CBO answers Sen.Byrd's query on the U.S.ability to sustain Iraq occupation

[bigtree]

ftp://ftp.cbo.gov/45xx/doc4515/09-03-Iraq.pdf

Some Highlights:

Dear Senator: Text

"In response to your request, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has analyzed the ability of the U.S. military to sustain an occupation of Iraq. In performing this analysis, CBO has made no
assumptions about how long the occupation might last or about the size of the force that might be needed.

Over the near term—that is, about the next 12 months—the Department of Defense plans to deploy a substantial fraction of its ground forces for occupation duty in Iraq. Over longer periods, however,
the need to maintain training and readiness levels, limit family separation and involuntary mobilization, and retain high-quality personnel would most likely constrain the U.S. occupation force to
be smaller than it is today (more than 180,000 U.S. military personnel in and around Iraq).

CBO’s analysis considers the costs of various options and their effects on the size of a steady-state occupation force. Several of those options involve using existing forces; others involve creating up to two new Army divisions, which CBO estimates would take five years to accomplish.

If all existing U.S. ground combat forces in the active and reserve components were used to support an occupation, with units periodically rotated into and out of Iraq, the steady-state U.S. occupation force that could be sustained over the long term would comprise 67,000 to 106,000 military personnel. At that level,
the occupation would cost $14 billion to $19 billion a year."

That figure seems extremely low. Must be just to maintain the soldiers.

"More than 180,000 U.S. military personnel are currently involved in the occupation of Iraq—about 150,000 of them deployed in Iraq itself and the rest supporting the occupation from neighboring countries (primarily Kuwait). According to the Department of Defense (DoD), the occupation is costing about $3.9 billion a month to sustain."

"CBO’s analysis indicates that the active Army would be unable to sustain an occupation force of the present size beyond about March 2004 if it chose not to keep individual units deployed to Iraq for longer than one year without relief. In the six to 12 months after
March, the level of U.S. forces in Iraq would begin to decline as units that had been deployed for a year were relieved and were not replaced on a one-for-one basis." With a force of that size, the occupation would cost $8 billion to $12 billion per year,

Again the figures seem very low. Not replace the units? We'll see.

"A larger occupation force could be sustained in Iraq (given the current overall size of the U.S. military) if DoD employed additional forces, including Marine Corps units, Army special-forces groups, and combat units from the Army National Guard. In that case, CBO estimates, the United States could sustain an occupation
force of 67,000 to 106,000 military personnel. At that level, the occupation would cost $14 billion to $19 billion a year.


Anyhow, you get the Idea. Charts and graphs inside. sigh...

The Senator's remarks on the report:
http://byrd.senate.gov/byrd_speeches/byrd_speeches_2003september/byrd_speeches_2003september_li/byrd_speeches_2003september_li_1.html

[sandnsea]

1. Reconstruction

This all gets so confusing, trying to figure out which billions are added and which aren't. Oh that I could pretend my food budget didn't include picking up pizzas and burgers and that extra loaf of bread and gallon of milk.

Anyway, this was pulled out of an article posted in a thread, questions and answers on Iraq or something like that.

"Even if oil production meets the coalition’s most optimistic projections of $14 billion in 2004, that still falls far short of the overall reconstruction price tag, estimated by Bremer to be up to $100 billion."

Changes the whole picture, doesn't it?

[grytpype]

2. So we can't maintain our present INADEQUATE levels of force.

It might take as many as 500,000 troops to accomplish the Westernizing of Iraq, but we can't even maintain the forces we have there now.

Big fucking disaster, courtesy of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, and Perle. They should be put in stocks in the Mall and citizens should be allowed to pelt them with rotten grocery items.