The Cost Of War: $136 Billion In 2009

[AP) Defense Secretary Robert Gates says military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan would cost almost $136 billion for the 2009 budget year that began Oct. 1 if they continue at their current pace.

Speaking for neither his current boss, President George W. Bush - nor his future one, President-elect Barack Obama - Gates told top lawmakers in a New Year's Eve letter that the Pentagon would need nearly $70 billion more to supplement the $66 billion approved last year.

"This estimate is my personal assessment and does not reflect the position of the Bush administration or the incoming Obama administration," Gates said.

The estimate would cover Pentagon operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as other elements of the global war on terror. An official request for war funding is coming after a review by the Obama administration, Gates said.

In the letter, sent to the chairmen of the House and Senate panels overseeing the war, Gates said that Congress should expect that the Obama administration "will conduct a fresh review of these matters and provide an updated and more authoritative proposal early next year."

Gates also said the estimate doesn't account for a proposed increase in the tempo of operations in Afghanistan.

This estimate is my personal assessment and does not reflect the position of the Bush administration or the incoming Obama administration.

Defense Secretary Robert GatesCongress provided about $188 billion for the global war on terror in the 2008, according to the Congressional Research Service, as a surge in Iraq operations helped bring greater stability to the troubled nation. Obama has promised to bring down war costs as he works to remove most U.S. combat troops.

All told, CRS says, Congress has approved $864 billion for the overseas wars and other programs related to the battle against terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001. Such funding includes military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs and veterans' health care.


© MMIX The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Iran: Consequences of a war

Paul Rogers som er professor i fredsstudier udgav for Oxford Research Group i februar et papir med titlen "Iran: Consequences of a war" som stadigvæk må siges at være særdeles interessant

Highlights fra rapporten:

"The perception of Iran as the major threat to US interests in the Middle East stems, in part, from the long-term consequences of seeing the apparently secure, authoritarian and pro-American regime of the Shah so easily deposed in a matter of weeks in 1979. The Shah’s Iran had been seen as the lynch-pin of US security interests in the Gulf – a bulwark against Soviet interference. The sudden regime collapse, followed by the traumatic impotence of the United States at the time of the hostage crisis and the subsequent and bitter antagonism to the US demonstrated by the Islamic Republic under Ayatollah Khomenei, meant that Iran was a direct and persistent obstacle to US regional interests.

These were, and are, centred on the Gulf region’s immense oil reserves and the trend of the United States becoming increasingly dependent on imported oil. If the oil factor was important at the start of the 1990s, it is far more so 15 years later, with US oil import dependency increasing year by year, with China in a similar position, and with Gulf fossil fuel resources likely to make the region of profound geopolitical significance over the next thirty years or more.

In such circumstances it is fundamentally unacceptable to the United States for a “rogue” state such as Iran to be allowed to get even remotely near having its own nuclear capability. Such a “deterrent” would greatly limit US options in the region, and would provide a threat to its closest ally – Israel. While Washington may not be implacably opposed to diplomatic options to ensure that Iran does not go down the path of a major nuclear infrastructure, if those fail, then it has to be recognised that destruction of the suspected nuclear weapons infrastructure and associated facilities is likely to be undertaken at some stage."

"Israel has maintained a nuclear capability since the late 1960s and is believed to have around 200 nuclear warheads, principally for delivery by aircraft or surface-to-surface missiles. It may also be developing warheads for submarine-launched cruise missiles. Even so, Israel regards it as essential to its security that it is the only state in the region with a nuclear capability."

Rapporten Konkluderer:

"A US military attack on Iranian nuclear infrastructure would be the start of a protracted military confrontation that would probably involve Iraq, Israel and Lebanon as well as the United States and Iran, with the possibility of west Gulf states being involved as well. An attack by Israel, although initially on a smaller scale, would almost certainly escalate to involve the United States, and would also mark the start of a protracted conflict.

Although an attack by either state could seriously damage Iran’s nuclear development potential, numerous responses would be possible making a protracted and highly unstable conflict virtually certain. Moreover, Iran would be expected to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and engage in a nuclear weapons programme as rapidly as possible. This would lead to further military action against Iran, establishing a highly dangerous cycle of violence.

The termination of the Saddam Hussein regime was expected to bring about a free-market client state in Iraq. Instead it has produced a deeply unstable and costly conflict with no end in sight. That may not prevent a US or an Israeli attack on Iran even though it should be expected that the consequences would be substantially greater. What this analysis does conclude is that a military response to the current crisis in relations with Iran is a particularly dangerous option and should not be considered further – alternative approaches must be sought, however difficult these may be."

læs resten her:

http://www.iranbodycount.org/analysis/