By Patricia L Johnson

Senator Ken Conrad, Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget, requested the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, to estimate the potential costs associated with maintaining a long-term military force in Iraq.

The costs were projected using two scenarios – under combat operations and under noncombat operations.  The September 20, 2007 full report may be read at the following link http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/86xx/doc8641/09-20-ConradLTpresenceinIraq.pdf

Combat Operations – a force of approximately 55,000 military units and associated personnel would remain in Iraq for various periods of time and then return to permanent bases in the US or overseas.  The assumption would be the troops would operate at the same pace and conduct the same type of missions as currently being performed in Iraq.

• This would result in a one-time cost of $4 to $8 billion dollars and annual costs of approximately $25 billion.

Noncombat Operations – a long-term force of approximately 55,000 would be indefinitely stationed at established bases in Iraq – similar to the forces we have in Korea and Germany.  The assumption would be the troops stationed in Iraq would rarely see combat.

• Up front costs $8 billion (mainly for construction) with annual costs of $10 billion or less.

Is there anyone out there that thinks this isn’t going to happen?  That we aren’t going to have a long term presence in Iraq?  The fact the largest US Embassy in the world is being built in Iraq would lead even the most uninformed American to understand that we never had any intentions of getting out of Iraq.

We’re had troops in Korea since the war was over back in the 1950’s.  That’s five decades ago and bordering on six – how many decades are we going to have troops in Iraq?

You know how to add – start calculating – if we go with the noncombat scenario that’s $8 billion to start, plus $10 billion a year (remember these are only estimates – actual costs will be probably be double or triple) but let’s assume $8 billion a year to start and $10 billion a year for 57 years – the length of time we’ve been in Korea. 

Does this country have $578 billion to spare? 

If we use the figures for combat operations it’s even more disgusting.  We’ll give them a break and use $6 billion for start up costs, and let’s say the non-combat operations end after 5 years and we go to a noncombat mode.  That’s $6 billion for start up, plus $125 billion for the first five years, and $10 billion for the next 47 years for a total of $601 billion dollars, IF the fighting is over in 5 years.

Does a country that is cutting back on most social programs have $601 billion to spare? 

This is your tax dollars – what are you planning on doing about it?

As far as I’m concerned this administration got us into the mess in Iraq, so if a long-term presence is needed, the costs should come right out of the back pockets of Bush, Cheney, and the Bush-Cheney cabinet.  They’re the ones that brainwashed the world into believing the WMD theory, so they’re the ones that should pay.

How many wars do you think would be started if this administration was held personally, financially responsible for any screw ups?  Think maybe they would give some real consideration to the art of negotiation, or do you think they would continue to jump in full speed ahead with eyes open, but unable to see past the end of their noses?

Just because they have tunnel vision does that mean you have to?