Economists say cost of war could top $2 trillion
Tally exceeds White House projections

From the Boston Globe courtesy of J. Orlin Grabbe:

The cost of the Iraq war could top $2 trillion after factoring in long-term healthcare for wounded US veterans, rebuilding a worn-down military, and accounting for other unforeseen bills and economic losses, according to a new analysis to be presented today in Boston.

The estimate by Columbia University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes far exceeds projections made by the Bush administration.

The figure is more than four times what the war was expected to cost through 2006 -- around $500 billion, according to congressional budget data.

The new study is billed as a detailed analysis not only of the potential costs of sustaining the operation in Iraq for at least several more years, but also the expenses likely to be incurred by taxpayers long after US troops withdraw.

The government will have costly obligations to a new class of veterans, be forced to make new investments in stressed military ranks thinned by multiple tours of duty, and withstand the enduring impact of the war on the nation's overall financial outlook.

For example, the study attributes a portion of the increase in oil prices -- $5 per barrel -- to instability in the Middle East caused by the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein and sparked a bloody insurgency.

It estimates that the shock to the oil industry has already added at least $25 billion to the price tag of the conflict.

Click here for the rest.

Why does this come as no surprise to me? I know: I am now infinitely accustomed to learning that the Bush administration is worse than I thought. Two trillion is waaaay more than what they told us it was going to cost, but it doesn't really do justice to simply state it. I mean, going a million dollars over budget is difficult to truly comprehend in terms of visualizing what the number represents, let alone a billion or a trillion. Look at it this way. Imagine being told that you're going to probably get a bit wet if you were to ride Thunder River at the now defunct Astroworld in Houston, but then finding out that the ride actually takes you to the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico and leaves you there. Without a wet suit or submarine or whatever. That's what this study is essentially reporting about the cost of the war. Bush told us all that we were going to get a bit wet in Iraq, but he actually chained weights to our ankles and dropped us to the bottom of the Persian Gulf. That's what two trillion versus 500 billion means.

And let's not forget that before the invasion, the White House claimed that the entire thing would cost only a fraction of what we've actually spent on it so far.

Just another reason to get the hell out of there right now.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$