War Costs

5 PM September 20, 2004

The cost of war in Iraq so far:


I have to wonder if the US government could have justified running such a deficit to support on a less deadly solution to the danger of WMDs, introducing democracy to the Middle East, removing a dictator, or securing an oil supply. I don't think they could have.

By alang | # | Comments (6)
(Posted to Rants)


At 19:42, 20 Sep 2004 David Pinn wrote:

Okay, so you disagree with the war in Iraq; and you disagree with Bush, Howard, conservative politics in general (?); now tell us what you would do in John Howards place. Do we just pull out of Iraq? Do we stick it out?

At 01:58, 21 Sep 2004 Jed Wesley-Smith wrote:

Do we stick what out? What exactly are we trying to achieve and how are we planning to do it? We don't seem to have a plan for the reconstruction of Iraq apart from supporting whatever dubya does lock stock etc.

At 23:14, 21 Sep 2004 Craig wrote:

$136 billion...US dollars I guess. I thought it would be a lot more.

Having worked for Defence, I'm always interested in how costs such as this are determined. Is the $136 billion the total cost of the armed forces, or is it the cost over and above the peacetime cost of the relevant resources? Only the later can be considered the "cost of the war" IMO.

But I am in agreement with David. We really need alternatives. Pull out the troops by Christmas? Stay until Iraq has "stable" government? Stay until the Iraqi's ask us to leave? Leave tomorrow?

At 05:56, 22 Sep 2004 AndrewR wrote:

There's little doubt that the post-war reconstruction of Iraq was poorly planned. I don't think this a reason for abandoning the effort.

At 23:02, 27 Sep 2004 Sureka wrote:

I'll tell you what I would have done and would do in John Howard's place. Apologies for the long rant.

I would have done what the Canadians, the New Zealanders and all the decent countries in the world managed to do, without being struck down by lightening or turned into frogs. I would have refused to be dragged into an unjustifiable and unwinnable war in return for getting an FTA which turns out to be a lemon anyway.

And if John Howard were to suddenly wake up a reasonable man today, I'd start facing up to the real problem in Iraq.

The truth is that we are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The Iraqis might want freedom and democracy, but they sure as hell don't want no white man to give it to them with guns, grenades and Halliburton contracts.

What sort of idiot believes that you can take a country that has been light-years from liberal democracy in terms of political history and culture, and turn it into Weimar in 12 months with nothing but 'shock and awe'?

Only a moron, without an iota of historical perspective could believe that you could 'set-up' a democracy by charging in, blasting everyone around to smithereens and then 'handing-over-power' to your stooges, and expect to leave amidst the fanfare of trumpets and accolades.
Pay attention! It takes at least a CENTURY for democracy to take hold, often longer.

The only constructive contribution that Australia can make now is to beg the UN, with the support of the Arab nations to intervene and get itself and its highly inflammotary buddies out of there.

Is it rocket science to work out that peace-brokers and liberators need to be and be perceived to be, neutral, rather than self-serving, power hungry, manipulative, greedy super-powers and their poodles?

At 02:54, 28 Sep 2004 Chris wrote:


If you follow the link, you'll find the answer. It's based upon the amount of money the Bush administration requested from Congress specifically for the Iraq war. The source is congressional appropriations.


Add Comment

(Not displayed)

(Leave blank line between paragraphs. URLs converted to links. HTML stripped. Indented source code will be formatted with <pre> tags.)

© 2003-2006 Alan Green