[Peace-discuss] JUST THINK IF THESE $$$$$ WENT TO EDUCATION

[Dlind49 at aol.com]

Annual Iraq Occupation Cost May Hit $29B
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

 
Filed at 10:34 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. military occupation of Iraq could cost from $8 
billion to $29 billion annually, but the least expensive option would 
dramatically reduce the force, according to scenarios analyzed by the Congressional 
Budget Office.

Relying mostly on active-duty soldiers serving one-year tours, without 
expanding the military's overall size, could cost from $8 billion to $12 billion 
yearly, the nonpartisan budget office said in a report released Tuesday.

To retain adequate levels of military readiness worldwide, that policy -- 
which the Pentagon is now following -- would force the United States to begin 
reducing its troop strength in Iraq below current levels by next March, the study 
said.

Under that scenario, the 180,000 American troops now in and around Iraq would 
have to be drawn down to 38,000 to 64,000 by the winter of 2004-2005, the 
analysis said.

The report comes with President Bush's policies in Iraq under fire from 
critics who say American troops there are stretched thin and are suffering steadily 
growing, though still relatively small, numbers of casualties.

American officials also still are finding that many nations remain reluctant 
to send significant numbers of troops to Iraq. Many lawmakers of both parties 
are complaining about the impact that U.S. involvement there will have on a 
federal budget already deeply in deficit.

The Bush administration says it is involved in a difficult, lengthy job of 
securing Iraq, which it says will be important to regional and worldwide 
security.

Some congressional aides said Tuesday that the administration was considering 
asking Congress this year for more money to cover U.S. costs that could total 
tens of billions of dollars. But they and administration officials said no 
final decisions have been made.

Congress approved nearly $80 billion in April for U.S. operations in Iraq, 
Afghanistan and worldwide efforts against terrorism.

If the Pentagon also drew more heavily on Marines and the National Guard for 
peacekeeping, the U.S. force would total 67,000 to 106,000, the budget office 
report said. The annual occupation cost would run from $14 billion to $19 
billion yearly, the study said.

A third scenario examined by the budget analysts, which Defense Department 
officials have said they oppose, would be to create two new Army divisions, plus 
support units. A division consists of 15,000 to 20,000 troops.

Besides one-time costs of up to $19 billion, such a policy would leave 
peacekeeping costs in Iraq ranging from $23 billion to $29 billion a year. The U.S. 
force there would total from 85,000 to 129,000.

The congressional study focused only on U.S. military costs. It excluded cost 
estimates for rebuilding Iraq, which administration officials have said could 
be tens of billions of dollars.

The report was requested by Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., one of the Congress' 
most blunt critics of administration policy in Iraq.

In remarks on the Senate floor, Byrd said the report ``is quantified evidence 
that the long-term occupation is straining our forces close to the breaking 
point.''

White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said Bush ``has made clear our troops 
on the ground and those helping the Iraqi people build better lives will have 
every resource necessary to do their work and get the job done.''

^------

On the Net:

Congressional Budget Office, with link to report: http://www.cbo.gov/