On the eve of War, I released a study "Not-So-Hidden Agenda: Strategic and Economic Assessments of U.S. led Invasion in the Middle East."
It detailed what I believed were "rational" reasons were for invading Iraq (complex, but not WMD related), how long it could last (10 years) and how muich it would cost ($1 trillion dollars).
My cost projection was viewed as outsized, even ridiculous.
Turns out I may have been too conservative in my projections:
"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."
Go figure . . .
Economists say cost of war could top $2 trillion
Tally exceeds White House projections
Boston Globe, January 8, 2006
Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.