WASHINGTON – U.S. President George W. Bush will ask Congress for another $80 billion for the war in Iraq, bringing the price tag for that invasion and ongoing operations in Afghanistan close to $300 billion, six times the original White House estimate.
The total is well beyond the estimate of $200 billion (U.S.) put forward by onetime White House economic adviser Larry Lindsey — subsequently dismissed for his forecast — and is the number Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once derided as “baloney” on network television.
Bush’s request, which Congress is expected to approve next month, came five days before Sunday’s watershed Iraqi elections, amidst reports that at least 120,000 Americans will remain there through the end of next year.
The White House said $75 billion of the $80 billion will go directly to military operations in Iraq, raising this year’s total to $105 billion for a war that was already costing $5 billion per month.
It also conceded the spiralling costs were the result of an Iraqi insurgency that has surpassed all U.S. estimates in its size and commitment.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are now costing almost half the $623 billion the U.S. spent during the entire 14-year Vietnam War, when adjusted to 2005 dollars.
While the cost of the war escalated, Democrats in the U.S. Senate took advantage of a day-long debate on the confirmation of Secretary of State-designate Condoleezza Rice to signal they will vigorously oppose Bush’s foreign policy in a second term, despite their reduced ranks following November’s election.
A long list of Democrats rose to condemn Rice’s role in selling the Iraq war to an American electorate by citing “phantom weapons of mass destruction” and ramping up baseless fears in this country.
One senator called Rice a liar, accusing her of engaging in activity that is “immoral … and un-American.”
“I don’t like impugning anyone’s integrity, but I really don’t like being lied to — repeatedly, flagrantly, intentionally,” Minnesota Democrat Mark Dayton said.
Rice is virtually certain to be confirmed by a comfortable margin in a Senate vote scheduled for today, but her appointment seemed to rally Democrats from a post-election malaise.
Last week, Rice was grilled for two days by Democrats, led by California Senator Barbara Boxer, and the party denied Bush the opportunity to appoint her on the same day as his second inauguration.
Bush said he was confident the Republican-led Congress would grant his funding request when it is formally submitted next month.
“When we decided to protect America from a gathering threat by removing Saddam Hussein from power, I made two fundamental pledges,” Bush said in a statement. “First, our troops will have whatever they need to protect themselves and complete their mission and, second, the United States will stand with the Iraqi people and against the terrorists trying desperately to block democracy and the advance of human rights.”
He said his request for more funding “makes clear to terrorists that our resolve is firm and we will complete our mission.”
U.S. troops have long complained they do not have the body and vehicle armour needed to protect themselves in Iraq, an issue that came to a head during an infamous confrontation between Rumsfeld and a soldier from Tennessee during an open meeting in Kuwait City in December.
Administration officials who briefed reporters yesterday said some of the money would go to upgrade army equipment they said was wearing down more quickly than anticipated.
The request for spending, coupled with a prediction from the U.S. army’s top operations officer, Lt.-Gen. James J. Lovelace Jr., that some 120,000 American soldiers will remain in Iraq for at least two more years, is a signal to the eventual winner of Sunday’s vote that the U.S. will not quickly withdraw. The Lovelace estimate did not include U.S. Marines or special troops or soldiers from other countries.
The Pentagon, meanwhile, has drafted terms for an ambitious reshaping of U.S. forces that would put less emphasis on waging conventional warfare and more on dealing with insurgencies, terrorist networks, failed states and other non-traditional threats, senior defence officials and other sources told The Washington Post.
The proposed shift in focus stems partly from a recognition U.S. forces were inadequately prepared for the Iraqi insurgency and the global hunt for terrorists, the Post reports.
With the additional military spending, the U.S. is headed for a record $427-billion deficit this year, according to figures released by the Congressional Budget Office. It also estimated a cumulative deficit of $855 billion between 2006 and 2015.
Bush has pledged to cut the U.S. budget deficit in half by the end of this term.
“We have red ink as far as the eye can see,” said the Democratic minority leader in the Senate, Harry Reid of Nevada.
The liberal Centre for American Progress called Bush’s deficit pledge “hollow.”
Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts led the assault on Rice yesterday.
“Dr. Rice was a key member of the national security team which developed and justified the rationale for war,” Kennedy said.
“It has been a catastrophic failure and a continuing quagmire. Under these circumstances, she should not be promoted.”
In order to correct a failed policy in Iraq, the administration first has to admit it is broken, Kennedy said. Instead, Rice spent two days before a Senate committee, never once admitting any errors, he said.
Robert Byrd of West Virginia, the senior senator in the chamber, said the cost of the Iraq war now represents $149 for every minute since Christ was born.
“Accountability has become an old-fashioned notion in some circles these days,” said the 87-year-old Byrd, a 47-year Senate veteran who shakily embraced a glass of water with both hands as he spoke. “But accountability is not a negotiable commodity when it comes to the highest circles of our government.”
He said Rice and others who gave Americans phantom threats and faulty intelligence should not be rewarded with accolades and promotions. Too many questions about the war remain, he said.
