Bush Administration's War Spending Nears Half-Trillion Dollars: Cost Estimates Were WAY Off the Mark

ABC News: Bush Administration's War Spending Nears Half-Trillion Dollars

As you start collecting all the "stuff" you need for filing taxes this year, take a moment to reflect on this article about how much the Bush Doctrine is costing you, er... I mean US.

Feb. 16, 2006 — In a single year, it is difficult to measure overall progress in the war on terror. But ABC News has learned today that President Bush will ask Congress for an additional $65.3 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It brings the total funds requested this year to more than $110 billion for those operations. This is the fourth time in three years that the Bush administration has asked for additional funds for Iraq and Afghanistan, and the $65 billion request is $2 billion higher than expected. Of that amount, $38 billion will be spent for ongoing military operations, with $11 billion going to repair and replenish war-fighting equipment ravaged by wear and tear.

Another $1.9 billion is allocated for protecting against improvised explosive devices. The blizzard of numbers boils down to nearly $7 billion a month.

"I'm still stunned that there's no downward motion at all in the monthly costs. And clearly in 2006, the administration plans on no end in sight to that," said Michael E. O'Hanlon, senior fellow in foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution.

This increase would bring the cost of the war thus far to $400 billion — a far cry from the administration's original estimates. Just before the invasion of Iraq in 2002, White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsay estimated the cost would be $100 billion to $200 billion. That estimate was later dismissed by Mitch Daniels, then director of the Office of Management and Budget, who said costs would be between $50 billion to $60 billion.

These figures do not include aid to Israel, Palestine (and the fiasco that is), continued stationing of troops in other places around the world... not too mention the other "interventions" and "regime changes" that the Bush Doctrine calls for this year.

Having a strong military for national defense, humanitarian aid, disaster response and homeland security is one thing. But spending the fortune that this administration is asking for on pre-emptive strikes and invasions based on faulty intelligence, incompetent analyses, and pre-determined agendas is wasteful, unwise and unwarranted. Now we have a committment that we cannot seem to shake in Iraq. Things are getting worse instead of better. We have issues arising in Iran, North Korea and Darfur. It doesn't look like the work done in dealing with the Israel-Palestine conflicts are going to result in anything but more money and committments. We are ignoring issues in other places and still have obligations to the UN. Our troop strengths are down and the recruting efforts are not meeting quotas (and juts 6 years ago we were pushing experienced people out of the service).

Spending money on foreign policy and foreign aid is an important part of being a leading nation in the world. But we are spending mony in unwise fashion, having no less than six multi-billion dollar no-bid contracts, numerous reports of price gouging and sub-standard workmanship, as well as wide-spread corruption that has lead to our aid monies being spent in inappropriate ways and redirected away from those intended to receive our aid. Meanwhile, we are cutting aid to our own people and asking for BILLIONS to go elsewhere.

It's not isolationism when you ask that your own country be placed first on the list... It's common sense and sound policy. A billion dollars can send a lot of US citizens to school, improve roads or provide food and medicine to our poor... 400 billion dollars can do a hell of a lot more. I don't mind paying my taxes if I know that it is being spent wisely and effectively.