My Fin column today, the two-year anniversary of the S11 atrocity, looks at Bush’s request for $87 billion more for Iraq (it also includes a pittance for Afghanistan). Like most commentators, I conclude that while the request marks a welcome return to reality after months of dodging the issue, the money is little more than a downpayment on the costs that will be incurred. In fact, after deducting military expenditure, what’s left will barely be enough to pay running costs for the Occupation government. A short excerpt …
The 2003 Budget released by the Coalition Provision Authority in July called for the expenditure of $ 6 billion in the second half of 2003 alone.
Then there is the Oil-for-Food program which is due to expire on 21 November. Under this program, Iraq was allowed to export oil to the value of about $10 billion per year, which was used initially to buy food, medicine and from 1998, a wide range of essential imports. … Maintaining the imports funded under the Oil-For-Food program and the current expenditure levels of the 2003 Budget will require about $20 billion in 2004, less perhaps $5 billion in net proceeds from oil exports. This would swallow all the money allocated in the Bush request, leaving nothing for large-scale reconstruction, let alone the now-forgotten Afghans.
If Bush had followed through the Afghanistan war with a serious peacekeeping and reconstruction effort, that country could be well on the way to a relatively prosperous democracy by now, going a long way to discredit its previous Taliban rulers and their Al Qaeda accomplices. Instead, the Taliban are on the rise again, and no doubt Al Qaeda is not far behind them.
John Quiggin 
I was amused that the Age on the same day had an article by Chalabi in which he accused Saddam Hussein of stealing cash from the banks just before losing control. Apart from the fact that Saddam Hussein had as good a right as any to take custodianship and some justification for his own choice of how to apply the funds, there is the point JQ made. Apparently the USA has itself been using the remaining cash! It cannot have even the level of justification of Saddam Hussein – if Saddam Hussein was stealing, the USA has definitely been stealing.
If Bush had followed through the Afghanistan war with a serious peacekeeping and reconstruction effort, that country could be well on the way to a relatively prosperous democracy by now
Given the history of that country, I find this far too sanguine. If it’s very, very hard to rebuild both physical infrastructure and civic society in Iraq, then it’s out of the question in Afghanistan – something even the Bushies seem to understand.
Why are any of you disappointed? Bush never pretended to be a nation-builder. He wanted to cut taxes and live the good life. Unfortunately, you can’t cut taxes to the extent they did and still expect to occupy and control two countries (maybe one and a quarter given they are making hardly any effort whatsover in Afghanistan). So this schizo world-view remains where we can have expensive wars and low taxes. It appears they are now going to get war, plus low taxes and high deficits (and high interest rates). In any case, I think Strocchi had a point somewhere when he pointed out that the more wars you fight, the less deterrence you have. There is no way the US could afford to take out North Korea, and Kim knows this. Thus the sooner they sort out Iraq the better – meaning they have to find a damn good provisional government very soon before things get messier.