http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/11/in...al/11COST.html

July 11, 2003
War's Cost Brings Democratic Anger
By DAVID FIRESTONE and THOM SHANKER


WASHINGTON, July 10 - The Pentagon's new estimate that military costs for
Iraq would average $3.9 billion monthly for the first nine months of this
year produced surprise and anger today among Congressional Democrats, who
said the amount was not only more than they had been told, but far too large
given the budget deficit.

"It is a lot more than I expected," said Senator Kent Conrad of North
Dakota, the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee. "Obviously the Iraqi
occupation is bogging down, and the cost is substantially higher than we
were earlier advised. So the problems are mounting, and I got a real earful
from parents of soldiers when I got home about the lack of a plan for the
postwar."

The Pentagon comptroller today stood by the concepts that produced the
initial estimate in April that military costs would average just over $2
billion monthly, and said he had kept Congress informed of increases,
testifying in early June that estimates of war costs had exceeded $3 billion
monthly.

"Numbers change over time because they reflect the reality," Dov S. Zakheim,
the comptroller, said in an interview today.

"We didn't draw down troops nearly as quickly as we thought we were going to
do," Mr. Zakheim added. But he said that the overall budget estimates for
war costs were sufficiently accurate that the Pentagon does not anticipate
requesting any additional funds for this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30,
as some members of Congress have predicted.

Administration officials disclosed, meanwhile, that the cost of running the
civilian parts of the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq also are
increasing, and that the roughly $7 billion available to pay for much of
these costs is expected to run out near the end of the year.

When Baghdad fell in April, the United States tapped billions of dollars in
Iraqi bank deposits as well as stolen public funds found in hiding places in
Iraq and accumulated revenue from prewar oil sales to pay for the civilian
reconstruction effort.

Some of that money has been flown from the United States to Iraq by Air
Force transports in pallets containing bales of $20 bills, which were then
used to pay for such items as salaries and pensions of Iraqi police and
soldiers.

Officials involved in financing the nonmilitary part of the stabilization
effort say that once Iraq's oil industry is restored sometime next year, it
may produce two million to three million barrels of oil a day, yielding $15
billion to $20 billion in annual revenue.

But sabotage and troubles repairing the oil fields make that goal uncertain.

Across Capitol Hill today, debate focused on the price of the Iraq mission,
and even some Republicans expressed dismay at the estimate for military
costs announced Wednesday by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, said the American people would
support continued troop assignments in Iraq if they were given all the
facts. But he expressed annoyance that it had taken so long to learn the
true costs of the postwar period.

"I think the American people need to be told, `Look, we're going to be there
for quite a while, and it's going to cost us quite a bit of money,' " said
Mr. McCain, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "People should
be given some estimate of what we can expect. Americans will support the
president, in my view, if he just talks straight to them and tells them what
the challenges are we face. We got some of that, albeit reluctantly,
yesterday from Rumsfeld."

There was a burst of Democratic criticism of the postwar effort in
Washington, led by some of the presidential contenders. "It's time for the
president to tell the truth that we lack sufficient forces to do the job in
Iraq and withdraw in a reasonable period, to tell the truth that America
should not go it alone," said Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts.

Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont, said: "What is now clear is
that there are those in this administration that misled the president,
misled the nation, and misled the world in making the case for the war in
Iraq. They know who they are. And they should resign today."

The most pointed critique came from Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West
Virginia, who pressed Mr. Rumsfeld during a Senate Armed Services Committee
hearing Wednesday to produce the best estimate of military costs for Iraq.
Mr. Byrd said his warnings about the failure to assemble an international
coalition before the war had proved true, as American lives are lost in the
postwar period and as allies continue to be reluctant to volunteer large
numbers of troops to replace battle-weary Americans.

"This administration should think hard about whether we have the money to
single-handedly pay for the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq," he said.
"At a time when the United States is running record-breaking deficits of
$400 billion each year, the administration has not even included these $58
billion in occupation costs in its budget. In sharp contrast to the 1991
Persian Gulf war, where our allies contributed $54 billion of the $61
billion cost of that war, the American taxpayer is virtually alone in
bearing the burden for the staggering cost of this most recent war with
Iraq."

One conservative Republican, Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, chairman of the
Senate Finance Committee, said he thought the expenditure was justified to
make certain the nation wins the peace in addition to the war. But he said
there was a limit to his patience.

"There's no doubt in my mind it will be money out the door at least for
months," he said. "I'm not willing to say years at this point."

Mr. Zakheim, the Pentagon comptroller, said the Defense Department's prewar
budget planning was based on the assumption that the conflict might last
three to six weeks, followed by six months of stabilization and transition.
Approximately $13 billion was set aside for that, he said, which produced
his rough estimate in April of $2.1 billion to $2.2 billion in monthly war
expenses.

By the time he went to Capitol Hill in June to testify on war costs, Mr.
Zakheim said: "I already knew the numbers were rising. Sure enough, when you
looked at the actual costs from January to the end of April, that number was
about $4.1 billion per month."

Mr. Zakheim said the unknown course of postwar stabilization in Iraq, and
the uncertainties of allied troop contributions, made it impossible to
predict exact military costs for Iraq into the next fiscal year.

The estimates of military costs for Iraq do not include such items as
salaries for active-duty military personnel, which would have to be paid
regardless. The projections do include costs for special wartime salary
bonuses, as well as fuel, food, ordnance and transportation costs related to
the war effort, and the costs of mobilizing reservists.

One Republican with close ties to the White House, Representative Rob
Portman of Ohio, defended the expenditures.

"Clearly there will be lots of pressure to get out," said Mr. Portman, who
is chairman of the House Republican leadership group. "But we started
something we have a commitment to finish. It would be a mistake for us to
get into this kind of engagement without being willing to stay there for a
while and see it through."



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

--
--
FAIR USE NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am
making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and
social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any
such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator." - GW Bush 12/18/2000.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
---Theodore Roosevelt

"Feels Good!"
---George W. Bush on the Brink of Declaring War on Iraq.