Juxtaposition

Reviewing quickly:

On April 23, 2003, Andrew S. Natsios, head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, laid out in a televised interview the costs to U.S. taxpayers of rebuilding Iraq. "The American part of this will be $1.7 billion," he said. "We have no plans for any further-on funding for this." [...] Similarly, a report by the White House Office of Management and Budget in late March 2003, said: "Iraq will not require sustained aid." Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, in February 2003, dismissed reports that Pentagon budget specialists had put the cost of reconstruction at $60 billion to $95 billion during the first year -- in retrospect, relatively accurate forecasts. In testimony to Congress on March 27, 2003, Wolfowitz said Iraq "can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." In fact, the administration has already sought more than $150 billion for the Iraq effort.

In its predictions a year ago, the Bush administration similarly underestimated the resistance the United States would face in Iraq. "I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators," Vice President Cheney said in a March 16 interview. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz derided a general's claim that pacifying Iraq would take several hundred thousand U.S. troops. And Rumsfeld, in February 2003, predicted that the war "could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

Those predictions became inoperative in short order, as costs began to skyrocket and resistance intensified. Apparently, even the revised estimates are about to get ratcheted upwards again. Way, way upwards.

Washington Post: War May Require More Money Soon

Since Congress approved an $87 billion defense request last year, the administration has steadfastly maintained that military forces in Iraq will be sufficiently funded until early next year. President Bush's budget request for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 included no money for Iraqi operations, and his budget director, Joshua B. Bolten, said no request would come until January at the earliest.

[...]

Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, charged that the president is playing political games by postponing further funding requests until after the election, to try to avoid reopening debate on the war's cost and future. Weldon described the administration's current defense budget request as "outrageous" and "immoral" and said that at least $10 billion is needed for Iraqi operations over the next five months.

Marketplace: Spoils of War

Who's watching the money as it streams through Baghdad? Just about no one, and bribes and black marketeering are rampant, witnesses say. A leading anti-corruption group claims as much as 90 percent of U.S. money spent in Iraq is being lost to corruption. From Halliburton subsidiaries charging double for gas, Iraqi officials and Arabic translators unrestrained from pocketing millions of dollars, or even members of the interim governing Council accusing each other of taking tens of millions in bribes. Trouble is, the root of the problem can't be found anywhere near the Green Zone. Try the White House, and Capitol Hill, where oversight of Iraqi construction crews and U.S. contractors like Halliburton has only just begun to be assigned… more than a year after the war began.

New York Post: We May Need Draft for Iraq

A senator said yesterday that the United States might have to reinstate the military draft to cope with the shortage of soldiers in strife-torn Iraq. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) told a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the burden of military service is being borne by the middle and lower-middle classes. "Why shouldn't we ask all our citizens to bear some responsibility and pay some price?" Hagel asked. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is ordering hundreds - possibly thousands - of American troops to be prepared to ship out to Iraq on a moment's notice if the security situation continues to deteriorate, top officials disclosed yesterday.

I suppose we can now place these estimates alongside the administration's estimates of how many jobs the tax cuts would produce, the cost of their Medicare bill, and their promise to cut the deficit in half. Think the term "fuzzy math" might reappear in this election's debates?