Facts and Figures

New congressional budget estimates and a report from British doctors reveal how much the various war scenarios will truly cost -- both financially and in human life (with civilians most threatened).

How Much Money?

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated the cost of "prosecuting" a war against Iraq at up to $9 billion per month, on top of an initial outlay of up to $13 billion for the deployment of troops to the Persian Gulf region.

In a Feb. 2 memo quietly distributed to the House and Senate budget committees, CBO provided Congress with updated cost estimates for an armed conflict with Iraq, based on recent similar U.S. military operations including those in the Balkans, Afghanistan and the Gulf War.

In arriving at their estimates, the CBO acknowledged that exact costs would depend on several "unknown factors" including:

CBO analysts assumed two possible war-fighting alternatives the Defense Department might employ in operations against Iraq, one emphasizing use of ground troops, the other emphasizing use of air power.

Under the "Heavy Ground" option, the U.S. would deploy about five U.S. Army divisions and five U.S. Air Force tactical fighter wings to the Persian Gulf region. CBO estimates that the cost of deploying the Heavy Ground force to the Persian Gulf would be about $13 billion; after that, the incremental cost of prosecuting a war in Iraq would reach just over $9 billion during the first month of combat and subsequently fall to about $8 billion a month. Costs to return Heavy Ground option personnel to the U.S. would be about $7 billion.

Relying more on air power, the "Heavy Air" option, according to CBO, would require deployment of two and one-third U.S. Army divisions and 10 U.S. Air Force tactical fighter wings. The cost of deploying the Heavy Air force to the Persian Gulf would be $9 billion, and the incremental cost of prosecuting a war would reach $8 billion during the first month of combat, falling to about $6 billion a month. Costs to return Heavy Air option personnel to the U.S. would be about $5 billion.

Recognizing that the duration of an Iraq war would significantly affect their cost estimates, CBO projected two possible scenarios: a short war and an extended war.

Should Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, his deputies and military commanders give in quickly, says CBO, the war in Iraq might last no longer or cost much more than the 1991 Gulf War.

Should Hussein decide to fight and use chemical or biological weapons (CBW), the duration of the war could be significantly extended. Engaging in protracted urban warfare and the need to decontaminate personnel and equipment affected by CBW attacks would result in both increased costs and, of course, U.S. casualties.

In its estimates, CBO also analyzed the suggested possibility that proceeds from sales of Iraqi oil could be used to offset the costs of rebuilding damaged infrastructure and occupation of Iraq:

"Iraq is already a major exporter of oil and until recently has been producing at close to its peak sustainable production capacity of 2.8 million barrels per day (BPD).

"Currently, about 80 percent of Iraq's oil production is being used to purchase imports under the United Nations Oil for Food Program or for domestic consumption. And, in the near term, Iraqi oil exports cannot be expanded without large-scale investment and development of infrastructure. Thus, the primary source of additional funds for reconstructing Iraq would be the proceeds from the legitimate sale of the approximately 400,000 BPD that are currently smuggled out of the country to pay for the importation of items that violate United Nations sanctions.

"Assuming that a post-conflict Iraq complied with all U.N. resolutions and removed the basis for the current economic sanctions, and assuming also that its oil production infrastructure was undamaged, Iraq could pay for reconstruction costs by using funds generated from that 400,000 BPD of oil and still have enough to pay for its country's current level of imports. At today's oil prices, production at that level would amount to approximately $3 billion a year."

How Many Dead?

While there has been much debate on the moral and political implications of the possible Iraqi conflict, an independent group of medical experts from Britain, called Medact, has prepared a comprehensive and objective report detailing the likely consequences of U.S. military action in terms of mortality rates and ecological disturbance.

The Medact report, titled "Collateral Damage," is not a petition against military action. The report draws upon detailed information regarding the population and ecology of Iraq and the history of U.S. military activity, to compose a comprehensive analysis regarding the ecological and demographic consequences of a possible Iraqi conflict. Medact professionals did not compose Collateral Damage to propose an alternative to military action or to express an opinion about the moral relevance of the U.S. military agenda.

Collateral Damage was released in 14 countries on Jan. 12, and has received broad praise from medical and military officials worldwide. Government officials are examining the Medact report while considering the possibilities of action in this sensitive situation.

The report assumes that a U.S. attack on Iraq will begin with sustained air strikes, followed by a ground force invasion, and ending with the complete overthrow of the government in Baghdad. As many as 260,000 may be killed in the immediate assault, with an additional 200,000 at risk from famine and disease in the aftermath. Experts predict that U.S. invasions could lead to a civil war in Iraq, which could then result in the deaths of an additional 20,000 individuals. The vast majority of those killed would be civilians rather than military personnel.

The Medact report concludes that the mortality rate will be higher than that of the 1991 war with Iraq, which killed in excess of 200,000 Iraqis, or the war on Afghanistan, which so far has killed less than 5,000.

The Medact report also carefully analyzed the possibility of a "worst-case scenario," in which nuclear weapons would be fired on Iraq in response to their attack on Kuwait and Israel with biological and chemical weapons. A nuclear assault of this type could lead to the death of an estimated 3.9 million people.

Even the best-case scenarios developed by the British team for a relatively short war would initially lead to the death of at least 10,000 people, which is more than three times the number of people killed in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Medact specialists say that a sustained attack on Iraq will lead to the breakout of disease and famine, as well as total economic collapse, including the failure of Iraqi agriculture and manufacturing. It is likely that thousands of Iraqi citizens will perish in the aftermath, both because of destabilization of the health care system and possible civil war between Iraqi factions.

In addition to these predictions regarding the loss of human life, the Medact report addresses the ecological consequences to native Iraqi ecosystems. Sustained fighting could lead to widespread oil spills and the release of toxic gases. There is a distinct possibility that Iraqi lakes and rivers will be polluted by chemical or biological waste. In addition, bombardment by U.S. missiles threatens to collapse the fragile desert ecology of Iraq, killing thousands of animals and destroying the topsoil over vast areas.

In preparing this comprehensive report, Medact specialists drew on evidence from similar global conflicts involving similar weaponry. Especially relevant to this research was information on the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War. Medact researchers carefully examined data from postwar Iraq and found that the Gulf War resulted in a major destabilization of Iraqi culture, including the near-collapse of industry and health care. In addition, Iraqi ecosystems suffered extensive damage. Medact specialists believe that Iraqi society has not yet fully recovered from U.S. action in 1991, which will further increase the casualty rate from any new conflict.

Whatever the political rationale for an invasion of Iraq, it is clear that the loss of life and welfare for the Iraqi population will be catastrophic. Facing such disastrous predictions, many in the international community are carefully examining the relevance and necessity of a possible U.S. military campaign. Proponents of military action have produced evidence that they believe represents an impending threat to U.S. security. Those in charge of U.S. policy must determine whether a threat to American security justifies the possible massive loss of human life.

Browse The
October 16, 2003
Issue

Join the
City Paper
Mailing List




	search citypaper.net