Third of five parts: The true cost of war

With 1,731 U.S. troops killed and more than 13,000 wounded, the human toll from the war in Iraq is painfully apparent. Less clear is the financial load that will be borne by all Americans for years to come.

Congress has already spent $192 billion on the war. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that occupying Iraq through 2013 would cost another $200 billion, or perhaps more. Other congressional estimates place the cost through 2010 at $600 billion. One reason for the imprecision is that the White House has not developed a war budget. Instead, the administration waited until it ran low on money and asked Congress for more. Last month, Congress approved a supplemental defense budget for $82 billion. Next year, it will be some other figure. Without an honest budget assessment, we are left to imagine and fear the ultimate total.

There are 135,000 American troops in Iraq, and the military says it needs to keep at least 120,000 there over the next two years. Every year we fight, we build in spending in the years ahead. The cost of rehabilitating gravely injured soldiers will continue the cost of the war long into the future.

Total defense spending in 2006 is estimated at about 4 percent of the gross national product, up from an average 3.6 percent since 1992. If this increase were not going into the war, it could offset cuts in education programs and low-income housing, or be used to beef up our homeland security. Instead, war competes with domestic programs and tax cuts, resulting in an endless budget deficit.

So far, the deficit has been easy to finance. But history suggests that the economic price could be substantial. During the 1960s, President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs ran headlong into the costs of the Vietnam War. The resulting earthquake wrecked the postwar monetary system by collapsing the U.S. dollar. It began a torrent of inflation that ended in federal wage and price controls.

We've been luckier this time. The dollar has fallen, but there has been little inflation — so far. The run-up in the price of oil and the booming price of houses may be the first hints of change.

Iraqi oil was once considered the golden goose that would provide the $55 billion the United Nations and World Bank have estimated it will cost to rebuild Iraq. Not much is heard about that now. That's because Iraq is a long way from being a large and reliable oil supplier. The country's oil reserves are estimated to be either the second- or third-largest in the world. But efforts to tap them are hampered by antiquated equipment and sabotage.

Large swaths of Iraq remain untouched by oil exploration. Only 17 of the country's 80 known oil fields have been developed, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Only 2,300 oil wells have been drilled in Iraq, compared with Texas, which has about 1 million.

Contributions from other countries also either have not been generous or have not arrived as promised. A conference held last month on Iraq's reconstruction — sponsored by the United States and the European Union — received mostly rhetorical support from 80 countries in attendance. The newly installed Iraqi government has received only a fraction of the $13 billion pledged at a similar conference two years ago.

It is time to face this reality: The lives and dollars paying for the war are coming from America. The longer we stay, and the longer we fight, the more it will cost.