The book has pretty much been closed on whether the administration's pre-war analysis of the threat posed by Iraq was grounded in reality. It was not. But I'm going to talk about something that slipped under the radar a bit, and which is unfortunately going to sound cold and cruel: the dollar cost.
For a brief trip down memory lane, see a 2003 article about what a (then-hypothetical) war would cost. The president wisely steered clear of giving any specific figure, taking the whatever-it-takes line.
But figures circulated anyway, and ranged from $50 billion to $200 billion -- the $200B being called "the upper end of a hypothetical" by OMB's Trent Duffy. Back then, the idea of spending $200B on this war would have seriously deflated support for it.
Well, we're well underway now, and could maybe revise the estimate. Spent: $279B, or 1.4 times the "upper end". This is about 5 times the cost of the first Gulf War.
That would be somewhat-embarrassing, if the project were presently completed. But boy do we have a problem: at this exorbitant cost the project is nowhere near completed, and for some rough figures on how-complete the project is I consulted this fact sheet, in particular the last section containing reconstruction targets.
For example, "prewar projection of Iraq’s post-war oil output" was 3 million barrels/day. Production is now 1.7 million b/day, or 56% of the target. Just a bit of algebra, and final projected cost would be: $498 billion
Electricity production is in a similar state, having reached 59% of the target over 4 years. Finally, please note that most of these metrics of progress have not yet climbed back to their pre-war levels.
Thanks for posting on this Matt. It's an aspect of the war that I haven't covered, but is very important!
ReplyDeleteI'll try to come by more often with an unusual take on things. This one is intended to demonstrate what happens if you give the hawks an inch.
ReplyDelete