By Robert J. Samuelson

Anyone who practices deadline journalism is bound to find much to regret things you wish you'd said (or hadn't said) and words, arguments and attitudes that, with hindsight, seem poorly chosen. Which brings me to my September 2002 column headlined A War We Can Afford.

Yes, that column made big mistakes. The war has cost far more than I anticipated. Still, I defend the column's central thesis, which remains relevant today: Budget costs should not shape our Iraq policy.

Costs secondary

Frankly, I don't know what we should do now. But in considering the various proposals Bush's "surge", fewer troops or redeployment of those already there the costs should be a footnote. We ought to focus mostly on what's best for America's security.

To be sure, the war's costs have been huge. Since September 2001, Congress has provided US$503 billion for Iraq, Afghanistan and related activities, says the Congressional Budget Office.

The administration's request for fiscal 2007 (ending in September) and fiscal 2008 would bring the total to US$746 billion.

Iraq represents about 70 percent of that. By contrast, my original column put the cost of an Iraq War at up to US$80 billion. That was based on the cost then of the war in Afghanistan (US$10 billion), the cost of the first Gulf War (US$61 billion) and the expectation that another invasion would involve fewer troops (it did).

As to the future, CBO has done two "illustrative scenarios" one involving a troop reduction to 30,000 by 2010, the other a reduction to 75,000 by 2013. In both, troop levels would remain until 2017. By CBO's estimates, the two scenarios would involve extra spending from 2009 to 2017 of $269 billion and US$696 billion, respectively.

Finally, the war has created costs that, though they don't appear in accounts labeled "Iraq", are properly attributed to Iraq. Trucks, helicopters and tanks are wearing out at faster rates; they'll have to be replaced or refurbished. Recruiting costs have risen. Veterans' disability benefits and health costs are increasing.

Already, 1.4 million US troops have served in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, says Linda Bilmes, a Harvard budget expert.

Since the first Gulf War, almost 40 percent of veterans have received disability benefits, she says. The rate for today's wars could be higher. She estimates the present value of future disability and health benefits at between US$300 billion and US$600 billion.

The war on terror has clearly worsened the long-term budget outlook. How then can I treat that so lightly? What's missing is context. Dominated by Social Security and health care, the federal budget now totals nearly US$3 trillion annually.

Suppose the war's ultimate costs reach US$2 trillion by 2017 (the figure is cumulative). That's a big number, perhaps too big. It's also a wild guess. Still, CBO estimates all federal spending over the same period (2002-17) will total US$48 trillion; war spending would be about 4 percent.

Mistaken war

With hindsight, it now seems almost incontestable that the Iraq War should never have been fought. It has eroded our global power, weakened our military and resulted in thousands of American and Iraqi deaths.

What I most regret about my earlier column is that it seemed to bless a war, when I was mainly trying to focus attention on questions more important than money. Given the fact that those questions came at the end of the column ("Is this war justifiable? .... What would happen if we don't fight? What will happen if we do?"), the reaction was understandable. In truth, I was uncertain about the war then, just as I'm unsure of what to do now.

But I am certain now as then that budget consequences should occupy a minor spot in our debates. It's not that the costs are unimportant; it's simply that they're overshadowed by other considerations that are so much more important.

(China Daily via Washington Post March 1, 2007)