At the onset of the latest war with Iraq, in the early spring of 2003, it was already certain that the cost for the war alone would be staggering. The cost of the first Persian Gulf War (1990-1991) was somewhere in the area of sixty one billion dollars (International Security Studies Commission). On the 7th of September, 2003, President George W. Bush, backed by the White House, made a request to congress that would allow for an additional $87 billion in spending for the continuing occupation and reconstruction of the countries of Iraq and Afghanistan. This comes following the $65 billion that the White House recently received for its activities in Iraq in 2003.
             Of the $87 billion, the White House says that $66 billion would go towards military operation, while the remaining $21 billion would be used in the reconstruction of both Iraq and Afghanistan. We can now see, that what once was labeled a " Quick Yield" investment in the reconstruction of Iraq has become a heavy burden for American taxpayers. One very big debate about the money for the restoration and rebuilding of Iraq is whether it should be a grant or a loan. This is the task undertaken by Appropriations Chairman Ted Stevens and his committee, who in turn accepted the presidents full package. More than a dozen senators led by republican Pete Domenici and democrat Dianne Feinstein, worked on plans which would shift some of the burden of the reconstruction plan from American taxpayers to the Iraqi people (Stone- USA Today Oct. 1). Bush administration officials have admitted that the $21 billion will fall short of the estimated $50-100 billion required for Iraqi reconstruction over the next few years (Weisman -New York Times Oct. 8).
             The Bush administration has admitted that its initial claims that Iraq's oil revenues would be able to cover the huge costs of reconstruction were greatly overstated. United States officials project Iraqi oil revenues ...