Return to P.S. FAQs

Troops and Cost:  Lives and Treasure
How many U.S. troops occupy Iraq?  How long will they stay?  (Also see "When Will Troops Come Home?" FAQ)
What is their cost?  What is the role of Halliburton?  What are contractor scandals?  How quickly are Iraqis being trained?

Also see Troops:  Recruiting, Morale, PTSD

Also see related FAQs:   "Americans Being Killed" FAQ   "Violence 05-06,"  "Will there be a draft?" FAQ and "PS Allies/UN"

See costofwar.com for comparative cost statistics.

For months, Rumsfeld was suggesting that there would be under 50,000 U.S. troops by the fall of 2003 but in July he was re-evaluating.  Throughout the summer of 2003 there were 146,000-150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.  Some surmised that this number would increase by the end of 2003 summer.

Retired General Robert Gard told a Northbrook, IL audience on January 7, 2005 that Centcom's initial proposal for the war was 350,000 troops, whereas Rumsfeld's initial gambit was a mere 40,000.

One early act in May, 2003 by the Americans was to entirely disband the Iraqi army, a policy supported by INC leader Chalabi.  Many of them were Baath party members.  These Iraqis were without jobs and likely added to the immediate post-war looting.  

Paul Bremer wrote about this decision in his book released in January 2006.  He criticized the President and Rumsfeld for not adding more troops as the insurgency was growing. 

Later, the U.S. began paying former Iraqi army personnel. Into early November, the U.S. had seemed not consider bringing back some of this army for security or border patrol.  

However, the U.S. was quickly training Iraqi policemen and troops.  The job of policeman was increasingly dangerous in November and December, as Iraqis were more often targeted for attacks.  On December 13, the Washington Post and NPR reported that one half of Iraqis trained for the army have quit over pay.  The soldiers were paid about $60 per month.

The number of trained Iraqis remained controversial in 2005.  Iraqi soldiers are more easily estimated than Iraqi police, some of whom are paid but do not show up.  

Estimates of their length of stay were at first a few months, but then up to five years.  After the deadly car bombing of the UN headquarters on August 19, 2003, Bremer said to NPR's Juan Williams, "We need to see it through...Americans are not quitters."  Echoed President Bush on August 26, "There will be no retreat...we are on the offensive" against terrorism.  The President urged patience, and defending his policy in a speech (see full text), added, "Building a free and peaceful Iraq will require a substantial commitment of time and resources and it will yield a substantially safer and more secure America and the world." (Chicago Tribune, 8/27/03). Some soldiers have admitted low morale and their families back home have publicly complained.

Troops have increased in anticipation of elections, and have ranged from about 115,000 to about 160,000. In contrast, in Afghanistan, the US had about 20,000 troops in the fall of 2006. The number was expected to increase in 2007.

In Janaury 2007, President Bush recommended a "surge" of about 22,000 troops. This would actually double the number of combat troops in Baghdad.
See many more details on "Will US Troops Come Home?" FAQ.

The new high number, first mentioned in April 2007, was that once the "surge" was complete, US troops totals would be 173,000.

Why did the U.S.  pull out its troops from Saudi Arabia?  Paul Wolfowitz, of the Pentagon, quietly made this announcement soon after the "major combat" of the war ended.  With troops apparently in Iraq for years to come, bases in Saudi Arabia seem less critical.  In addition, the Saudi government (and certainly bin Laden) is happy to see us go.  "Infidels in the holy land" was one of bin Laden's main complaints about the US.

In April 2004 with the release of Bob Woodward's book Plan of Attack, came the story that the Saudis knew of the plan to go to war before Colin Powell.  The top-secret map of the war , labeled "Top Secret.  No foreign" was shown to Saudi Ambassador and long-time Bush friend, Prince Bandar. Skeptical that the U.S. really meant business against Saddam this time, Cheney replied, "Prince Bandar, once we start, Saddam is toast."

Woodward also wrote that Bandar promised lower oil prices in the months before the election to ensure the U.S. economy is strong on Election Day.  Prices at the pump in April reached an all-time high. 

Predictions that the cost of the invasion and occupation in the first year could be $60-90 billion were labeled as "just plain wrong" by assistant Sec. of Defense Wolfowitz.  See more on pre-war cost estimates.

The costs of the occupation in July 2003 were increased to $3.9 billion/month or about $1 billion per week.  By February of 2004 the costs had risen to $4.7 billion/month. Anthony Cordesman predicted costs of "in excess of $50-70 billion a year for probably two fiscal years" (NYTimes, 4/23/04). Paul Krugman felt the administration was trying the hide future costs until after the November elections. Also see the visually appealing and interactive site. costofwar.com.

A running total of the costs can be found at http://www.costofwar.com and creatively compared to other parts of the U.S. budget. 

To see how the money might be spent with various alternatives, go to National Priorities Project  Database.

Democrats expressed concern in July 2003 of the new predictions of this year's deficit toping $400 billion. In August, Bremer predicted "many tens of billions" were needed. In early September the administration finally got specific, as Bush asked Congress for an additional $60 billion.

President Bush addressed the nation on September 6, 2003 in a prime time speech, asking for $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan and urging Americans to "fight the war on terrorism" in Iraq.  The U.S. had spent $166 billion by mid-September. The postwar realities were less optimistic than once predicated. While not requesting or desiring more U.S. troops, the President will be asking UN nations to pass a new UN resolution and to provide money and soldiers. Germany, France and others were not pleased with the first draft presented by Powell, as they sought greater and sooner Iraqi political control, among other issues. The President's plan went "on the road" the next day, urging the UN to get beyond its "past bickering."  Hearings were held in Congress, which is expected the question but finally approve the spending. Part of the press reaction came from the September 14 Washington Post editorial, "Paying the Price."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6828-2003Sep13.html  

Congress made minimal changes in the President's request, the Senate approved it by a voice vote, and the President signed it on November 6.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8340-2003Nov6.html

In Congress back in October 2003, strong criticism came from Democrats, including Senator Diane Feinstein, who "criticized Rumsfeld for ailing to listen to doubts raised by senator before and after the war."  She said, "There's a feeling that you know it all, and nobody else knows anything.  And therefore, we're just here to say, 'Yes sir, how high do we jump?'" (Chicago Tribune, 9/25).

West Virginia senior Senator Robert Byrd voted no and claimed that "The emperor has no clothes...This entire adventure in Iraq has been based on propaganda and manipulation.  Eighty-seven billion dollars is too much to pay for the continuation of a war based on falsehoods" (NYTimes, 10/18).

In early October 2003 , the administration launched a campaign to defend their Iraq policy, with a series of speeches by top officials.

A turning point came  on October 16 when the request for $87 billion was changed in a Senate vote, so some of the $20 billion for rebuilding would be in the form of loans. NPR provides perspective in the year since the first Congressional vote toward war in October 2002.

In October, 2003, Congress debated the $87 billion request from the President.  NRP gave some perspective to the debate in their October 13 piece on Morning Edition. The bill passed Congress on Halloween.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45267-2003Oct31.html

Despite the president's speech, UN debate, continued bombings and other violence, and Congressional testimony over funding and goals, the Washington Post did not print any editorials or include any op-ed pieces on Iraq for seven straight days, the longest absence in probably one year.  Was the nation losing interest?

Funding for the war came up again in the week before the US election.  Costs for Iraq (and Afghanistan are between $5-6 billion per month, or $60-72 billion per year.  In the spring of 2004, the White House estimated that costs were unlikely to exceed $50 billion per year.  Estimates were that the post-election request would be for about $70 billion. In early 2005 the amount of $70-80 billion was floated as the February request.

In December the US and Germany cancelled 80% of Iraq's debt, about $33 billion.

As the criticism of Rumsfeld grew, we were reminded of Rumsfeld's guarantees of how little the war would cost.  Before the war, he felt the best estimate was under $50 billion.  When Treasury Secretary Lindsay surmised $100-$200 billion, he was dismissed from his job.  As 2004 came to a close, costs were up from $1 billion per week, to near $2 billion/week.  This totals about $200 million/day or about $10 million every hour. For more on pre-war estimates, see "The War", especially question #10.

By spring 2004, costs came up again.  "Every ground squirrel in this country knows that it's going to be $50 to $75 billion in additional money required to sustain us in Iraq for this year," said Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb).  The Washington Post editorial "Squirrely Budgeting" (4/25/04) suggests that the squirrels should be consulted.  The costs of the operation "are mounting daily, but the administration still won't level with Congress or the American people about the price."

The budget for the year beginning Oct. 1 allocated no money for Iraq or Afghanistan.  The paper predicts that in January 2005 "If history is a guide, the administration will insist that the financial situation is so dire that congress must act at once.  This is no way to run a budget, and it's an even worse way to run a war."

In the midst of the prison torture scandal of May 2004, President Bush asked Congress for an additional $25 billion, needed for the fall of 2004 for Iraq and Afghanistan.  Some in Congress thought this might not be enough to last through February 2005.  Would the President have trouble getting funding for Iraq if it was separated from Afghanistan?  

In Spain, a conference to request the $56 billion in grants the U.S. sought, resulted in about $30  billion, mostly in loans from other countries.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14279-2003Oct24?language=printer

To find out the "local impact" of the war spending, see the National Priorities Project.
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Issues/Military/Iraq/highcost/costofwar.html

After President Bush was inaugurated in January 2005, he asked Congress for an additional $82 billion, about $70 billion of which would go for Iraq.  This request was not included in the President's budget submitted a few weeks earlier. 

As the President asked for $80 billion more for the war, Nightline's Koppel reminded viewers during a special 90-minute program, that Rumsfeld had originally predicted total costs of under $50 billion, with some of that paid by allies.  In January 2005, the new total spending is $280 billion, This is over 1/3 of a trillion dollars.

Supplemental appropriations have combined Afghanistan and Iraq, with over 90% going to Iraq.  The President in February 2005 did not include any of this spending in his budged to Congress and it is not factored in the projected deficit. The break down is:

One reaction to the new request came from frequent administration of war critic, Senator Robert Byrd (D-WVA), who said, "The president is asking Congress to continue to shovel money into US military operations...with no further clarity as to what goals the military is expected to achieve, no hint of a possible timetable and no end to occupation in sight."

Another budget reaction came from Sen. Mark Dayton (D-MN) who said, I don't like to impugn anyone's integrity but I really don't like being lied to repeatedly, flagrant, intentionally.  It's wrong. It's undemocratic, its' un-American , and its very dangerous. And it is occurring far to frequently in this administration." 

Democrat critics were few.  Comment Lynn Woolsey (CA), "Why are we writing another check for a mission that' been so badly botched.  Whose being held responsible for the misuse of the money we've already approved."  She wants US troops to withdraw.

Some Republicans, who usually treat such requests  from their President as sacrosanct, felt the spending should be pared down. Commented Trent Lott, "I think it's too much money, and too much of it is not urgent or supplemental." Some of the request is for Tsunami relief and other issues not related to Iraq or Afghanistan. 

On March 16, 2005, the House approved $81 billion in a supplemental bill.  After little substantive debate, except for spending on a US Embassy in Baghdad, the vote was 388-43.  Bush applauded the House "for it's strong bipartisan support for our troops and for our strategy to win the war on terror." On April 21, 2005, the Senate approved $81 billion, pushing the total spending for war and reconstruction to well over $200 billion.  The bill passed both Houses in mid-May and was sent to the President.  More money is likely to be needed again in October. 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/10/AR2005051001145_pf.html

We learned during the same week of March that $9 billion in reconstruction money is unaccounted for.  Where could this money have gone? The New York Times editorial page (2/18/05) reminded readers that the cash, disbursed from October 2003 to June 2004 came from Iraq' oil sales and "was to be used to fund...reconstruction projects and humanitarian relief...No one was quite sure how the cash was spent."  The piece concludes, "Even under the most difficult circumstances in Iraq, there has to be some accountability for the distribution of Iraqi revenues.  That's essential for the credibility of the fledgling Iraqi government and its supporters in  the US government." In November of 2006 I labeled this missing $9 billion as "Baghdad's Bungled Billions."

Pentagon examinations by spring 2007 resulted in just 10 arrests and 3 people imprisoned.

An audit released in May 2005 found that $69 million in fuel oil is missing. The oil was produced in the second half of 2004.  The Tribune reported that it could have been smuggled out of the country for private gain.

How do the 2005 costs compare to Vietnam, during which there was the most US spending from about 1964 to 1973?  In 2005 dollars, the total cost of the Vietnam War was about $512 billion.  After 2 years, the Iraq War is more than half that of the 9 year Vietnam War.
For more on Vietnam comparisons, see "Another Vietnam?"

Funding news surfaced again in June 2005, as the House debated an additional $45 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan.  The total would then be over $400 billion.  The White House has not officially requested funds, so that Iraq continued to be "off-budged" and another special appropriations is needed. Might Congress consider de-linking the two countries in terms of funding?

The San Francisco Chronicle reported in mid-July that the cost of the war could exceed $700 billion.  In real dollars, this compares to about $400 for Korea and $600 billion for Vietnam.  The study was conducted by a nonpartisan Washington think tank, the Center for Strategic and Dubgetray Assessments. 

The cost news of fall 2005 was for an additional $3.9 billion to help train and equip Iraqis on top of the $10.6 billion already approved for such uses. 

The overall Pentagon budget has increased in five years by 41%.

As Congress left for the Christmas 2005 recess, they approved an additional $50 billion, for Iraq and Afghanistan. If past practice is a useful predictor, about 80-90% of those funds will be for Iraq. Bush is expected to ask for another $100 billion in early 2006, but asked for $70 billion on Feb. 23, just after his State of the Union. The front-page Tribune headline added the total costs (including Afghanistan, often linked to Iraq by the administration) to $390 billion.  The US is spending over $1 billion/week on Iraq, which is $100,000 every minute.  The total spending is now $1250 for every American or about $5000 for the average family of four.  Given that higher income earners pay more in taxes, the bill could easily be $10,000 for some families. 

A running total of the costs can be found at http://www.costofwar.com , showing continuing costs of $1000 faster than one can say "one thousand." The site creatively compared to other parts of the U.S. budget.   There one can see $1000 being spent on the war faster than one can snap their fingers. One might also argue that costs are about $12 million every hour.

A new study from a Harvard Nobel prize winning economist came out in January 2006.  It takes medical and other costs into account and estimates that the war could cost the US two trillion dollars. 

Another $65 billion request came from the White House in February 2006, which would take the total spending on Iraq to nearly 1/2 trillion dollars, according to ABC News.

In the House, 71 members voted against the new spending (including 19 Republicans), up from 43 during the previous supplemental. 

By early May this supplemental was still discussed in the Times "Funny Money on Iraq."  Criticizing the "outside the normal budget process" requests, the paper feels that the war should no longer be emergency is its cost is "highly predicated...about $100 billion a year, or just under 20% of total military spending." The lead editorial of May 8, 2006 criticizes "this fiscal sleight of hand."

By June to Senator responded to these continuing supplementals, voting unanimously that the President must submit Iraq to the normal budgeting process, which would allow for more oversite.

The September 2006 approval of another $70 billion for Iraq (as often, merged with spending in Afghanistan) brought the totals since 9/11 to over $500 billion. Of this new spending, $24 billion.

Nicholas Kristof wrote about costs in late October, 2006. "For every additional second we stay in Iraq, we taxpayers will end up paying an additional $6300." Estimates from Rumsfeld were under $50 billion and from Wolfowitz that their Iraqi oil could finance reconstruction but now estimates are as high as $2 trillion, $6600 per "American man, woman and child." The costs include budgetary, social and macroeconomic. Borrowing adds about $300 billion in interest. The price of oil has increased. 3000 veterans will need to be treated, including disability payments for years with severe head injuries which could include round the clock care. "Every additional year we keep our troops in Iraq will add $200 billion to our tax bills." Kristof concludes, "We're spending $380,000 for every extra minute we stay in Iraq and we can find better ways to spend that money."

For much more Kristof, see post-war op-eds and pre-war op-eds.

Quoting Martin Luther King in a late January column, Bob Herbert recalled King saying in 1967, "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on program of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."

We learned in November that the President would be asking for another "emergency" supplemental of $160 billion. In December this early 2007 request was put at $120-$150 billion through September, then at $100 billion. This $170 billion total would set a one year record for the war, 45% more than in 2006. $50 billion for the Army and $10 billion for training Iraqis, about as much as has been spent in training over the past four years. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, usually lumped together in this bills, have ranged from 14-23% of the total Pentagon budget over the past 4 years. Would the next approval come around the anniversary of 9/11?

costofwar.com put the total costs over $350 billion on December 14, and still at about $2 billion/month. The total Iraq budget is actually less than $2 billion/week. As the President considered adding troops to Iraq in December 2006, we learned that the cost of adding permanent troops is about $1 billion/9000 troops, each year. Prior to the January request, Congress has already approved $507 billion (about 1/2 trillion) for Iraq, Afghanistan and other related operations.

Also see "When Will US Troops Come Home?" FAQ.

How has the media covered the costs? costofwar.com lists many different articles from the past year.

In December Democrats and some Republicans grew increasing concerns about spending as supplemental and not part of the annual budget. The supplementals get less oversite, seem less necessary since the war costs are becoming predictable, and lead to more earmarks. In Vietnam the spending eventually became part of the totla budget, as the Iraqi Study Group now suggests. The next requested supplemental once again combined funding for Iraq and Afghanistan. In February the President asked for $100 billion. The vote was to be in March. For the political fallout of this request, see " US Politics '07" FAQ.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the 21,000 additional troops would cost $9 billion for four months and $20 billion for a year.

Another record Pentagon budget was proposed in February 2007. By some accounts, 41% is for military and military health related expenses, which includes much of the Energy Department, and long term health needs. By conservative accounts, 1/3 of the budget is military, nearly $500 billion. The percent of all spending has increased from 16% in 2000, steadily to 20%. The Tribune calculated that the cost for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have so far been about $700 billion. About $145 billion is recommended for Iraq and Afghanistan in 2008. The lead Times editorial reacted to the "improbable budget" which assumes, among other things, that "the Pentagon will not spend a single penny on Iraq or Afghanistan after 2009."

Waste came up again with Rep. Waxman in the House in February. Paul Bremer was accused of helping in the fraud and waste. A Times editorial helped to clarify the issue as it stands in Feb. 2007. Nearly $9 billion is cash was unaccounted for two years ago. An upset Waxman commented, "We have no way of knowing if the cash that was shipped into the Green Zone ended up in enemy hands. We owe it to the American people to do everything we can to find out where the $12 billion went." The 363 tons of mostly $100 bills was flown to Baghdad aboard giant C-130 military cargo planes.

Now 10 disbursements of "petty cash" of $120 to $900 million have no documentation. It took large transport planes to get the tons of cash to Iraq. This was Iraqi's oil-for-food money. "Republican lawmakers at the hearing again tried to gloss over the administration's mismanagement of the war, complaining that the mystery billions were 'old news.' The real news is that--at long last--the truth about the Iraq fiasco is being pursued in public by Congressional investigators." Replied one Republican, "Self-righteous finger-wagging will not make Iraq any more secure."

In response to Waxman's accusation, a former undersecretary of the Treasury defended the monetary policy. "Contrary to the criticism that such currency shipments were ill advised or poorly monitored, this financial plan was carried out with precision and was a compete success....The new [Iraqi] currency proved to be very popular." When Americans found the $1 billion Saddam had stolen just before the war, they used the cash "to build schools and hospital, and to repair roads and bridges." John Taylor concluded his Times commentary of Feb. 27, 2007: "Praise rather than ridicule is appropriate."

Corruption and violence led the Pentagon to report negatively on itself in May, 2007. Bower's report showed many of the same patterns of waste, inefficiency, and corruption. One year later another Pentagon report criticized the supervision of contractors. The front page Times report concluded that "almost none of the payments followed federal rules. There was a "stunning" lack of accountability. Vouchers up to $11 million showed no record of what was being paid for.

Bush was set in late August 2007 to ask Congress for $50 billion more for the war. The costs have gone up on a weekly basis, and would now be over $3 billion per week.

The American Friends Service Committee has used research the promote the costs. One day of the war is $720 million. This equates to $500,000 every minute. "How would you spend it?" the group asks. The numbers come from direct costs, long-term medical costs, and interest in the debt. Opportunity costs are not included.

Thomas Friedman, Times columnist and increasingly frustrated with the war in the fall of 2007, writes "Charge It To My Kids." Some Democrats are suggesting a war surtax. Responds the White House press secretary, "...They are willing to raise taxes on just about anything..I just think its completely fiscally irresponsible." Friedman suggests, "Friends, we are through the looking glass. It is now 'fiscally irresponsible' to want to pay for a war with a tax. These democrats just don't understand: the tooth fairy pays for wars. Of course she does--the tooth fairy leaves the money at the end of every month" under the pillow of the Treasury Secretary

Given the President's October request for more funding, NPR calls the total now $600 billion, (see transcript or hear audio) or over $4500 for every American taxpayer. This war is now the second most expensive (after World War II) in U.S. history, even more expensive (adjusted for inflation) than the 10 year old Vietnam war. Scroll for an chart on costs from the Post. The Times tells us that $412 billion has already been approved.

Total costs could reach $2.4 trillion, according to an October 2007 estimate from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. This includes the war with Afghanistan. CBO Director worried that "We are on an unsustainable fiscal path and something has to give."

Democrats repeated their vow, usually not kept, not to "rubber stamp" the request. The request would make 2007 the most costly year of the war.

"Another $200 billion" titled the lead Times editorial of October 25. "Despite a pretense of fiscal prudence, Mr. Bush keeps throwing money at his war, regardless of the cost in blood, treasure or children's health care [a bill he recently vetoed]." The latest "emergency request" of $46 would lead Iraq spending of nearly $200 billion for the year. The total would top Vietnam, inflation adjusted. "And there is no end in sight. Mr. Bush clearly plans to keep fighting this pointless war until his last day in office."

The Blackwater/DynCorps waste of money and corruption became more apparent after the September shootings of civilians by Blackwater employees. (See much more on Blackwater in PZ Violence). For example, DynCorps bought a $1.8 million x-ray scanner that was never used. Overcharges of $29 have been identified just in the past year. The company billed over $150,000 for labor but it did not pay its workers. A spokesman's response was, "There was no intentional misbilling."

In the November/December political battles, a Republican proposal for an additional $70 billion was turned down.

EJ Dionne, Post columnist, writes in mid-November of "Billions for Guns, Vetoes for Butter" . "It's time we subject the Iraq war to the same cost-benefit analysis that we are called upon to impose on other government endeavors. We are supposed to repeal or revise domestic program that don't work. Shouldn't a troubled war policy be treated the same way? The ruling assumption of the moment is that we can't afford to withdraw our troops...because of the chaos that would ensure. The idea seems to be that somehow--against evidence of the past 4 1/2 years--good things will happen if we just keep the war going...We should be asking whether keeping our forces in Iraq over an extended period is worth the cost in lives, injuries, money, lost opportunities and strain on our military. How will a prolonged stay in Iraq enhance our security?" Dionne feels that Bush's approach "is the classic case of a politician arguing that a problem will be solved if only we keep throwing large sums of money at it...Interest costs on Iraq-related debt will be more than $23 billion for fiscal 2008. That sum is almost exactly the amount spearing Bush and Congress on spending levels for the entire budged now being debated...So it comes down to this: Bush can bust the budget for Iraq, but God forbid that we spend a little more on education."

Bob Herbert, writing for the Times in early December worries about the costs of the war. We are "flushing whole generations worth of cash into the bottomless pit of a failed and endless war." He quoted Sen. Shumer (D-NY) about "the #1 reason" the war should end. The loss of life "'without accomplishing any of the goals that even President Bush put forward.' But 'right below that'..is the need is to stop squandering incredible amounts of money that could be put to better use--helping to 'make peoples' lives better'--here at home. The colossal and continuing waste, he said, 'should cause anxiety to anyone who cares about the future of this country.'" Hidden costs include wounded, disabled, interest on the debt, replacing military equipment, recruitment and retention challenges, and loss of productivity. Herbert concludes that "youngsters who were just starting high school when the US invaded Iraq are in college now. Their children, yet unborn, will be called on to fork over tax money to continue paying for the war. Seriously. How long do we want this madness to last?"

Herbert penned a similar commentary in April, 2008, "Losing Our Will." Our health care system is lacking and our standard of living is dropping. Meanwhile, our country "seems almost paralyzed, mesmerized by Iraq and unable to generate the energy or the will to handle the myriad problems festering at home." He refers to Nobel Prize winner Stiglitz $3 trillion war book who feels that the two biggest gainers were oil companies and defense contractors. Herbert is further upset that Amb. Crocker and Gen. Petraeus "were unable to give any real answers as to when the US might be able to disengage, or when a corner might be turned...A country that used to act like Babe Ruth now swings like a minor-leaguer." The war "stands like a boulder in the road, blocking progress on so many other important issues that are crucial to our viabiltiy as a society. We've seen this before. Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, which included the war on poverty, was crippled by the war in Vietnam." Herbert concludes, "On the evening of April 4, 1967, one year to the day before he was assassinated, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. went into Riverside Church in Manhattan and said of the war in Vietnam: 'This madness must cease.' Forty-one years later, we can still hear the echo of Dr. King's call. The only sane response is: 'Amen.'"

Also see "Columnists Against War" FAQ.

Between Herbert's two pieces, a record-setting bill passed Congress just a few days before Christmas, 2007. The $555 billion bill included about $70 billion more for Iraq and Afghanistan, with no strings attached, such as goals for starting a troop withdrawal. The President signed the bill, though it only provided about half of the funds for the wars which he desired. Why did Democrats back down. Rep. Sen. McConnell threatened to shut down the US government.

The costs of war in video can be seen, sponsored by the Council for A Livable World.

The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) created a 2 minute video in January 2008 about the trade offs in war costs. It is entitled, "How would you spend it?" Their estimate, that the war is really costing 2 1/2 times what is being estimated, is based on several factors. The supplementals really only cover 40% of war costs due to:
1. Medical treatment of vets. 1/5 of those nearly 40,000 wounded will need 24 hour care for the rest of their lives.
2. Interest on the debt from borrowing war money. In 2008, this would be over $200 billion.
3. Increases in the defense department

How many four year college scholarships could be paid for instead of the war? How many children could go to head start? How much could we spend on public transportation? With a cost of about $4000 per person, that is about $17,000 for the average household (of 4).

The Army Corps charged hundreds of millions of dollars more than needed, a federal probe concluded in late January. The Army Corps used "Byzantine formulas", reported James Glanz in his Times article. The Air Force changed contractors less than half the fees of the Army Corps.

In February, NPR's Morning Edition included an analysis of the record-setting proposed Pentagon budget and some of the waste and corruption. The more than $500 billion for the Pentagon, when adjusted for inflation, is the highest since World War II. Yet, this figure does not include spending on Iraq, Afghanistan, or on nuclear weapons. AFSC estimates that the total military budged is now over 50% of discretionary spending.

"Budget Obesity" is how the Tribune described the February spending plans presented by the President. The predictions that the 2012 budget will be in surplus is based on "some outlandish assumptions. One is that after next year, we will no longer be spending money on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Oil and money and Condoleeza Rice was the subject of a TruthDig piece by Robert Scheer (2/13/08). Since the invasion we have a near-recession, higher oil prices more debt "that we will be paying off for decades to come." Exxon's fourth quarter profits were the highest ever for any corporation. "Clearly, what's good for big oil is not good for most Americans." Rice was on the Board of Chevron, the country's second biggest oil company, with profits rising 29% just in the 4th quarter. Chevron named a tanker the Condoleeza Rice.

In late February 2008, the Senate Democrats seemed to take a different path on reducing troops for the war. With a possibly recession looming, they framed the issue in a new way: on the economic costs. Also emphasized was the strain on the armed forces, and the war on terror being distracted from Afghanistan and Pakistan. They admit to some security gains and focus on slow political progress. Republican leader McConnell emphasized the "extraordinary progress" and "reconciliation taking hold." "Sen. Jack Reed expounded: ""140,000 troops is not sustainable in the longer term."

The $3 Trillion War is the title of a spring 2008 book on the actual costs of the war. One of the authors, nobel prize winner Joseph Stiglitz, wrote a commentary for the Toronto Star. He highlights the "victory" of oil companies and contractors. One of the media follow-ups was from the Tribune's Perspective section, "By any calculus, war's cost cruel." The article quotes Stiglitz critics from the University of Chicago. They don't hear him examining to economic or moral consequences of the war, such as leaving Saddam in power. Responses Stiglitz, "Obviously, after Pearl Harbor, you wouldn't sit down and say, 'How are we going to respond?'. But this was a war of choice. We didn't have to go to war. We had a choice of timing, and a choice of whether to go tot war at all." How much is $3 trillion. The book estimates at least $24 billion per month, about $750 million per day.

"$3 Trillion May Be Too Low", Stiglitz of Columbia and Bilmes of Harvard concluded in April. They conclude that the original figure is conservative.

Perhaps in reaction to The $3 Trillion War, by mid-April some in Congress began demanding that the Iraqis start paying for their own reconstruction Republicans and Democrats finally appear to have found common ground. The latest surge is of Iraqi oil income.

How else could the money be spent? This was part of the Presidential campaign of spring 2008. Obama focused on the cost to each household, $100 every month. Clinton emphasized $12 billion a month. McCain feels that "success" justifies any cost. If one estimates at the low end of $120 billion every year, the money would cover Clinton's universal health plan. There are numerous other options. Americans agreed by 67% that the war had contributed "a lot" to America's economic problems. The war is largely being paid "off the books" so it isn't part of the annual budget or budget deficit.

More funding was approved by the House in June 2008. With Afghanistan again included in the funding, the total was about $160 billion. This may be the last time Bush asks Congress for funding.

At the Democratic Convention in August, speakers often quoted the now-accepted figure of the was costing $10 billion per week. Obviously, this does not include the indirect costs described above.

The FBI overpaid its agents nearly $8 million through 2007, we learned at the end of 2008. In its own report, the FBI concluded that, one the whole, "few if any employees worked exactly 16 hours a day, every day, for 90 days straight, within the meaning of the term 'work'..."

An official US government report (totally 508 pages) out in December 2008 highlights the blunders of reconstruction. From the Office of Iraq Reconstruction led by Stuart Bowen, a Republican lawyer, the report is officially entitled, "Hard Lessons: The Iraq Reconstruction Experience." Bowen, in the preface, gives "searing critique" of "blinded and disjointed prewar planning" for reconstruction. It seems the US was operating, according to the Times, "by the seat of their pants" when reconstruction was supposed to be critical in winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis. About 40% of reconstruction spending by 2008 came from US taxpayers, about $50 billion. "The history", describes the long front page Times story, "contains a catalog of revelations that show the chaotic and often poisonous atmosphere prevailing". For example, after five years the US "as a whole has never developed a legislative sanctioned doctrine or framework for planning, preparing, and executing contingency operations in which diplomacy, development and military action all figure."

"The Cost of War" was the lead story in The Week in Review from the March 1, 2009 Times. They estimate the total cost at $860 billion. President Obama announced that week US combat troops would be out in about 16-18 months, leaving up to 50,000 troops until the end of 2011. How much money would be saved? "There are serious and possibly crippling problems with the idea that ending this war could help the cause of prosperity in any clear way. Part of this is due to 20,000 more troops being added to Afghanistan, whose poor infrastructure makes troops and equipment movement more costly. One problems with estimating "a peace dividend" is that "it depends a lot on the speed of departure." Estimates beyond 2011 vary, especially depending on how quickly US troops levels are reduced. A slower pace would double the cost to nearly $900 billion more. It cost about $400,000 a year to sustain each American trooper overseas.

Obama's first budget asks for $130 billion for the two wars, down from $141 billion. In "The Pentagon Meets the Real World" the early March Times editorial proposes that the Pentagon "will have to finally face the real world and make cuts in expensive and outdated cold-war weapons systems" such as the F-22. Cutting weapons programs "takes poltiical courage" because this F-22 claims to support 24,000 jobs in 44 states.

Jay Garner, who careful reading might recall was in place in Baghdad for a time before Bremer, was asked back then by Rumsfeld how much the reconstruction would cost. He answered, "billions." Replied the Sec. of Defense, "My friend, if you think we're going to spend a billion dollars of our money over there, you are sadly mistaken." By the end of 2003, the US was spending over $20 billion. Concludes Bowen, "We spent as much money as we could, and got as little for it was people could make up their minds to give us."

"Military-Industrial Redux" (Times Editorial, 5/22/09) explains that the Pentagon has been "rightly shamed by reports that 96 major new weapons programs are running almost $300 billion over estimates and averaging 22 months behind delivery." Responses to the report seem like another attempt to "close Washington's most gaping barn door after a stampede of taxpayers' money."

The Senate approved by 91-5 $80 billion in "emergency spending" for the two wars, $20 billion more than Obama requested. The funding will last through September 30. The bill dropped a ban on releasing Gitmo photos, which Obama decided not to release.

Tom Engelhardt, writing in The Nation, sees the huge US air base in Balad, north of Baghdad, as a city. It has 15 bus routes, two fire stations, two power plants, fast-food outlets and air traffic somtimes compared to O'Hare International.

Also "US Politics '07-08"

Costs (detailed directly above) and Halliburton are related topics, as seen below. Halliburton:  The Center for Public Integrity issued a study in late October 2003 looking at post-war contracts in relations to donations to the Republican party. The biggest benefactor was Cheney's former company, Halliburton. http://www.publicintegrity.org/wow/

Halliburton's contracts led to front page stories on December 12, 2003, when the Pentagon accused them of overcharging millions of dollars.  At question was $61 million is gasoline overcharges and a rejected proposal for cafeteria service that seemed inflated by $67 million.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A57520-2003Dec11?language=printer

On December 13, just hours before the capture of Saddam Hussein, President Bush responded to the Pentagon accusations of the Halliburton overcharge by saying that he expected the company to pay any overcharge. 

In June, new issues were raised about Halliburton.  At a Pentagon briefing before some in Congress, a pre-war $2 million no-bid contract given to Halliburton.  Cheney's office was allegedly briefed on the contract before it was granted.  

Halliburton continued in the news throughout the summer of 2004 and was "faulted by Pentagon on accounts" in mid-August.  The Pentagon audit determined that the company had failed to adequately account for some (more than $1.8 billion) of the $4.2 billion it has received so far regarding contracts worth $8 billion.  The company was given 45 days to come up with a new plan.  The long-term observers, it seemed like another warning with no teeth.  

Halliburton news of 2005 included the Army deciding against its own auditor to not hold back tens of millions of dollars each month until the company justifies bills for past work.  The New York Times reported in mid-March that excess fuel billing totaled more than $108 million, according to a repot by the  Pentagon's own auditors that was completed last fall but has never been officially released to the public or to Congress.  They were completed in October but not released before the Presidential election and not released until March despite repeated requests from Democrats and Republicans.  

Excerpts were released by Waxman's office. The disputed charges in December 2003 were $61 million.  In one case the report concluded that Halliburton "claimed that it had paid more that $27 million to transport liquefied petroleum gas it had purchased in Kuwait for just $820,000--a fee the auditors tartly dismissed as 'illogical.'"  Halliburton subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown, and Root has received more that $10 billion in contracts in Iraq.  The largest overcharge allegation is from 2003 when, without competitive bidding, the Kuwait company Altanmia used exorbitant prices to sell to the US company. The cost-plus formula means that Halliburton was guaranteed more money if initials charges were higher. 

Later in March the Justice Department announced that a former employee of the Pentagon was indicted in a federal court, charged with defrauding the US of more than $3.5 million in a "subcontract to supply fuel tankers for military operations" (NYTimes, 3/18/05). Robert Stein was sentenced in January, 2007 to nine years in prison. His scheme for bribery and fraud.

Halliburton his the news again in late June of 2005 as $1.4 billion billed to taxpayers are questionable and unsupported, according to newly released government audits.  Whistle blowing testimony included these inflated costs:  $617,000 for double-billed soft drinks;  $1 million in excessive laundry charge; 1.4 million to pay 146 workers at a facility that had only 62.  The company is alleged to have changed for twice the number of meals it proved and served food beyond the expiration date, according to a former food manager in Iraq.  The USA Today article quotes Rory Mayberry is saying the managers "ordered workers to pick bullets and shrapnel out of food shipments that he been damages by gunfire or bombings and serve it to troops...managers threatened to send workers who talked to auditors to more dangerous parts of Iraq." (6/28/05).  Republicans joined Democrats in their criticism of the Pentagon's treatment of Halliburton with Christopher Shays (CT) saying  the Pentagon is acting as if "it has something to hide." Democrats spoke of "war profiteering" and costs more than twice as high as previous reports.  Most of these reports are within the military.

A UN-sponsored auditing board recommended in November that the US repay up to $200 million to the Iraqi government for Halliburton contracts.  According to the front-page Times story, "the work was paid for with Iraqi oil proceeds, but the board said it was either carried out at inflated prices or done poorly."  This is the first time that an international auditing group has suggested such a repayment. The Times further reported that this is bound to increase hostility toward the US.  Commented Rep. Henry Waxman, "The Bush administration repeatedly gave Halliburton special treatment and allowed the company to gouge both US taxpayers and the Iraqi people." 

The continuing story of Halliburton problems continued into 2006, when on January 22 we learned that contaminated water was being served to our troops.  The company was told about the problem but did not act to correct it.  

Halliburton was paid nearly all of the disputed funds, in late February 2006.  The Army withheld only about 4% of the charges questioned, far below the average of 75% for such disagreements.  Responded long-time Halliburton critic Rep. Henry Waxman (CA-Dem), "Halliburton gouged the taxpayer, government auditors caught the company re-handed, yet the Pentagon ignored the auditors and paid Halliburton hundreds of millions of dollars and a huge bonus."

In July the Army terminated KRB's largest contract but the company planned to bid on new contracts.

Yet another Halliburton allegation came to light two days before the 5th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. A lawsuit alleged that the company ordered a big-screen TV and 10 large tubs of tacos, chicken wings, and cheese sticks for last year's Super Bowl, billed to US taxpayers. The companies is also said to double and triple bill items.

Idle contractors cost millions, concluded an October US report. Overhead consumed more the half the budget, reported the Times on their October 25 front page. KRB/Halliburton was the worst offendor. Contractors were ordered to Iraq but sat idle for months before their work began. Some waited as long as nine months. The report also found that government tracked costs in a very haphazard way. At the same time, I would note, the government was criticized for not spending enough of the reconstruction funds passed by Congress.

Halliburton has also misled and "systematically withheld data", we learned in late October, as the string of bad news for Halliburton seemed unending. The story hit the front page of the Chicago Tribune on Oct. 28. The special inspector general for Iraqi reconstruction, Stuart Bowen, is a Republican. Congressman and watchdog Henry Waxman feels that the new memo showed concealment of "corporate profiteering during wartime."

What happens to Halliburton whistle-blowers?  A senior civilians contractor of the Army Corps of Engineers was sidelined for her public criticism of no-bid contracts.  The 20-year Corps veteran appeared in Congress and talked of "the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of by professional career."

Ms. Greenhouse was officially demoted in late-August. Her lawyer said that her stellar performance ratings become negative at about the same time as her strong objections to the contracts. This action led to a New York Times editorial which stated that, in general, the administration "is making no secret of its determination to punish whistle-blowers and other federal workers who object to the doctoring of facts that clash with policy and spin...Damage control is a political hallmark of any administration.  But the Bush team is taking it to the most destructive extreme."

Halliburton again made the news in mid-September was new allegations. Two truckers told a Senate Democratic policy committee that their Halliburton subsidiary, according to the Times, "knowingly sent a lightly armed convoy of fuel tankers into a combat zone in April 2004, leading to the deaths of seven truckers and at least two soldiers." The allegations are that the company chose profit over common sense safety.

In addition to the October 2006 low-budget film "Iraq For Sale" one might want to see the "Corp Watch" site.

Halliburton couldn't get out of the news in 2007. In mid-February the Army announced that it was withholding about $20 million from Halliburton, "citing potential contract breach." The company had hired Blackwater USA to provide security guards. Over the past five years, Halliburton contracts in Iraq have totaled $16 billion.

"Iraq For Sale: The War Profiteers." Another film by Robert Greenwald, it details the primary motivation of private contractors such as Halliburton.

In March Halliburton announced that they would be opening a headquarters in Dubai. Their CEO would move there, a position previously held by Dick Cheney. The company is currently being investigated by the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission for "improper dealings" in Iraq, Kuwait, and Nigeria. Halliburton will still be subject to US laws and regulations.

ABC News reported that an American woman working for private contractor KRB (formerly of Halliburton) was gang raped in Baghdad's Green Zone, held in a container for 24 hours with no food or water, and then threatened if she told anyone. Jamie Leigh Jones is frustrated over State Department or others bringing any charges, so she has filed a civil law suit. In May Jones was allowed a trial in the US. This could open the door to other sexual harrassment and rapes. Another, Dawn Leamon, alleges that she was gang raped. The Jones case came back in the news in October 2009, when 30 Senators voted against allowing people like Jones to sue their employee.

In March 2008, surfaced allegations that US soldiers got sick on KRB drinking water. They were stationed at bases using "unmonitored and potentially unsafe" water, reported the Tribune. Symptoms included "skin abscesses, cellulitis, skin infections, diarrhea, and other illnesses." The water was discolored and smelly. KRB has said it took corrective action; the water was not used for drinking. Halliburton is the parent company of KRB.

Contractor overcharges continued into the summer of 2009. Two Senators officially complained and accused the Pentagon of delaying the recovery of of least $100 million in overcharges. The Pentagon relies heavily in KBR and thus seems not inclined to discipline the company. Several of their officials have been convicted of accepting bribes and kickbacks.

Another soldier was electrocuted in the fall of 2009. Working for the private contractor Triple Canopy (which replaced most Blackwater contractors), US Air Force St. Adam Hermanson was electrocuted in the shower. He wasn't killed by an IED, enemy fire, or even friendly fire. He returned to Iraq, telling his family that he was safely in Kuwait, for $350 a day contract. Adam didn't want them to worry about him. "All along he was telling me a lie," recalls his mother. Hermanson's wife, Janine suspects he died due to faulty wiring. She was told that there was electric current on the shower floor when they found him. At least 16 US soldier and two contractors have died from electrocution. Who is responsible? Sen. Frank Lautenberg feels the 18 died as a result of KBR's "shoddy work." KBR denies any responsibility. Triple Canopy would not comment. The State Dept. did not return phone calls. The Defense Dept. had paid KBR more than $80 million in bonuses for contracts to install electrical wiring in Iraq. Blackwater experts and author Jeremy Scahill authored this story in The Nation.

Halliburton's future oil profits looked rosy, we learned in January of 2010. The backlog of work made it a necessity to hire such a big company as Hillburton, because they dominate the oil industry services sector. However, the Iraqi government is not yet ready to monitor all these contracts, which is a recipe for massive corruption. KBR has won $24 billion in contracts during the war and labels their new project, Resotre Iraq Oil (RIO).Pentagon auditors concluded that KBR had overcharged the government more than $200 million. One industry analyst predicts that the Iraqis are "going to be taken for a rdie." The Times reported that neither KBR or Halliburton are on the black list compiled by the Iraqi government.

In addition to Halliburton, US contractors allegedly stole millions of dollars.  The bad news of contacts hit the front page back on November 18, 2005, when it turns out the North Carolina man issuing contracts for the US was an ex-convict.  His served prison time for a felony in the 90s.  A second man, Robert J. Stein had control of over $82 million in cash earmarked for Iraqi rebuilding projects.  A dozen such cases have been referred to the Justice Department. 

Another contractor, Philip Bloom, 66, was charged with paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes and kickbacks to American occupation authorities and their spouse to obtain construction contracts.  In April Bloom pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy, bribery and money laundering.  Among the Americans also known to be arrested in the case are Robert Stein, who also pleaded guilty.  Stein and others "accepted sexual favor from women provided by Defendant Bloom at his villa in Baghdad."

A third army officer faced charges in early December 2005.  Lt. Col. Wheeler, of Amherst Junction, Wisconsin, was a reservist called up.  Wheeler was charged with smuggling hundreds of thousands of dollars in stolen cash.  The funds were intended for reconstruction projects, including a library, a police academy, and a center to promote democracy, while he worked for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Hilla.  Others are expected to be charged by a special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction. 

By mid-February, 2006 Christopher Cahill had pleaded guilty to $1 million fraud.  He was hired by Kellogg, Brown, and Root, the Halliburton subsidiary. 

In mid-March the first civil fraud suit was adjudicated by a federal jury in Virginia against Custer Battles.  The company and two army veterans were ordered to pay $10 million in damages for fraudulent work done in 2003. For example, of the 36 trucks provided by the company, 34 did not work. In the trial the company was alleged to be "war profiteers."  Dozens of other suits remain to be brought to trial. 

The latest charges of corruption came in late March in the from of bribes of $45,000 were allegedly accepted from a Kuwait rental agent by a Corps of Engineer employee.  He faces up to 15 years in prison. 

Oil graft fuels the insurgency, reported the front-page Times article of February.  One sitting member of the Iraqi National Assembly has been indicted in the theft of millions.  Iraq's finance minister estimates that 40-50% of oil-smuggling profits go to the insurgency, especially form northern refineries. The action is termed "an oil smuggling mafia."

Oil for food fraud was admitted to in August 2007. The Saddam-era crime, with a guilty plea by a Houson oil trader, came from David Chalmers of Bayoil. He made illegal profits and kickbacks. Bayoil was the first US company indicted, but not until April 2005. Chalmers was sentenced to 37-46 months in prison and agreed to forfeit over $9 million in profit.

Also in August John and Melissa Cocerham were indicted on charges of accepting millions in bribes for Defense Department contracts in 2004 and 2005.

Yet another case came up in September with Texas oil man Oscar Wyatt accused for paying at least millions in bribes and kickbacks in the 1990s, in violation of US sanctions laws and UN oil for food. Those neocons who argued before the war that the sanctions were not effective probably didn't have Wyatt in mind. He pleaded guilty in October, in the middle of his trial, to at least $200,000 in kickbacks. The 83 year old was sentenced the next month to a year and a day. The judge's leniency was mostly due to an outpouring of support and kind words he received from friends and colleagues of Wyatt.

The "case of the month" in October was a new federal investigation of food supplies for troops in Iraq and Kuwait. Some companies receive $1 billion a year.

The Chicago Tribune took its turn with a large lead headline of April 24, "Iraq war contractors ordered to end abuses."  The paper had reported in October 2005 "Pipeline to Peril" how some contractors used "deception and coercion to recruit foreigners to work on US bases."  12 Nepalese came to Iraq with promises, but were killed and kidnapped.  See chicagotribune.com/nepal.
The US military in April officially reacted to this special report. 

New fraud charges of April 25 were hard to believe, even for one used to reading these reports.  Halliburton drilled holes, knowing the work was not possible, but collected the $75 million for the Fatah pipelines crossing, part of a 2.4 billion no-bid contract.  The contract allowed crews "to charge as much as $100,000 a day as they waited on standby."

September 2006 charges against Parsons concluded that substandard work was done on 13 of 14 projects. The 14th project was cancelled due to over-budgetting Parsons CEO defended the company on the Nov. 15 Newshour on PBS. Rep. Henry Waxman feels this is a "debacle" which not only wastes taxpayers' funds but is "the lens in which the Iraqis will view America." In one project, police college, many pipes did not function and human waste dripped from the ceiling. The project was worth $72 million. Subcontractors were often local Iraqis. Toilets were not built, and one shower was built when 10 were called for. Paul Krugman writes, "Think about it. We want the Iraqis to stand up so we can stand down. But if they stand up, we'll dump excrement on their heads."

The Parsons Corp. which built this Baghdad police station, had still not made repairs promised to Congress a year ealier. In Ocotber 2007, exrement still stained the ceilings, sewage from bathrooms was still leaking from the ceiling and sections of the building are unusable due to faulty toilets. With water turned off to many areas, "The students are stinking." Walls are crumbling. In 2006 the Army Corps accepted the job as being completed. Parsons now claims that they have fixed the problems. One US officer said, "What I've seen here disgusts me as a taxpayer." Rep. Waxman added that the police academy "was supposed to be a showcase project, but it now epitomizes wasteful spending and incompetent oversight. The administration said this mess would be cleaned up, but once again, the money was squandered and no one was held accountable."

Bechtel, added Krugman on Nov. 3, is leaving Iraq. They have been paid $2.3 billion and lost the lives of 52 employees. "They've already cut and run." He wonders about failed reconstruction and "if we've given up on rebuilding in Iraq, what are our troops dying for?...The bottom line is that those charged with rebuilding Iraq had no incentive to do the job right, so they didn't." The Times columnist concludes, "I don't know whether the administration is afraid to ask US voters for more money, or simply considers the situation hopeless. Either way , the US has accepted defeat on reconstruction. Yet Americans are still fighting and dying in Iraq. For what?

October 2006 included a Times lead editorial, "Money Down the Drain in Iraq", highlighting many of the above problems. It opens, "When the full encyclopedia of Bush administration misfeasance in iraq is compiled, it will have to include a lengthy section on the contracting fiascos that wasted billions of taxpayer dollars in the name of rebuilding the country. It isn't only money that was lost. Washington's disgraceful failure to deliver on its promises to restore electricity, water and oil distribution, and to rebuild education and health facilities, turned millions of once sympathetic Iraqis against the American presence." They complain about high overhead costs and add, "Bush administration incompetence, not corporate greed, is the chief culprit." (10/26/06).

Bonnie Murphy, a Pentagon employee, according to in indictment, accepted gold jewelry worth thousands of dollars "for illegally steering nearly $6 million in contracts to an Iraqi company for work at a sprawling" US military base. She could get up to seven years in prison.

As we continue to hear about the ongoing corruption, one wonders how many people and companies are not being caught.

Special Inspector General Stuart Bowen is losing his job. The Republican has reported from Iraq on bribery, conspiracy, and poor construction. But in early November 2006, we learned that a section snuck into a bill will give him his pink slip. He began his work in 2004. After the election, Democrats talked of keeping him on, which was achieved in December. He can now examine how $32 billion taxpayers funds have been spent. Bowen kept his job and in late January 2007 expressed continuing concerns. "Corruption is indemic" in the Iraqi government. In interviews, such as on NPR, Bowen tended to emphasize Iraqi corruption more than American. His office had 80 active investigations of potential criminal activity, while 23 cases had been handed over to the US Justice Department. Despite $4 billion in US tax dollars, electricty output is down from Saddam days.

One of those arrested was Iraqi expatriate from Chicago and successful engineer, Mr. Alsammarae, who became minister of electricity. He is the only cabinet-level official convicted and jailed for misusing money.

In February five Americans were indicted for bribery, contract rigging, and other related charges. They smuggled over $500,000 is cash into the US. Bribes included sports cars and jewelry. Said an IRS spokesman, "They stole the money in Iraq." One of those charged was the second most senior official in the CPA for South Central Iraq, another was its comptroller, and a third was an adviser for Iraqi reconstruction projects.

The bribes and kickbacks continued as front page news in late August 2007. More indictments of Americans seemed likely. On the same day this story hit the front page, Gonzales announced his resignation. A major linked to a case, Gloria Davis, committed suicide in December 2006. Bribes for contracts were $15 million, mostly involving supplying weapons to Iraqis. Lee Dynamics International was suspended. These problems are caused by corrupt individuals, lots of cash, as well as weak oversight, poor planning and security. By late August there were 73 criminal investigations and fraud and abuse. Twenty people have been charged in federal courts involving charges of more than $5 billion. Those being investigated are contractors, government employees, local nationals, and US military personnel.

"Graft in military contracts" was again on the front page (Times, 9/24/07), detailing charges against 29 civilians and soldiers, and 75 others. Two suicides have resulted. Many of these originate in Kuwait, a major supply station for the war.

Bowen ended up keeping his job and making another report in October 2007. As James Glanz reports in the Times, "More than $100 billion has been devoted to rebuilding" mainly from US taxpayers and Iraqi oil revenue, but "output in critical areas like water and electricity remain below US goals." One negative report is the Mosul dam, which is dangerously flawed. It has cost at least $27 million to repair but "essentially nothing of practical value" has been achieved. There were flaws in decisions, construction, and supplies, right from the beginning. US Army Corps of Engineer have been lax in oversite. If the dam collapses, Mosul would be flooded. Bowen also sees hopeful signs.

Sloppy accounting resurfaced again in early December as the Pentagon's own audit concluded that studies could not show that "equipment, services, and construction" were delivered properly. The $5.2 billion was used to train and equip Iraqi security forces.

"Iraq For Sale: The War Profiteers." Another film by Robert Greenwald, it details the primary motivation of private contractors such as Halliburton.

Rebuilding blunders are even more widespread that thought, we learned in late January 2008. Parsons and over site from federal inspectors was the topic of this Times piece. Bowen, the Special Inspector for Iraq Reconstruction found that 8/11 Parsons rebuilding were terminated before completed. Previous, Bowen concluded that Parsons completed just 6 of 141 primary health care clinics. This investigation is being carried about by the President's Council of Integrity and Efficiency, an office associated with the White House.

"Inside the world of war profiteers" was the banner investigative headline of The Chicago Tribune (2/21/08). "From prostitutes to Super Bowl tickets, a federal probe reveals how contractors in Iraq cheated US...Massive fraud" has "endangered the health of American soldiers even as it lined contractors' pockets." Only 36 people have been indicted of war-contractor crimes. With the absence of oversight, some Middle Eastern businessmen would offer "Rolex watches, leather jackets, prostitutes, and the KBR guys weren't shy about bragging about the fact they they were being treated to all that stuff," said one investigator.

"Official History Spotlights Iraq Rebuilding Blunders: Poor Planning, Waste, and Deception Led to $100 Billion Failure." This is how the Times lead story of Dec. 14, 2008 described the 513 page US report. The effort was "crippled before the invasion" by the Pentagon planners "who were hostile to the idea of rebuilding a foreign county, and then molded into a $100 billion failure by bureaucratic turf war, spiraling violence and ignorance of the basic elements of Iraqi society and infrastructure." This is the first official history published, but follower many books and articles on the topic. The Pentagon inflated measures of progress when things started going poorly "to cover up the failures."

Colin Powell says that in 2003 the Pentagon "'kept inventing numbers of Iraqi security forces--the number would jump 20,000 a week!'" Oddly these numbers do look fuzzy in retrospect, as detailed lower on this same page. Powell's ideas are backed up by former Iraqi commander Sanchez, and top administrator Bremer. The article concludes that "for all the money spent and promises made, the rebuilding effort never did much more than restore what was destroyed during the invasion and the convulsive looting that followed."

In a related story, a rebuilding project of wastewater treatment in Fallujah is "late, faulty, and over budget." This was supposed to be the city at the center of reconstruction. However, the projects was "so poorly conceived," reported the Times' James Glanz, that "there is no reliable electricity to run pumps and purification tanks, and no money left to connect homes to the main sewer lines, which now run uselessly beneath Fallujah's streets." This report was made again by Stuart Bowen, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, an independent federal office. For years, embassy officials and the Army Corps knew of the problems but did not report them. Congress is supposed to be informed of the status of taxpayer-financed projects.

Bribery and extortion convictions were brought forth upon 3 Koreans in May 2009. The program in northern Iraq was financed with over $70 million in US taxpayer funds. South Korea had been a stron ally and questions of the scale of corruption were again raised.

Corruption extended to medical studies showing false claims and a ghost population regarding a bone-growth product. The former surgeon at Walter Reed, who made the claims, was a paid consultant for a medical company.

A supply officer was charged in August 2009. Capt. Bryant Williams of Clarksville, Tennessee, allegedly told contacts that if the wanted to keep receiving "lucrative orders from his office, they would have to buy his wife a diamond ring he had found" in the web. The scheme expanded to "envelopes stuffed with thousands of dollars in bribes mailed to a bagman in Iowa." Williams reported that the work was being awarded competitively.

US Embassy corruption seemed widespread, we learned in October, 2009. The $700 million series of buildings includes apartments for 1100 people. The embassy covers 104 acres on the Tigris River, while Vatican City in Rome is just a bit larger, at 109 acres. According to the State Department's Inspector General, work is shoddy and includes incompetent oversite. For example, according to the Times story, "walls and walkways are cracking, sewage gas flows back into residences, wiring is substandard, and fire protection systems are faulty. $132 million in damages are being sought from the construction company, First Kuwaiti.

The US was overbilled millions for troops's food, we learned in November 2009. The Kuwait company defrauded the US $62 million by exaggerating the cost of good, prosecuters charged. This was only part of the fraud, because it was for 41 of the 76 months.

What is Iraqizationj? In an initial signal of what I call "Iraqization", (also see "When Will Troops Come Home?" FAQ)President Bush in mid-June 2004 signaled the future of Iraq.  The Iraqis must eventually "take responsibility" for their own security. In stating the obvious, the President also hinted at a U.S. withdrawal similar to Vietnam, with little U.S. responsibility after troops leave. 

President Bush complimented some Iraqi troops and police but the headlines of his December 20 news conference still rang out the negative, yet obvious news:  "Bush says Iraqis Aren't yet able to quell rebels."  The New York Times front page story quoted Bush as saying it was "'unacceptable'" that some Iraqi units fled when faced with hostile fire.

"Bush:  Iraqi army isn't ready" was the Chicago Tribune bold front-page headline, followed by the key quote, "Iraq will never secure itself it they have troops that, when the heat gets one, they leave the battlefield."  Could the President possibly be floating a trial balloon that when American troops withdraw, if Iraq remains unstable it will be the fault of the Iraqi troops?  

Also PZ Violence for post-June 2006.

Also see "When Will Troops Come Home?" FAQ

Pentagon deputy Wolfowitz told Congress in May that he had no way of predicting how long our troops would stay in Iraq.  The previous week, Powell had contradicted other administration statements by saying that if the Iraqis asked US troops to leave after June 30, they would leave.

As 2005 began Iraqization continued to be stressed as a long-term solution.  Only 9500 Iraqi troops were fully trained, though there was some disagreement at to what "trained" meant. Perhaps this led the Pentagon and an American general in Iraqi to predict that 120,000 U.S. troops will stay in Iraqi through 2007.  The retired 4-star general who visited Iraq in January recommended that the training process proceed more quickly.  In early February, Wolfowitz predicted that the 15,000 US troops added for the elections would leave in a few weeks.  By mid-March, there was no sign of a reduction from 150,000.  The number increased from about 138,000 (the baseline) to over 150,000 in October and November, in anticipation of December 15 elections. 

We learned in October that no longer three but only one Iraqi contingent was fully trained.  Countering General Casey's congressional testimony, was Gen. Petrauas, in charge of the training until recently. He emphasized that "in the lead" Iraqi troops were growing, even though those "fully independent" were not. 

In November the latest statistics were of 200,000 Iraqi personnel trained but 84,000 merely police officers and about 1000 capable of fig hint independent of US forces.

Are Iraqi forces taking over?  The President was optimistic about their training and their growing responsibilities. However, they need more training, more armor, and more weapons.  Militias are powerful throughout Iraq, but the federal army has little control over them. The US doesn't seem to have a plan for dealing with the Iraqi militias. For more on the President's November 30, 2005 speech, see "US Politics" FAQ.

In the fall of 2006, American officials more frequently and more directly blamed the Iraqis for not showing up for work, or their Prime Minister for not being a strong leader. Could this trend is message move the US toward the "the Iraqis lost the war" rather than blaming the US?

In April 2004 Bob Woodward's new book alleged that the White House and Pentagon misused $700 million which Congress had approved for Afghanistan. The funds instead had gone for the buildup for war against Iraq.  Frequent administrative critic Senator Robert Byrd felt the law may have been broken.  "If the Woodward allegations are true, then the administration failed to abide by the law to consult with and fully inform Congress.  Deputy Secretary of the Pentagon, Paul Wolfowitz, replied the the administration had done nothing improper and that it did not devote money to Iraq until after Congress had approved a resolution.  The definition of "money to Iraq" may be in question.

Wolfowitz denies the Woodward report saying the money went only "to strengthen our capabilities in the region" and "no funding was made available for those things that had Iraq as the exclusive purpose."  Sen. John Warner (R-VA) seemed to concur.  "At this point I think the matter has been fully responded to." (WashPost, 4/21/04). 

Also see "When Will Troops Come Home?" FAQ

President Bush defended the decision but was concerned with the timing, as he was sending new special envoy James Baker, former Bush Sr. cabinet leader, to speak with these and other allies but Iraq large debt.  This "Boomerang Diplomacy" led to a critical Washington Post editorial, its first editorial in 10 days. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58200-2003Dec11?language=printer

In September 2004 as the death, kidnappings, and bad news continued to mount, President Bush first talked with some specificity about withdrawing our troops.  Much of this future withdrawal would be contingent on the further training of the Iraqi army and security forces.  The Pentagon has given conflicting figures as to how many Iraqis are being trained and how ready they are to replace American troops.  Absentee rates are up to 40% for these forces , according to Wolfowitz.

Soon after the fall Fallujah offensive and about two weeks after the U.S. 2004 Presidential election, we first heard public comments about U.S. troops size.  Leaders want more troops.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2565-2004Nov21.html

Also see an overview of troop levels, in graphic format, from the BBC web site.

Also PZ Violence for post-June 2006.
Also see "When Will Troops Come Home?" FAQ

On troop numbers, the news of November included Rumsfeld's Pentagon plans to reduce the number of American troops to 105,000 by May of 2004. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A9974-2003Nov6?language=printer

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and Democratic candidate Wesley Clark have suggested an increase in the number of U.S. troops.  In April 2004 after Rumsfeld hints floated for a week, it was announced that U.S. troops in Iraq would be increased by at least 10,000.  The official announcement came just after the President's prime time news conference, when we learned on April 15 that 20,000 more troops would be added.  These troops would not be new but would stay longer than they had previously been told.

By June 2004 Democrats and a growing number of Americans were calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.  Nader wanted troops coming out in six months. Neither Bush nor Kerry would put a date on any possible withdrawal.

Paul Bremer, we learned from his January 2006 book My Year in Iraq, suggested beefing up troops numbers about two years earlier, as the insurgency was growing.  His request were ignored. "Even a year after liberation, the military still could not provide adequate protection for movement to and from Baghdad International Airports.  Bremer left the position of head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in June 2004.  A Pentagon spokesman called the Bremer request to Rumsfeld and Bush "an interesting historical asterisk or data point."  Bremer also criticized Rumsfeld's overly optimistic security force estimates "to justify a drawdown of our forces." See "People Better Off?" for more on Bremer. 

The troops level  trial balloon became a reality in the first week of December, 2004  Troop levels will increase from about 135,000 to about 150,000, the highest of the war, reported the front page of multiple newspapers.   Troops that had served one year will be kept on through the elections scheduled for January 30, 2005.  The Army had pledged that these troops would stay on no longer than 12 months.  

One assumes troops levels would decline after the election.  In terms of "Iraqization", there was talk that U.S. troops would need to stay 10 more years in Iraq. In January 2005 about 10 days before the Iraqi election, Powell suggested that troop levels would decrease during 2005.  Bush refused to set a timetable.  Perhaps he was waiting until after the Jan. 30 elections.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A25454-2004Dec1?language=printer

These extra 10,000 troops were going to be temporary but in mid-March and then in to May our totals continued at 150,000, nearly two months after the elections.  In June the Pentagon sad the number was at 139,000.

In the large wake of Hurricane Katrina forces were about to increase about 15,000 in anticipation of the October 15 referendum.  The Iraqi Constitution (details in Politics FAQ) was completed just a few days before Katrina struck the gulf coast.  There was no plan to bring National Guard home from Iraq to help deal with the crisis. That is, no troop movement from the Gulf to the Gulf.

After the December 2005 elections, we have long been told the troops numbers will be reduced from 160,000 to the "baseline" number of about 138,000.  One month after the election, there was no sign of this reduction.

Before Congress, Secretary Rumsfeld said that the US has trained 120,000 Iraqi forces. Replied Joseph Biden (D-DE), Rumsfeld "doesn't know what in the hell he's talking about on this."  The next time the Secretary appeared on capital hill, he refused to give a number.

In March 2005 , Lt. Gen Petraeus, in charge of training Iraqis, put the number at 142,000 trained and equipped police officers, soldiers, sailors and airmen.  The Post reported that some of these units have their own "zones of responsibly and are working with US troops in several parts of the county.  Officials expect the Iraqi forces to outnumber US forces by the end of the year."  In June the number of army, police and border forces was put at 165,000; more are planned.

In March 2005 the Army's second ranking General said that troops levels could drop to 105,000 in 2006.  As the Times Pentagon reporter stated, "In the past, similar projections have been abandoned as the situation deteriorated unexpectedly.  Almost a year ago the Pentagon was planning to cut troop levels by the summer of 2004, but it ended up abruptly extending the tours of units that were on their way home, and the number have not declined since." 

Also in March we learned a a shift in US policy since the elections.  More Iraqis were patrolling on their own, including some of Baghdad's most violent neighborhoods.  The gradual shift involved about 4000 Iraqi soldiers. The Tribune entitled their front-page story, "Iraqi army takes first step toward relieving GIs."

In March 2006, amid increased violence following the bombing of the Shiite golden mosque, Rumsfeld hinted that troop levels might be increased temporarily.  (See more on 2006 Violence). This is the first time in about two years I recall a troop increase which did not proceed elections.

In May 2006 Iraqi recruits walked away from ceremonies and protested when they were told they would go to volatile Anbar not to their home province.  Dozens stripped off their new uniform shirts.  The Times reported that "the new soldiers said they had been promised that they would serve only in their hometowns."  A US spokesman said "We have not seen this in the past."  Will this type of action hurt the recruiting of more Iraqis?

In June the Iraqi National Security Adviser was optimistic, and, it turned out, unrealistically optimistic: "We envisage the US troop presence by year's end to be under 100,000, with most of the remaining troops to return home by the end of 2007."

US troop levels did quietly increase, we learned in September 2006, from about 135,000 to over 140,000. By late September levels approached 150,000.

General Abizaid admitted to Congress in November that "I think you can look back and say that more American troops would have been advisable" in the first few months of the war of 2003.

In December there was more and more talk of a "temporary" increase of 20,000-35,000 troops. They would be either in Baghdad or in the capital and Anbar Province.

President Bush announced his "surge" in January 2007, which took a few months to bring in the extra 20-30,000 troops. By summer forces stood at 154,000. By the end of 2008, they were still over 140,000.

For more on troop levels see, "When might US troops come home?" FAQ, new in 2005.  and see "Troops Out '07? '09?" FAQ.