"This is why it's not legitimate to account for only incremental costs. The base costs are tied up in Iraq too, since those forces could not easily be shifted elsewhere in an emergency. The shortfall would have to be made up by expanding the size of the military or calling up more reserves--if we have to spend new dollars on new troops, or incur new expenses to call up the reserves, then the base dollars pinned down in Iraq should be charged to the Iraq account."

The problem with this is you are assuming we are using our current forces efficently- which is foolish. We can use our existing force level if the politicans are willing to allow the Miltary to change how and where it deploys troops, so it's less political and more rational in terms of national security.

"Ya know, Tom, you're still not seeing the forest for the trees. Suppose the CBO's right, and we ignore the hidden costs and the cost of reconstruction, and turn a blind eye to the deleterious effects on military readiness. Suppose the cost is "only" about $24B a year instead of $48B. That only cuts the cost in half..."only" 7,000 to 10,000 times as expensive as purchasing Alaska and the Louisiana territories. How is it suddenly a bargain if you use the CBO's numbers?"

So, you think we are going to be occupying Iraq for 10 years? We already have a significant Iraqi security force, I would say in less than one year the Iraqi security forces [army and police] will be larger in number than US forces and double the US forces within 2 years. Meanwhile, we will have more nations with troops in Iraq. We might have US forces in Iraq for 10 years or longer, but probably only if Iraq joins NATO [obviously something Iraqis will need to decide].
And the costs other than occupation, are mostly short term, as Iraq forms it's govt it can then get international loans to pay for infrastructure improvement costs.
Also I seriously doubt your calculation of inflation adjustment. And obviously the insinuation that Iraq is going to be a terrority of the US is absurd.