By Robert J. Samuelson
Anyone who practices deadline journalism is bound to find much
to regret things you wish you'd said (or hadn't said) and words,
arguments and attitudes that, with hindsight, seem poorly chosen.
Which brings me to my September 2002 column headlined A War We
Can Afford.
Yes, that column made big mistakes. The war has cost far more
than I anticipated. Still, I defend the column's central thesis,
which remains relevant today: Budget costs should not shape our
Iraq policy.
Costs secondary
Frankly, I don't know what we should do now. But in considering
the various proposals Bush's "surge", fewer troops or redeployment
of those already there the costs should be a footnote. We ought to
focus mostly on what's best for America's security.
To be sure, the war's costs have been huge. Since September
2001, Congress has provided US$503 billion for Iraq, Afghanistan
and related activities, says the Congressional Budget Office.
The administration's request for fiscal 2007 (ending in
September) and fiscal 2008 would bring the total to US$746
billion.
Iraq represents about 70 percent of that. By contrast, my
original column put the cost of an Iraq War at up to US$80 billion.
That was based on the cost then of the war in Afghanistan (US$10
billion), the cost of the first Gulf War (US$61 billion) and the
expectation that another invasion would involve fewer troops (it
did).
As to the future, CBO has done two "illustrative scenarios" one
involving a troop reduction to 30,000 by 2010, the other a
reduction to 75,000 by 2013. In both, troop levels would remain
until 2017. By CBO's estimates, the two scenarios would involve
extra spending from 2009 to 2017 of $269 billion and US$696
billion, respectively.
Finally, the war has created costs that, though they don't
appear in accounts labeled "Iraq", are properly attributed to Iraq.
Trucks, helicopters and tanks are wearing out at faster rates;
they'll have to be replaced or refurbished. Recruiting costs have
risen. Veterans' disability benefits and health costs are
increasing.
Already, 1.4 million US troops have served in the Iraq and
Afghanistan wars, says Linda Bilmes, a Harvard budget expert.
Since the first Gulf War, almost 40 percent of veterans have
received disability benefits, she says. The rate for today's wars
could be higher. She estimates the present value of future
disability and health benefits at between US$300 billion and US$600
billion.
The war on terror has clearly worsened the long-term budget
outlook. How then can I treat that so lightly? What's missing is
context. Dominated by Social Security and health care, the federal
budget now totals nearly US$3 trillion annually.
Suppose the war's ultimate costs reach US$2 trillion by 2017
(the figure is cumulative). That's a big number, perhaps too big.
It's also a wild guess. Still, CBO estimates all federal spending
over the same period (2002-17) will total US$48 trillion; war
spending would be about 4 percent.
Mistaken war
With hindsight, it now seems almost incontestable that the Iraq
War should never have been fought. It has eroded our global power,
weakened our military and resulted in thousands of American and
Iraqi deaths.
What I most regret about my earlier column is that it seemed to
bless a war, when I was mainly trying to focus attention on
questions more important than money. Given the fact that those
questions came at the end of the column ("Is this war justifiable?
.... What would happen if we don't fight? What will happen if we
do?"), the reaction was understandable. In truth, I was uncertain
about the war then, just as I'm unsure of what to do now.
But I am certain now as then that budget consequences should
occupy a minor spot in our debates. It's not that the costs are
unimportant; it's simply that they're overshadowed by other
considerations that are so much more important.
(China Daily via Washington Post March 1,
2007)
