosiers than I am by the welfare of strangers half-way across the world. Not the most compassionate world-view, I guess, but strikes me as awfully pragmatic.