It doesn't appear that anyone wants to even hazard a guess as to the financial cost of the ill-considered Iraq War Redux.

Private and congressional analysts have done a number of studies and projections of possible costs:

• Daniel Goure of the conservative Lexington Institute said he expects troop levels to drop gradually over five years to a half or a third of the present deployment -- meaning 30,000 to 50,000 US troops could remain in Iraq through 2009.



• The Congressional Budget Office a few months ago estimated the cost to occupy Iraq through 2013 at up to $200 billion, depending on troop levels.



• Casualties could rise at least to 1,000, according to a recent report by Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a frequent Pentagon adviser. "One thousand or more dead in Iraq is hardly Vietnam," Cordesman said. "But it must be justified and explained, and explained honestly."

Well, Larry Lindsey was pretty much booted out as Bush's Chief Economic Advisor for his $200 billion dollar pre-war estimate.

I'd say Lindsey was wrong.

I am certainly not an economist, but if you look at the whole picture of our Iraq Adventure, you have to take into account the higher energy prices that were(are?) a direct result of our invasion of Iraq. As Alan Greenspan would say: "Heightened geo-political risk." You'd be eyeing the proposed OPEC cuts with a skeptical eye as well.

Would OPEC be more or less willing to cut production in the aftermath of a highly unpopular war?

You certainly can't rule it out as a factor.

You add the whole mess up(carry the 2) and I will not be surprised at all if, in the final analysis that Iraq and it's fallout will cost $500 billion dollars.

How much are human lives worth? Truly disheartening.

Let's not make this mistake again.