So let me get this straight.
First, the Washington Post puts the costs of the Iraq war in perspective:
To put it in perspective, Bush hopes to spend more in Iraq and Afghanistan than all 50 states say they need — $78 billion — to finance the budget shortfalls they anticipate for 2004.
The request is higher than the $74 billion the Defense Department plans to spend on all new weapons purchases next year, and higher than the $29.5 billion the Education Department hopes to spend on elementary and secondary education plus the $41.3 billion the administration plans to spend to defend the homeland.
With $166 billion spent or requested, Bush’s war spending in 2003 and 2004 already exceeds the inflation-adjusted costs of the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish American War and the Persian Gulf War combined, according to a study by Yale University economist William D. Nordhaus. The Iraq war approaches the $191 billion inflation-adjusted cost of World War I.
But then, I see that the administration has already said that the $87b estimate was too low
The White House acknowledged Monday that it substantially underestimated the cost of rebuilding Iraq and that even the additional $87 billion it was seeking from a wary Congress would fall far short of what is needed for postwar reconstruction.
Administration officials said President Bush’s emergency spending request � which would push the U.S. budget deficit above the half-trillion-dollar mark for the first time � still left a reconstruction funding gap of as much as $55 billion.
So unless I’m missing something math-wise, this will be the most expensive war in history, after adjusting for inflation.
And what are we honestly getting out of it?
I can’t think of a damn thing.