Clifton writes: "The 'cakewalk' to Baghdad, as George W. Bush adviser Kenneth Adelman infamously wrote in February, 2002, has been anything but. The Iraq War, and the faulty premise that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction, has had a staggering humanitarian and economic cost."

Tony Blair at George W. Bush's Crawford, Texas, ranch shortly before the US-UK invasion of Iraq, 03/15/03. (photo: Reuters)

Iraq by the Numbers

By Eli Clifton, ThinkProgress

22 October 11

The world's costliest cakewalk.

he Obama administration's announcement of a withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq by the end of the year offers the possibility of a definitive conclusion for the US military's involvement in Iraq. But while the return of all US service men and women by Christmas is a cause for celebration, the costs of the war are only beginning to be fully understood. The "cakewalk" to Baghdad, as George W. Bush adviser Kenneth Adelman infamously wrote in February, 2002, has been anything but. The Iraq War, and the faulty premise that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction, has had a staggering humanitarian and economic cost.

Here are some relevant numbers:

8 years, 260 days since Secretary of State Colin Powell presented evidence of Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program

8 years, 215 days since the March 20, 2003 invasion of Iraq

8 years, 175 days since President George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln

4,479 US military fatalities

30,182 US military injuries

468 contractor fatalities

103,142 - 112,708 documented civilian deaths

2.8 million internally displaced Iraqis

$806 billion in federal funding for the Iraq War through FY2011

$3 - $5 trillion in total economic cost to the United States of the Iraq war according to economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Blimes

$60 billion in US expenditures lost to waste and fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001

0 weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq

Comments

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

+15 # stemonti 2011-10-22 09:31

I understand the desire to be conservative in reporting casualties, but to report only the number of "documented deaths" by the Iraq Body Count, without even a mention of the several studies estimating between 150K and more than 1 million casualties (with most estimates focusing on the period 2003-2006 only), strikes me as disingenuous, and frankly disrespectful toward the victims of our crimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

+10 # thirteenthpaladin 2011-10-22 09:55

it is my understanding that the official fatalities number for US military is also an undercount, and represents only those fatalities that fit within a very narrowly defined, arbitrary set of parameters

passage of time post-injury, geography (actual place of death), and other truly irrelevant (other than by decree) factors have been used to disallow deaths as combat fatalities; the same is true for injuries

much the way we count unemployment, in method, if far worse in moral implications

the burden of shame and disgrace we bear as a country, the moral stain, will haunt and mark us and our children for generations to come

thanks for the comment and link, stemonti

+5 # fredboy 2011-10-23 12:20

Vietnam and Iraq. Think about it.

+4 # Anarchist 23 2011-10-23 19:09

That went so well that now the Neo-Con Death Eaters are planning a war with Iran. I wonder if they are taking odds in Las Vegas on whether the mass of 'citizens' of the GSA (The Country Formerly Known As The USA)will buy the same lies again. This is after all the country where people still believe that hydrocarbons can melt steel without blast furnaces!

+1 # Michael Lee Bugg 2011-10-24 20:36

Some sources say that the direct cost of Iraq is already well over $1.2 trillion. Recall that it was all off the bokaro make Bush's deficits look smaller and every penny of it was borrowed! Keep in mind that there will be interest on all this borrowed money, weapons to replace and repair, soldiers to treat for mental and physical problems for the rest of their lives, hence the $3 to $5 trillion estimate. Don't forget that the real purpose of the war was to keep oil prices higher by keeping Iraq's oil IN the ground by killing the oil development deals that China, Russia, France, and Japan were working on in 2002, hence none of them joined the 'Coalition of the Willing'! But most of all, don't forget the opportunity cost of Bush's obsession with Iraq. Think of all the Americans who could have been put to work making the materials and rebuilding our infrastructure and working on ways to REDUCE energy consumption instead of invading other countries to control their oil! The economy would be so hot now that the Fed would be raising interest rates!

0 # mikenovember 2011-10-25 12:49

It would have been appropriate for Ken Adelman to have been required by the President to attend every remains reception procedure at Dover Air Force Base, since the "cakewalk" remark.
(Maybe Donald Rumsfeld could have gone with Ken to relieve him occasionally, when it became too much EVEN FOR A CAKEWALK!

Refresh comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.