Before the Coalition invaded Iraq, Andrew Natsios, chief for international development at the State Department, predicted post-war reconstruction would cost the U.S. no more than $1.7 billion, because Iraqi oil revenues would cover the bulk of the cost. See Chapter 12 of The Truth (with jokes), by Al Franken (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0525949062/sr=1-1/qid=1139432483/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-0220983-2906505?_encoding=UTF8). As Franken goes on to point out, the cost (to the U.S.) had climbed to $183 billion at the time he wrote the chapter. What happened? Where’d all that oil money go?!
Is this a trick question? They vastly underestimated the costs of the war and vastly overestimated the profitability of post-war Iraqi oil production. Not to brush you off or anything, but is there really a debate here?
I’m just assuming Natsios’ original assessment must have been based on some kind of hard figures. I’m trying to figure out how they went wrong in interpreting them.
What income?
Attacks on oil pipeline, wells, storage tanks & other facilities have been common.
Not too much oil has moved, relatively speaking.
Are you sure? Then why isn’t the price-at-the-pump even higher?
Because there was no net loss of Iraqi oil to world distribution. Under Hussein, the oil-for-food program was fairly limited and under the U.S. occupation it has improved only slightly. The supply portion of supply and demand has not yet been affected (either up or down) by Iraqi production since the price spikes that began at the turn of the century.
this has been a foreseeable problem for years, and the security has always lagged the necesity. see, for instance:
For an entertaining, in-depth, first-person account of someone directly involved in the utter shambles that is Iraqi reconstruction, look no further than our own departed Collounsbury. Sadly, he’s had to take a back seat due to serious illness, but some of his stories of American cluelessness with regardds to MENA are priceless.
Given that assertions that reconstruction (and the whole endeavor) would be expensive were derisively rejected out of hand, I assume that the logic was “because a realistic or conservative estimate of costs would militate against gaining approval for the Iraq adventure, obviously costs and efforts involved will be minimal and transitory.”
These people have proven themselves to be thoughtless, liars and just plain incompetent. Why would you assume they did anything but pull whatever figures they wanted out of thin air ? It’s the evil “reality based community” that worrys about mere accuracy, not them.
The insurgency happened. Is this a trick question? The administration (and a lot of other folks) didn’t anticipate a multi-year insurgency on the scale of what we got. They anticipated that the majority of the Iraqi people (read the Shi’ites and Kurds) would be happy having gotten rid of Saddam and friends and that we could do it surgically enough that all we’d need to do is repair a little battle damage from the infrastructure and restore the rest to pre-Gulf War I levels. Once the sanctions were gone, Saddam was gone, etc, the oil would flow in massive rivers and democracy would break out throughout the nation. Etc etc.
It didn’t work out that way obviously.
-XT
Hey, that’s my line. 
Lol…sorry. 
But it bears repeating I suppose…
-XT
We’ve found out. The oil revenue is funding the insurgency.