David Firestone and Thom Shanker, New York Times

Published July 11, 2003

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Pentagon's new estimate that military costs for Iraq would average $3.9 billion monthly for the first nine months of this year produced surprise and anger on Thursday among some congressional Democrats, who said the amount was not only more than they had been told, but far too large, given the budget deficit.

"It is a lot more than I expected," said Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee. "Obviously the Iraqi occupation is bogging down, and the cost is substantially higher than we were earlier advised. So the problems are mounting, and I got a real earful from parents of soldiers when I got home about the lack of a plan for the postwar."

'Reflect reality'

The Pentagon's comptroller, its chief financial officer, stood by the initial estimate in April that military costs would average just over $2 billion monthly, and said he had kept Congress informed of later increases, testifying in early June that estimates of war costs had exceeded $3 billion monthly.

"Numbers change over time because they reflect the reality," Dov Zakheim, the comptroller, said in an interview Thursday.

"We didn't draw down troops nearly as quickly as we thought we were going to do," Zakheim added. But he said that the overall budget estimates for war costs were sufficiently accurate that the Pentagon does not anticipate requesting any more funds for this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, as some members of Congress have predicted.

Bush administration officials disclosed, meanwhile, that the cost of running the civilian parts of the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq also are increasing, and that the roughly $7 billion available to pay for much of these costs is expected to run out near the end of the year.

When Baghdad fell in April, the United States tapped billions of dollars in Iraqi bank deposits, as well as stolen funds found in Iraq and accumulated revenue from prewar oil sales to pay for the civilian reconstruction.

Some of the money has been flown from the United States to Iraq by Air Force transports in pallets containing bales of $20 bills, which were used to pay for such items as salaries and pensions of Iraqi police and soldiers.

Officials involved in financing the nonmilitary part of the stabilization effort say that once Iraq's oil industry is restored sometime next year, it may produce 2 million to 3 million barrels of oil a day, yielding $15 billion to $20 billion in annual revenue.

Across Capitol Hill on Thursday, talk focused on the price of the Iraq mission, and even some Republicans expressed dismay at the sum revealed Wednesday by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the American people would support continued troop assignments in Iraq if they were given all the facts. But he expressed annoyance that it had taken so long to learn the true costs of the postwar period.

The most pointed critique came from Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., who pressed Rumsfeld during an Armed Services Committee hearing on Wednesday to produce the best estimate of costs.

"This administration should think hard about whether we have the money to single-handedly pay for the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq," he said. "At a time when the United States is running record-breaking deficits of $400 billion each year, the administration has not even included these $58 billion in occupation costs in its budget. In sharp contrast to the 1991 Persian Gulf war, where our allies contributed $54 billion of the $61 billion cost of that war, the American taxpayer is virtually alone in bearing the burden for the staggering cost of this most recent war with Iraq."

Limit to patience

One Republican, Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, chairman of the Finance Committee, said he thought the expenditure was justified to make certain that the United States wins the peace in addition to the war. But he said his patience had limits.

"There's no doubt in my mind it will be money out the door at least for months," he said. "I'm not willing to say years at this point. I guess I don't have concerns about years, but it's quite obvious I have toleration for months."

Partly in response to the cost estimates, the Senate on Thursday unanimously approved a nonbinding resolution calling on President Bush to consider asking NATO and U.N. members to send troops and civilian police to help provide security in Iraq. The resolution was sponsored by two Democrats, Sens. Joseph Biden of Delaware and Carl Levin of Michigan.

 http://www.startribune.com/stories/1762/3982073.html