patrick.net

Here the cost in American lives is given at 4437:

http://icasualties.org/

Here is a link (thanks to Patrick) for the money spent. I don't think it includes medical costs resulting from US servicemen and women who have given much:

http://costofwar.com/en/?source=patrick.net

Another estimate is much higher (but I think this one overstates the cost):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090302200.html

Wikipedia's article is worth a quick look at least: (It gives a $3,000,000,000,000 "total cost"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

And now...

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/43190/majorities-of-americans-and-britons-believe-the-war-in-iraq-was-a-mistake/

The major benefit is that one of Israel's major enemies ended up dangling from a rope, and the government of Iraq was purged of Baathists.

The pre-war oil sanctions regime has been lifted and the US has gotten more access to their production. California's #2 oil supplier now is Iraq. Had we not taken out Saddam, by now he'd have been able to get French and Russian oil companies back into his country pumping the oil their way.

Instead of cutting taxes in 2003 we should have raised them, but that would have only intensified the recession. The system chose to sacrifice the long-term financial balance of the nation for the short-term election cycle of 2004.

We're spending $900B/yr on defense now. This is simply ludicrous. This is NINE MILLION $100,000/yr jobs. And then think of all the secondary jobs these millions of defense-sector workers are supporting via their private spending. It's at least another nine million, maybe more. We've become like the Russians were in the 1980s, an economy that is fundamentally unbalanced.

Anyway, US, UK, and Dutch-associated oil companies are better off now than the would have been had Saddam been able to reestablish his commercial ties with French and Russian industry interests.

The Kurds are better off, with 200,000 bbl/day of oil production coming online for them. That's $300M month maybe in royalties, nice little boost for a new quasi-independent nation of 5M people.

The Israelis are better off, as mentioned above. The Shiites are better off, especially in the South, which has a lot of Iraq's oil but wasn't part of Iraq's power structure when the (Sunni) Baathists were running things.

This intervention will cost every tax payer $500/yr in added interest from now until the end of time. It's up to them to determine if it has been "worth it".

@Troy

Up late, eh?

Not so late here... anyway good stuff!

On the military... see this:

http://patrick.net/?p=622317 (not a very good multplier effect)

Why are would you be concerned about who pumps the oil? It all goes onto the same international marked. US and UK oil companies are huge multinationals that don't give any preference at all to their home countries any more than French or Russian oil companies do. It all goes into supertankers and on to whoever plunks down the cash to buy it no matter who pumps it.

bob2356 says

Why are would you be concerned about who pumps the oil?

It's the enterprise profit involved. Total and Lukoil aren't in the Republican power structure like eg. CVX, afaik at least.

The key thing about the Saddam regime was that there weren't going to *be* any auctions or market action to determine who gets what. For one, Saddam owed Russia & France billions of dollars from the Iran-Iraq War days, and this was going to come out of "his" oil production.

Secondly, Saddam was openly hostile to the 1991 Coalition and was going to stick it to Bush and the powers associated with him.

This is why France and Russia were so non-committal about taking out Saddam -- they knew this was really one step removed from the usual corporate hostile takeover, basically a LBO, but with tanks too.

I remember I was very small minority that thought it was an ill conceived war.
Everyone was on the bandwagon, bitching about the Dixie chicks and Richard Geere, while the War Pigs were telling us with out any data or information to back it up...

"Oh well this is going to be multi decade occupation. the (War) on terror, doesn't have a front, so we will be occupying Iraq for decades to come."

Bush was a Mater at telling people how its going to be, before he did things. 5 dollar gas by Summer? You got it! Like look at now, we were supposed to be at $90 Oil by January, but it just wasn't commanded by Obama like Bush could sell it.

Bush comes out, after invading Afghanistan, and no resolution in sight, HE told US, "He was going to Iraq, with out a clear plan, and no clear exit strategy." 97% of the Americans ate that shit up.
That goes for 97% of this forum to.

Tenouncetrout says

97% of the Americans ate that shit up.

Actually, it was more like 30-30-40 in early 2003.

Thirty percent would suck Bush's dick if asked. 30% were saying the war thing was bogus.

But the mushy middle of the country was sorta against going in, but would approve if we got UN sanction.

When we failed to get final UN approval, the mushy middle largely broke for Bush, because to be anti-war during war is seen to be unpatriotic, or even un-American.

Plus there was always the chance that things would turn out OK, that opposing the war in 2003 would have been the same mistake that opposing the war in 1990 had been.

Troy says

Actually, it was more like 30-30-40 in early 2003.

Typical, your talking about Bush's approval rating, I'm talking about the percentage of Americans still forking out $4 at the over pass for their cellophane made in China American flag. And "Gitter done!" was our "God save the Queen!".

Tenouncetrout says

your talking about Bush’s approval rating

No, that was polling about going to war. This was the polling immediately after Bush's call to arms in Feb 2003:

"Only 27% opposed military action, the smallest percentage since the polls began in April 2002. The percentage of Americans supporting an invasion without UN support jumped eight points to 37%"

So in the run-up the split was 30-30-40. As war got closer those on the fence began becoming pro-war, because they were idiots in the first place, just not as quite as idiotic as the hard-core pro-war people.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/02/20/rumsfeld.interview/index.html?hpt=C1

I was all about it in the beginning. The WMD threat was a big threat to the whole region. It became pretty dissapointing to me over my 3 tours in Iraq that we didn't find any. Plus, it pulled resources and attention away from the real problems in Afghanistan. I hope the Iraqi people can turn it around and some benifit comes from this.

Who should pay this?

US Iraq USA damages

The Iraqi's can pay it with their oil revenue. If they give us full oil rights, then we can pay it.

Truthplease says

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/02/20/rumsfeld.interview/index.html?hpt=C1
I was all about it in the beginning. The WMD threat was a big threat to the whole region. It became pretty dissapointing to me over my 3 tours in Iraq that we didn’t find any. Plus, it pulled resources and attention away from the real problems in Afghanistan. I hope the Iraqi people can turn it around and some benifit comes from this.

He're is one of my favorite Rummy vids:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGhGHxw0mSo

He just straight got up and knowingly lied to the whole country. Of course these high tech caves never existed.

They just COMPLETELY MADE THIS UP. And nobody cares. Certainly not "conservatives". They even invited Cheney to speak at CPAC a few weeks ago.

Tenouncetrout says

Bush was a Mater at....

He was a Mater?

MarkInSF says

Truthplease says

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/02/20/rumsfeld.interview/index.html?hpt=C1
I was all about it in the beginning. The WMD threat was a big threat to the whole region. It became pretty dissapointing to me over my 3 tours in Iraq that we didn’t find any. Plus, it pulled resources and attention away from the real problems in Afghanistan. I hope the Iraqi people can turn it around and some benifit comes from this.

He’re is one of my favorite Rummy vids:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGhGHxw0mSo
He just straight got up and knowingly lied to the whole country. Of course these high tech caves never existed.
They just COMPLETELY MADE THIS UP. And nobody cares. Certainly not “conservatives”. They even invited Cheney to speak at CPAC a few weeks ago.

The intelligence was completely wrong.

Truthplease says

MarkInSF says

Truthplease says

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/02/20/rumsfeld.interview/index.html?hpt=C1

I was all about it in the beginning. The WMD threat was a big threat to the whole region. It became pretty dissapointing to me over my 3 tours in Iraq that we didn’t find any. Plus, it pulled resources and attention away from the real problems in Afghanistan. I hope the Iraqi people can turn it around and some benifit comes from this.

He’re is one of my favorite Rummy vids:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGhGHxw0mSo

He just straight got up and knowingly lied to the whole country. Of course these high tech caves never existed.

They just COMPLETELY MADE THIS UP. And nobody cares. Certainly not “conservatives”. They even invited Cheney to speak at CPAC a few weeks ago.

The intelligence was completely wrong.

Didn't anyone suspect that getting intelligence from Iraq expats who hadn't been in the country for 20 years would be a little dodgy. That would be same the expats that thought they would be selected to lead Iraq (the country with the second largest oil reserves in the world, juicy plum you think?) if the US just happened to throw Saddam out? Gee I wonder if there were any incentive at all for these people to lie? Many people pointed out this "small" problem of credibility of the CIA's sources in the lead up to the war.

The CIA had interviewed former Iraq scientists who stated there were no wmd's but this information was suppressed. There is a pretty good article that came of of George Washington University that talks about this: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB254/index.htm

It's been my opinion since the first troops touched Iraq soil that Bush, Rummy, and Cheney belong in jail.

I was going to wait until March to start this post, but I figured, "What the heck!"

Another link for what it is worth.:

Study-says US wasted-billions-in Iraq

I had wondered in this post if many people had changed their view on the war either way:

http://patrick.net/?p=585896

And how does the $trillion spent look in light of the huge national debt...

I thought I would hear more on this. Americans were really big on this war 8 years ago. I live in Japan and over 90% of Japanese people were against it from the beginning (can't go much higher than that for the present). I would say even Americans living abroad were slightly over 50% against this war (higher now).

Supposedly, with so much anger in the US now about Federal spending ("Were mad as he!! and we're not going to take it") you think some anger might be at the architects of the Iraq War (unless people think it was worth it, in which case I want to hear how and why).

I am curious about what people think- I am willing to listen (read).

Truthplease says

I was all about it in the beginning. The WMD threat was a big threat to the whole region. It became pretty dissapointing to me over my 3 tours in Iraq that we didn’t find any.

WMD is the stupidest term of the 00's. It conflates chemical weapons with nuclear weapons. They are at least 2 orders of magnitude apart in their ease of deployment and destructive power. Chemical weapons are nasty, but they are not a radical threat like nukes. The fuel air bombs the the US uses are just as lethal.

An Iraqi nuclear program was not even suggested, hence there was never any urgency whatsoever.

"Weapons of mass destruction" should be sticken from the American lexicon.

I was extensively travelling back in 2003, and was only home in the US for about 2 weeks. Overall the impression I got from foreigners of every nationality was one of disbelief that the US was going through with the invasion.

Thanks for the comment. I have to be careful how I word this, since it might be taken as arrogance, but it does seem that *on average, as a group* Americans overseas are much more knowledgeable about world events, various histories and other cultures than Americans that are living in the US (especially those who never travel overseas). It might be beneficial to have some type of service like the foreign legion, but that is a topic for a different post.

How about a mandatory 1-year Peace Corps tour?

“How about a mandatory 1-year Peace Corps tour?”

A good idea… but many would oppose it.

It is interesting how much the Iraq War has slipped by the wayside. I am curious if many think it was worth the money and lives these days.

The occupation of Iraq was often compared to that of Japan or Europe (circa 1945)., and things would be just fine after a few years...

I was opposed to the wars from the start. 9/11 was the excuse needed by the fanatical Neocons to invade Iraq and remove Saddam ... Israel's main nemesis. In spite of all the USA propaganda, Iraq remains a divided country between the three major factions. The current and probable temporary "peace" has been achieved largely by literally countless $billions in bribes, etc. Afghanistan was a sure loser from the start based on the fact that the totally ruthless Red Army was defeated due primarily to the incredibly difficult terrain. They don't call Afghanistan the "graveyard of armies" for nothing. Former Soviet generals warned us that it will be our worst nightmare but Bush et all chose to ignore their warnings along with the history of defeated armies in Afghanistan, beginning with Alexander the Great. Obama sent a clear message his administration would be an expansion of Bush's policies when he kept the ultra Neocon Robert Gates on as Sec. of Defense. He's even taken it a step further by expanding the war in Afghanistan ... and now Libya. While all this is going on, the Left that was so critical of Bush's policies, have remained largely silent, proving once again that politics is more important to most people (both Left & Right) than what is best for the country.

Wow. A cognitive, well stated, well reasoned post from Ray without any of the Glen Beck/Anne Coulter fact distorting histrionics. I am really impressed. Congratulations keep it up.

MarkInSF says

I was extensively travelling back in 2003, and was only home in the US for about 2 weeks. Overall the impression I got from foreigners of every nationality was one of disbelief that the US was going through with the invasion.

I was also in Europe and Central America a lot before and just after the invasion. Almost everyone felt the whole thing was a setup to put a US friendly government into the middle east. No one I talked to overseas believed the WMD argument.

bob2356 says

Wow. A cognitive, well stated, well reasoned post from Ray without any of the Glen Beck/Anne Coulter fact distorting histrionics. I am really impressed. Congratulations keep it up.

I searched up RayAmerica comments which start November 2009. If he did oppose Iraq war back in GWB days, it is not apparent.

Vicente says

I searched up RayAmerica comments which start November 2009. If he did oppose Iraq war back in GWB days, it is not apparent.

Brilliant observation. If I began posting back in Nov. of 2009 and the Iraq War began in March of 2003 .... what exactly are you attempting to say? If you'd like some help on statements I made regarding the pullout of ALL troops from the Middle East as well as around the world, let me know ... I'm sure I'll be able to help you out. LOL

The biggest beneficiaries of the Iraq war are:

1. Iran
2. Defense contractors

Remember, Iraq was a major enemy of Iran and served as a counter-balance. Iran is now 10 times more powerful than they were when Saddam was in power.

I will agree that both major parties have let us down in this.

@bob2356

Thanks for the comment… were you living overseas, on an “extended stay” or just passing through?

@HousingWatcher

Sounds about right... anyone else. Halliburton made out big...just follow their stock price as the Iraq War became likely. before and after! Do you think the Iraqi people such as the Kurds are better off?

American in Japan says

Halliburton made out big…just follow their stock price as the Iraq War became likely. before and after!

They continue to make out "big." Haliburton under Obama continues to enjoy all the benefits it had under Bush/Cheney. Another example of the Left turning a blind eye on all the corruption that this "agent of change" is involved in.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MD13Ak01.html

Good reading.

There seem to be few supporting this war here on this post. I wonder if the support was just minimal early on from those on this sight, or if many are embarrassed to admit what that it was a waste (although on my other post many making comments were very honest).

For what it is worth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Iraqis-blast-US-congressmans-apf-2316811529.html

Get that $$$ money back from those unappreciative Iraqis!

I like this comment:

"I have to agree with the Iraqis' on this one! Why not get Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Greenspan to pay for getting the USA in the Financial Mess we are in!!!

Those four gentlemen are sitting back in retirement enjoying life.

Water Boarding Rumsfeld, Mr. Bush AWOL from the Texas National Guard, Nine deferments from the Vietnam War Cheney, and last but not least--1 % Fed funds rate in the Greenspan era of "enhance the Iraq War!"
--Lee

I thought the war was only going to cost $50B. :)

Q: Mr. Secretary, on Iraq, how much money do you think the Department of Defense would need to pay for a war with Iraq?

Rumsfeld: Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question. I think the way to put it into perspective is that the estimates as to what September 11th cost the United States of America ranges high up into the hundreds of billions of dollars. Now, another event in the United States that was like September 11th, and which cost thousands of lives, but one that involved a -- for example, a biological weapon, would be -- have a cost in human life, as well as in billions, hundreds of billions of dollars, that would be vastly greater.

http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=1322

Remember when the Bush Admin fired the guy who said it would cost about $100-200B when all was said and done?

The administration's top budget official estimated today that the cost of a war with Iraq could be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion, a figure that is well below earlier estimates from White House officials.

In a telephone interview today, the official, Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., director of the Office of Management and Budget, also said there was likely to be a deficit in the fiscal 2004 budget, though he declined to specify how large it would be. The administration is scheduled to present its budget to Congress on Feb. 3.

Mr. Daniels would not provide specific costs for either a long or a short military campaign against Saddam Hussein. But he said that the administration was budgeting for both, and that earlier estimates of $100 billion to $200 billion in Iraq war costs by Lawrence B. Lindsey, Mr. Bush's former chief economic adviser, were too high.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/us/threats-responses-cost-white-house-cuts-estimate-cost-war-with-iraq.html?ref=lawrenceblindsey

ha! If only that was true...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/vice-president-joe-biden-arrives-in-iraq-for-talks-as-us-military-presence-winds-down/2011/11/29/gIQAtRar8N_story.html

Hopefully so...

American in Japan says

What are the results now that some time has passed? Was it worth the loss of lives (not to mention a good bit of money with many estimates of $1,000,000,000,000 or more)? Who benefitted and who is worse off?

The War was to appease a madman's Ego. (George Bush) There were never any weapons of mass destruction, Saddam was fairly harmless after Iraq's defeat in the Kuwait War. Our government sucks on foreign policy. If Washington sent clear signals to Saddam that the United States would intervene if he invaded Kuwait, that war could have been avoided as well. With no troops in Saudi Arabia, Bin Laden probably wouldn't been enraged and September 11 may have never happened.

The end result? A much less stable region of the world, lower oil production, hundreds of thousands of civilian lives lost, the only real benefit was the United States got to try out all there latest weapons they been itching to test out on the battle field. Was it worth a trillion dollars, absolutely not. Who benefited? Defense contractors, any company that donated money to the Republican party, they all got generous contracts in Iraq. The Iraqi people are far worse off, sure they got rid of a ruthless dictator but they have less security. I say it better off having a police state then a pathetic government government that can't keep you safe when your going to the market to buy food.

Tech, you're missing some details there.

The Kurds are no longer under Saddam's thumb and have control of their own national area now.

The Shias, same thing but they run the rest of Iraq.

Once the sanctions regime was removed Saddam was going to get Russian and French oil industry players back into Iraq's oil fields.

The war allowed US, UK, and Dutch multinationals to get involved in this too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/world/middleeast/iraq-criticizes-exxonmobil-on-kurdistan-oil-pursuits.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/business/energy-environment/17oil.html?pagewanted=all

Additionally, the war allowed us to keep Iraq more in the USD sphere and not lose that economy to the Euro sphere. If you were paying attention in 2003 the neocon triumphalists at AEI were a bit brazen at how well this neo-imperialism was going down:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/03/27/iraqs_mobile_network_qualcomm/

Iraq in 2003 had a decade-plus of catching up to do economically, and the potential oil production to pay for it.

Aside from removing an implacable enemy of Israel, securing a new central ally in the mideast, there was also a business case for invading Iraq.

It was a beautiful hostile takeover in the truest sense, using other people's money to enrich one's friends and family, and also discredit Democratic obstructionism of the Republican foreign policy of foreign military adventurism.

And it might've worked if the warmongers knew what the fuck they were doing.

@Troy (Bill)

So many Americans have told me it wasn't about oil! Lol!

Bellingham Bill says

Tech, you're missing some details there.

So a trillion dollars to Kill Saddam, free the kurds and give American Oil companies access to Iraq oil fields. Not a good investment in my opinion.

Democracy in Iraq? Look at Egypt, Libya and Jordan, looks like it would have came anyway without our involvement.