Comment from O'Hanlon

Here is a damning comment from the "objective" man (O'Hanlon) from the Brookings institute who recently said things are improving in Iraq.

Michael O'Hanlon, Expert, 'Overthrowing Saddam: Calculating the Costs and Casualties', October 9, 2002:

"Either way, the really striking point about these estimates are twofold. First, given the expected quick pace of any war, these estimated combat costs are large but hardly astronomical, whether one compares the cost of past wars, the peacetime U.S. defense budget ($400 billion) or the U.S. GDP (well over $10 trillion, meaning war costs would almost surely be under 1 percent). Second, however, occupation costs could be substantial; CBO estimates a cost of $15 billion to $45 billion a year for a force of 75,000 to 200,000. It seems unlikely that U.S. forces would be deployed in such high numbers for long, but without major allied support that is at least a remote possibility. More plausibly, occupation costs might be in the broad range of $10 billion a year, roughly comparable to what the United States spends on its global development assistance and humanitarian relief efforts."

The CBO underestimated the actual costs by 300% and still O'Hanlon felt the need to poo-poo them in real time (he's an expert and knows best!) and provide his own very serious estimate of costs - $10 billion dollars a year. The fact that O'Hanlon was off by a whopping 1200% on estimating costs suggests he is not expert enough to be a weight guesser at a carnival, let alone quoted every day as an expert on Iraq.