THE PROGRESSIVE REVIEW - October 2, 2006


Cost of Iraq War Nearly $2 Billion a Week
By Bryan Bender
The Boston Globe

Washington - A new congressional analysis shows the Iraq
war is now costing taxpayers almost $2 billion a week -
nearly twice as much as in the first year of the conflict
three years ago and 20 percent more than last year - as
the Pentagon spends more on establishing regional bases
to support the extended deployment and scrambles to fix
or replace equipment damaged in combat.

The upsurge occurs as the total cost of military operations
at home and abroad since 2001, including the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan, will top half a trillion dollars,
according to an internal assessment by the nonpartisan
Congressional Research Service completed last week.

The spike in operating costs - including a 20 percent
increase over last year in Afghanistan, where the mission
now costs about $370 million a week - comes even though
troop levels in both countries have remained stable. The
reports attribute the rising costs in part to a higher
pace of fighting in both countries, where insurgents and
terrorists have increased their attacks on US and coalition
troops and civilians.

Another major factor, however, is "the building of more
extensive infrastructure to support troops and equipment in
and around Iraq and Afghanistan," according to the report.
Based on Defense Department data, the report suggests that
the construction of so-called semi-permanent support bases
has picked up in recent months, making it increasingly
clear that the US military will have a presence in both
countries for years to come.

The United States maintains it is not building permanent
military bases in Iraq or Afghanistan, where the local
population distrusts America's long-term intentions.

But for the first time, a major factor in the growth of war
spending is the result of a dramatic rise in "investment
costs," or spending needed to sustain a long-term deploy-
ment of American troops in the two countries, the report
said. These include the additional purchases of protective
equipment for troops, such as armored Humvees, radios, and
night-vision equipment; new tanks and other equipment to
replace battered gear from Army and Marine Corps units that
have been deployed numerous times in recent years; and grow-
ing repair bills for damaged equipment, what the military
calls "reset" costs.

At least one lawmaker, referring to reports of equipment
shortages in the war zones and at US bases where troops
are training for combat, says some of the spending is
misplaced. "While we are spending billions in Iraq to
build and maintain massive bases, we cannot [effectively]
repair our abused equipment or replace it," US
Representative Martin T. Meehan , a Lowell Democrat and
member of the House Armed Services Committee, said in a
statement.

The Pentagon, which had previously made public its own
estimate of operating costs, has not released up-to-date
war costs.

The Congressional Research Service report estimates that
after Congress approves two pending bills, the total war
costs since Sept. 11, 2001, will reach about $509 billion.
Of that, $379 billion will cover the cost of operations
in Iraq, $97 billion will be the price tag for Afghanistan
operations, and $26 billion will have gone to beefed-up
security at US military bases around the world.

Though the military's operational costs in Iraq and
Afghanistan have gone up despite a level number of US
troops, the report attributes a large portion of the
increased spending to the military's ongoing preparations
to sustain combat operations in the two countries for the
foreseeable future.

For example, the report shows that under the category of
"procurement," the funds designated for "resetting the
force" - replacing or repairing equipment damaged in combat
and preparing for long-term fighting - has jumped from $7.2
billion in 2004 to $20.9 billion in 2005, and $22.9 billion
this year. Separately, the Army has told Congress that it
estimates it will need at least $36 billion more for
equipment, while the Marine Corps has reported it needs
nearly $12 billion.

Another major war cost is for infrastructure - bases,
landing strips, repair shops - for the forces in Iraq and
Afghanistan. These "operations and maintenance" costs
remained steady at about $40 billion per year in 2003,
2004, and 2005, but have spiked to more than $60 billion
this year.

Those factors alone, however, are "not enough to explain"
the spiraling increase in operating costs, according to
the report.

"You would expect [operating costs] to level off if you
have the same level of people," said the report's principal
author, Amy Belasco, a national defense specialist at the
Congressional Research Service. "You shouldn't have as much
cost to fix buildings that were presumably repaired when
you got there. It's a bit mysterious."

The Pentagon has not provided Congress with a detailed
accounting of all the war funds, making it impossible to
conduct a full, independent estimate of how much Americans
are spending in Iraq and Afghanistan - or to predict what
future costs might be.

"In congressional hearings, the Department of Defense has
typically provided estimates of the current or average
monthly costs over a period of time for military
operations, referred to as the `burn rate,'" the report
stated. "While this figure covers some of the costs of
war, it excludes the cost of upgrading or replacing
military equipment and improving or building facilities
overseas, and it does not cover all funds appropriated."

===================================

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
Dwight D. Eisenhower, From a speech before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 16, 1953