Pentagon: 3 Months in Iraq Cost $14B

[Drift3r]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040212/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_war_cost_3

Pentagon: 3 Months in Iraq Cost $14B

By JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The ongoing war in Iraq cost about $4 billion in September, spiked to $7 billion in October and hit just under $3 billion in November, the Pentagon said Wednesday in its latest report on how much the military operation costs.

That amounted to roughly $14 billion spent on U.S. military operations in Iraq over the three-month period late last year, the latest figures available, said Dov Zakheim, the Pentagon's chief financial official.

He said analysts were trying to determine why the costs spiked in October.

Officials previously had said the occupation of Iraq is costing $1 billion a week.

Zakheim also sought to allay concerns, expressed by top military chiefs to a congressional committee Tuesday, that the Pentagon would run out of money to finance the efforts.

The Iraq war and occupation, along with the ongoing operations in Afghanistan, are being paid for through supplemental spending bills that are approved by Congress outside of the regular budget process.

Already, Congress has approved $166 billion for those operations. The Pentagon has said it does not expect the Bush administration to seek another spending bill until January 2005, but the chiefs of the Army, Air Force and Marine Corps suggested Tuesday that money will run out by the end of September.

Zakheim said Wednesday that the military can fill the gap by borrowing money from other operations and maintenance accounts. This causes some repairs and maintenance work to be delayed, but Zakheim said this would not lead to permanent problems if a supplemental spending bill were approved by the following spring.

Why wait? Zakheim said the Pentagon wanted to see how events in Iraq unfold this year before deciding how much money it will need.

He denied the suggestion that the Bush administration was waiting until after the November elections to prevent the cost from becoming a political issue.

 

[tnitsuj]

so?

 

[buckmasterson]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
so?

So maybe President Kerry will find a better place to spend that money, like right here at home? Or better yet, he may just not spend it at all!!!

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: buckmasterson

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
so?

So maybe President Kerry will find a better place to spend that money, like right here at home? Or better yet, he may just not spend it at all!!!

Pffft, he's a Democrat. Democrats always spend more than Republicans.

 

[buckmasterson]

"Pffft, he's a Democrat. Democrats always spend more than Republicans."

You got that right. I really don't have a clue who I'm voting for. It will be between the two major parties, but which one? I'll let this forum decide for me.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: buckmasterson

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
so?

So maybe President Kerry will find a better place to spend that money, like right here at home? Or better yet, he may just not spend it at all!!!

Pffft, he's a Democrat. Democrats always spend more than Republicans.

How about we compare Bush's spending record to Clinton's.

 

[B00ne]

I always wonder how they come up with these costs. I mean sure such an operation costs money but that much - how?
The food they need anyway, operation or not - paid for
Salaries they get anyway, operation or not - paid for
Equipment needs to be maintananced anyway, operation or not - paid for

So basically the extra cost should amount to: fuel for flying in equipment food whatsoever, ammunition, extra maintanance costs for equipment (including breaking or destruction of equipment) and thats it. Plus maybe hazard bonuses the soldiers might get.

And that amounts to 4billion a month - sounds hard to believe