News & Politics > Briefs
edited by Lorna Tychostup

The Costs of War

While the Bush administration has inconsistently articulated various reasons for war with Iraq, it has yet to provide any official estimates of the possible costs. Two published studies of a prospective war with Iraq, one by the Democratic Staff of the House Budget Committee (the House study) and the other by the Congressional Budget Office (the CBO study), seek to answer the question, at least in terms of dollars and cents: How much will war cost?

An assessment of the costs of a war with Iraq needs to be based on scenarios for the conduct of war, the aftermath of hostilities, the impacts on the oil market and other related markets, and the "macro-economic" impacts, i.e., on the overall US economy. The variability potential costs for a war with Iraq lies in the duration of the conflict-whether it is a quick "victory" or a protracted conflict, as well as the total damage to Iraq, civilian casualties, the potential for unconventional warfare, and the spread of the conflict outside Iraq.

The House study estimates that, to achieve overwhelming force, the US will deploy between 150,000 and 350,000 personnel. This is approximately one half of the level deployed for the first Persian Gulf War. The "quick victory" scenario would cost somewhere between $48 billion and $60 billion, similar to that of the first Persian Gulf scenario.

Neither the House report nor the similar report from the Congressional Budget Office provide estimates of the costs of a protracted war. With factors such as duration of conflict, costs of additional resources, and the extent to which conflict is spread to other countries all affecting the total cost, it may be said that the US might need to devote approximately 50 percent more resources to the war efforts against Iraq. If a war with Iraq should drag on for a year or longer, making it a "protracted conflict," costs could soar from the estimated $50 billion to around $140 billion. Surprisingly, the higher price would only be around 1.5 percent of Gross Domestic Product-comparable to the costs of the Mexican- or Spanish-American Wars, and much cheaper than the Vietnam or Korean Wars.

Further expenses are virtually inevitable after a conflict. There are a few major identifiable costs to the United States for the decade following the start of a war, from 2003 to 2012. Firstly, there would be a need to install an occupation and peacekeeping force in Iraq for a lengthy period after the war. The CBO estimates that occupation will cost between $17 billion and $45 billion per year, but this is a lowball figure. The duration of the occupation-peacekeeping effort is unforeseeable, but would presumably last at least five years, with the potential to extend to two decades. Considering this, the higher end of the occupation costs would range from $75 billion to $500 billion.

Reconstruction and nation-building costs must also be factored in, for the post-conflict rebuilding and construction estimates in Iraq are substantial, with a minimum $25 billion to as much as $100 billion. Humanitarian assistance will undoubtedly be necessary to care for refugees of war, as well as the wounded and ill in Iraq and possibly in neighboring countries. It is probable that between one and five million residents of Iraq would require assistance for one to four years in the post-war environment, bringing the cost of humanitarian assistance somewhere between $1 billion and $10 billion.

Thus, if we take the figures for a best-case scenario in Iraq (lowballing the costs of invasion, occupation, reconstruction, and humanitarian assistance), the cost of war will be $230 billion.

By comparison, the total US federal education budget for 2003 is $53.1 billion.

-Tara Tornello & Brian K. Mahoney; SOURCES: CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, HOUSE BUDGET COMMITTEE, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS, NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS

ANWR Drilling Plan Defeated in the Senate

The New York Times reported on March 18 that Senate Republicans had given up hope of including legislation in the 2004 budget resolution that would allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. A vote on the drilling plan took place after our April issue went to press, but two leading Republican supporters of drilling, Senators Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico and Ted Stevens of Alaska, canceled a press conference on March 17, indicating that the Republicans did not have the 50 votes they needed to include the drilling in the budget resolution.

The inability to permit drilling is viewed as an embarrassment to the Bush administration, which made opening up ANWR to oil production a cornerstone of its energy plan. According to the New York Times, Interior Secretary Gale Norton, in Congressional testimony on March 12, called ANWR an area of "flat, white nothingness" and said it represented the "nation's greatest potential for future oil."

The US Geological Survey, however, concluded that there is a 50 percent chance that there are about 6.1 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil underlying the refuge, and a 95 percent chance that the oils value is actually about 3.4 billion barrels. In a nation that consumes 17 million barrels a day, this would equal 0.15 percent of projected oil demand in 2010, the first year that oil would have come out of ANWR.
* -Brian K. Mahoney; SOURCE: NEW YORK TIMES