How Long Can We Afford Iraq?

[Aldebaran]

I’m once again very amuzed by the incredible arrogance of Americans.

Salaam. A.

[flonks]

*Originally posted by E72521 *
I was born in 1960, lived in Germany from 1980 to 1984. Putting two and two together I think that it is safe to say that not only am I old enough to be your father, I probably am your father.

You couldn’t and you aren’t.

*Originally posted by E72521 *
I think that the underlying problem here is your inability/unwillingness to tell the difference between me personally and my imperialistic government.

It is you and not your government who asked whether France and Germany should feel obligated to help the US out. IMO this question - your question - is bold, insolent and ridicolous, even if your government is responsible for the war and its consequences.

[T.Mehr]

** flonks **
From the OP I can’t read that E72521 asks Germany and France to help out. He just wonders whether they should or not:

*Originally posted by E72521 *
3. Should Germany and France feel obligated to help us out? If so, should they also be entitled to have some say-so regarding rebuilding and security issues?

Putting your personal fighting aside (including the remark of Aldebaran) the answer clearly is NO !

[Susanann]

We cant afford Iraq at all. The United States does not have huge budget surpluses, nor does it have huge balance of trade surpluses.

Regardless, anything spent on the Iraq folly, means either that you will be taxes more to pay for it, your children will be taxed more, and other things(social security, medicare, unemployment befifits, etc) that could have been purchased instead for the benefit of americans, will not be purchased.

[flonks]

*Originally posted by Susanann *
**We cant afford Iraq at all. The United States does not have huge budget surpluses, nor does it have huge balance of trade surpluses.
**

Even if my remarks are considered “personal fighting” in this thread:

Don’t you think (you, the teeming millions), that from a non-US point of view this opinion is surprising - if not straightaway arrogant? I mean, the US seems to have a budget large enough to keep hundreds of thousands of soldiers(1 millon if I am well informed) in arms around the world. A budget large enough to fight a war on its own in a country a few thousand kilometers away.

And now, after having established military control and after the “exciting” and “interesting” part is done, when it comes to the less charming jobs, everybody seems to object the expenses.

[PatriotX]

A better question may be “Do we want to afford it?”

I suspect that we could afford it. But will we?

[flonks]

*Originally posted by SimonX *
A better question may be "Do we want to afford it?"

This hits the nail on the head.

[T.Mehr]

*Originally posted by **SimonX ***
**A better question may be “Do we want to afford it?”
**

The answer might be: Can you afford not to afford it?
(Something similar has been stated by London_calling not long ago in more depth.)

And, yes flonks the US should pick up the bill!

[Planet_of_the_Shapes]

So the consensus seems to be that if need be, the US can afford to pay $50b a year for Iraq, indefinately if need be. I agree.

How long though do you think the American people will be willing to pay this. How long until Iraq becomes an issue that is bad for Bush’s ratings (if this happens at all)? As a non American, i would be interested in your answers.

Incidentally, does anyone believe the US position of wanting other countries to supply money and troops while leaving control in US hands is an honestly held one? Obviously that is what the US administration wants, but surely they can’t be so stupid as to think they might actually get it. It must only be a starting negotiating position.

[London_Calling]

Planet of the Shapes - states the essence of the classic dilemma now facing this Administration;

Paramount imperatives - Retain control of Iraqi oil yet not suffer US body bags (and lose the 2004 election as a result of that and related matters) – absolutely has to be a win-win. Resolve that conundrum, and the neo-Cons have their cake and are eating it too, failure and they’re not re-elected.

So, one can hardly blame them for trying Option Uno: sucker other nations in to do the dirty work for cash. Old fashioned ‘empire troops’ that, for example, the Romans and British liked to use.

But that’s not going to be enough, no matter how many underhand deals are done (trade concessions, loan deals, etc.).

Good move (if they can engineer it) to have another batch (maybe up to 28,000) Iraqi police train in Hungary. Those police are vital.

Also, need Arabic peace-keepers to liase with the locals and get information on the dissidents. The US has lost the initial goodwill and cooperation, only Arab-speakers can get that back. Problem is, few Arab countries see a western-style Iraq as a good thing so they ‘re not playing ball anymore than, say the French, Indians and Germans.

Still going to fail, but the rate will slow.

After that, anything can happen. Bush will be so desperate to win the election and also retain control of the oil supply, it’s difficult to imagine what he isn’t considering.

[Susanann]

*Originally posted by flonks *
** Don’t you think (you, the teeming millions), that from a non-US point of view this opinion is surprising - if not straightaway arrogant? I mean, the US seems to have a budget large enough to keep hundreds of thousands of soldiers(1 millon if I am well informed) in arms around the world. A budget large enough to fight a war on its own in a country a few thousand kilometers away.

And now, after having established military control and after the “exciting” and “interesting” part is done, when it comes to the less charming jobs, everybody seems to object the expenses. **

I dont know what you mean.

First of all, you are wrong. The US cannot afford to be in Iraq.

The US has a budget deficit, and a balance of trade deficit, the US cannot afford it, we dont have the money/cash to do it. The only way the US is able to have the money to spend on troops in Iraq is by issuing US Treasuries, i.e., by borrowing, from people from other countries to get the funds to pay for this adventure. If the US was not able to borrow the money to be in Iraq, we would not be there, we could not be there. Having hundreds of thousands of troops in arms around the world is only made possible by borrowing the money from other countries to enable us to do it.

Secondly, it is not a matter of being “less charming now”, the US had no business in the first place of starting a war in the middle east.

[E72521]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/27/sprj.irq.poll/index.html

As for leadership, most Americans – 54 percent – do not believe President George W. Bush has a clear plan for handling Iraq. Just 44 percent believe he does.

That’s because President Bush thought that after the shock and awe, Iraqis and the rest of the world would embrace the ousting of SH. My nine year old knew better.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/08/28/sprj.irq.us.iraq/index.html

Speaking last week on French radio, Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said the coalition powers should switch from “a logic of occupation to a logic of sovereignty” in Iraq. “The real question is whether there needs to be a rethink of the involvement in Iraq,” he said, “not only that of the U.N. but that of all the parties, including the coalition.”

I think that recognizing the Iraqi Nation Congress would be a good place to start rethinking, Mr de Villepin. Are you afraid that they wont honor your sweetheart oil contracts with Saddam? Is that what’s holding things up? In the end, hatred of President Bush and the United States will prevail, and we (the world) will end up with something like this

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030901-477929,00.html?cnn=yes

Which brings us to the third point, the hardball. If the world will not help us in Iraq, we should ostentatiously announce a global reconsideration of all U.S. military commitments in humanitarian ventures. Why are thousands of U.S. troops sitting in the Balkans, doing a job the French and Germans and others who won’t lift a finger for us in Iraq can very well do themselves?

And it’s really all over the overinflated egos of a few men.

[flonks]

*Originally posted by Susanann *
**First of all, you are wrong. The US cannot afford to be in Iraq.
**

Even if the money is borrowed: you still did not explain why there is no lack of motivation to pay for hundreds of thousands of soldiers and to pay for the war, but the lack of motivation to pay for rebuilding Iraq.

[rjung]

Let’s just send the bills for Iraq to George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Halliburton. They wanted it, let them pay for it.

[Voyager]

*Originally posted by flonks *
**Even if the money is borrowed: you still did not explain why there is no lack of motivation to pay for hundreds of thousands of soldiers and to pay for the war, but the lack of motivation to pay for rebuilding Iraq. **

The existence of a large military is one of the things we need to do as the only remaining superpower. Lots of soldiers does not obligate you to start wars, after all.

The only reason for the current problem is that the American public is beginning to catch on to how much this is costing - which is a lot more than promised earlier. The explanation as to how the Bush administration can ask the opponents of the war to pay for reconstruction without a voice in it is simple - arrogance, pure arrogance.

[sailor]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/966069.asp
Iraq war costs escalate sharply
Toll on troops, equipment will mean higher spending for years
“This $87 billion is really just a down payment,” said Scott Lilly, the Democratic staff director of the House Appropriations Committee and a military procurement expert.
It is a point that military officials emphasize.
“We assumed that operations would cease a lot earlier than they have,” said an Army official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “They haven’t ceased. The planning process was always to downsize, for the operational tempo to drop dramatically by now. The surprise is, we continue to operate at a very, very high op tempo with a very, very large force.”
Army officials say they will need more than $16 billion to repair and replace worn and expended military hardware and reconstitute a force that has been exhausted by simultaneous operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The “reset” involves more than 50,000 wheeled and tracked vehicles, every aviation system deployed in the Middle East and 300 different computer, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems.
“The dollar cost still slaps you in the eye,” the Army official said.

With the economy in no so good shape and all this money being spent in Iraq and no convincing reasons that the war was necessary, president Bush is going to ha a lot of ‘splainin’ to do.

[Eva_Luna]

*Originally posted by Aldebaran *
**I’m once again very amuzed by the incredible arrogance of Americans.

Salaam. A. **

If I had more patience than I do, I would be amused by your steadfast refusal to acknowledge that Americans do not all share one opinion. But I’m not feeling teribly patient, so I will just mention that you might want to check out the size of that brush you’re painting with.

[T.Mehr]

*Originally posted by London_Calling *
Good move (if they can engineer it) to have another batch (maybe up to 28,000) Iraqi police train in Hungary. Those police are vital.
**

Bad move if you go right ahead and shoot them.

[msmith537]

*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
Let’s put this into perspective, shall we? …

…
There’s no doubt it’s a big cost. But this talk of the occupation bankrupting the U.S. or having to “give up your Social Security, funding for education the environment and just about everything else not directly related to the military” is just over-the-top nonsense. Even including the cost of the war, overall military spending in the U.S. as a percentage of GDP is still lower than it was during many periods of the cold war. **

Please don’t hijack the anti-Bush ranting by bringing facts and figures into this “debate”.

[Alereon]

Through the magic of credit car-, erm, deficit spending, we can afford ANYTHING!