"Former White House economist Lawrence Lindsey ignited a furor with his estimate of the dollar cost of the Iraq war. For the first time, he tells how he came up with the number and what he thinks now.
...
Lawrence Lindsey, then President Bush's chief economist, who gave an estimate in 2002 that sent the Bush administration into sticker shock. Less than three months later he was out of the White House.
...
"Lindsey Predicted Iraq War Would Cost $100 Billion to $200 Billion." It is a line that I refuse to put on my tombstone, but there is little doubt that it will be the lead in some of my obituaries. As things turned out, my estimate was far too low.
...
In September 2002, as President Bush's chief economist, I committed one of the most grievous mistakes someone in government can make: I answered a hypothetical question from a reporter.
...
The bill for Iraq over the past five years is now approaching a cumulative $500 billion, or about $100 billion per year on average. My hypothetical estimate got the annual cost about right, but I misjudged an important factor: how long we would be involved.
...
How I started the furor

In September 2002, six months before the invasion of Iraq, Bob Davis, a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, interviewed me in my West Wing office about what we had learned about the economic effects of the war on terror and how one should assess the economics of eliminating potential terrorist threats, particularly Iraq. At the time, it was worth considering the economic impact of a possible war in Iraq as an event that could conceivably derail the economy."
...
I was not privy to any war planning or detailed estimates from the Pentagon.
...
The Vietnam war cost between 1.5% and 2% of GDP each year during the eight years of major American commitment, or about $600 billion. At its peak we had more than 500,000 soldiers and other military in Vietnam. The publicly available information indicated that if we went into Iraq, it would involve less than one-third as many troops, implying an annual cost of between 0.5% and 0.7% of GDP. I assumed the war could take as long as 2 1/2 years, which led me to my upper estimate of $200 billion.
...
The main internal criticism I got was that I was "off message." Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill declared it was "not possible" to estimate the cost of a prospective war when the President had not yet decided to go through with it. He hadn't, but does that mean I should have waited for his decision, then made a calculation on the consequences?
...
The other aspect of the "off message" criticism was not the content, but that I was discussing the matter at all. The possibility of a war in Iraq was hardly a national-security secret."

And this is particularly related to Bowser's post below this:

"We were beginning a buildup to more than 100,000 troops surrounding the country and the UN Security Council was about to unanimously warn Saddam of "serious consequences," diplomatic code for war. The whole country, indeed the whole world, was discussing the possibility, including my son's fifth-grade class. The only institution not publicly involved in the discussion and its implications was the White House. It wasn't so much that I was "off message," but that I was breaking radio silence at a time power and decision-making were becoming more centralized in the White House. My war cost estimate became part of the never-ending office politics that dominate the West Wing and was doubtless a factor in why I left three months later."
http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/10/news/economy/costofwar.fortune/index.htm

This is Sept 2002- 3 month before Dec 18 2002

Now, Lindsey goes on to explain that he thought that Bush should have announced that the war was going to cost 200 billion and "If the lower estimates turned out to be correct, no one would mind."

I don't think I would take Lindsey's political advise- and I as see it, that's why he got fired- it wasn't his job to give the President political advise. Not to mention broadsiding him by answering a reporter's request for him to speculate. If the reporter actually wanted an answer to this question he/she could ask any economist. And apparently, Lindsey has yet to understand what he did wrong.

Here a free clue for Lindsey, you want to make calls as the President- run for the damn office.

Here is another clue and it's from the article:
"The Congressional Budget Office last October gave an estimate of $1.2 trillion to $1.7 trillion for the entire war on terrorism, including Iraq and Afghanistan, through 2017; a month later the Democratic majority on the Joint Economic Committee pushed that number to $3.5 trillion as a high-side estimate."

Which one is right? Neither.
Isn't there at least a 50% chance that a Dem could win the election? Haven't they promised to scale down and/or leave Iraq within, I don't know, say 2 years?
I'm I misreading what they are claiming they going to do?
Or is it obvious to everyone that whatever they say should be completely and utterly ignored?

Now, let's say McCain is elected.
What has he said? Something about being in Iraq for 100 years if that is what is required. It's possible it won't be required in say 5 years or 2 years. And McCain probably won't serve two terms and even if he wanted to go for two terms, he could be defeated. So McCain is elected [50% chance] and by 2013, there is a 50% that a Dem will be elected [and won't they whoever they are] be promising to leave Iraq?
Now, let's say whoever is elected into office wants to put as much as possible for as long as possible into "Iraq effort". There is possibility that the Congress could decide it doesn't want to go along. Is there a say a 50% of that happening in the next 9 years?
Is there any chance that Iraqis in next 9 years will decide they don't want US troops in Iraq. Can I get say a 50% chance of that? Finally, what is the chance that all terrorists are killed, simply stop committing terrorism, or flee Iraq within next 9 years?

So, getting back to the clue, no one in politics *cares* that Lindsey [some who actually has some understanding of economics] thinks that Vietnam war costs 600 billion.
That's simply his "version of reality". Everyone "knows" the Vietnam war cost over a trillion dollars [and that's a "really" low ball number].
The idea that the press and Dems would accept his 200 billion number or even if the President gave that number is utterly foolish. Without much of any thought these characters would simply double the cost estimate. Not to mention that would imply that the war [which hadn't even begun yet] had already cost 400 billion dollars.

Meanwhile, perhaps you have noticed no one is very interested in predicting what the total costs of Social Security will add up to thru the year 2017 [not to mention from it's inception].