The U.S. military occupation of Iraq could cost from $8 billion to $29 billion annually, but the least expensive option would dramatically reduce the force, according to scenarios analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office.

To retain adequate levels of military readiness worldwide, that policy — which the Pentagon is now following — would force the United States to begin reducing its troop strength in Iraq below current levels by next March, the study said.

Under that scenario, the 180,000 American troops now in and around Iraq would have to be drawn down to 38,000 to 64,000 by the winter of 2004-2005, the analysis said.

The report comes with President Bush's policies in Iraq under fire from critics who say American troops there are stretched thin and are suffering steadily growing, though still relatively small, numbers of casualties.

American officials also still are finding that many nations remain reluctant to send significant numbers of troops to Iraq. Many lawmakers of both parties are complaining about the impact that U.S. involvement there will have on a federal budget already deeply in deficit.

The Bush administration says it is involved in a difficult, lengthy job of securing Iraq, which it says will be important to regional and worldwide security.

Some congressional aides said Tuesday that the administration was considering asking Congress this year for more money to cover U.S. costs that could total tens of billions of dollars. But they and administration officials said no final decisions have been made.

Congress approved nearly $80 billion in April for U.S. operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and worldwide efforts against terrorism.

If the Pentagon also drew more heavily on Marines and the National Guard for peacekeeping, the U.S. force would total 67,000 to 106,000, the budget office report said. The annual occupation cost would run from $14 billion to $19 billion yearly, the study said.

A third scenario examined by the budget analysts, which Defense Department officials have said they oppose, would be to create two new Army divisions plus support units.

Besides one-time costs of up to $19 billion, such a policy would leave peacekeeping costs in Iraq ranging from $23 billion to $29 billion a year. The U.S. force there would total from 85,000 to 129,000.

The congressional study focused only on U.S. military costs. It excluded cost estimates for rebuilding Iraq, which administration officials have said could be tens of billions of dollars.

The report was requested by Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., one of the Congress' most blunt critics of administration policy in Iraq.

In remarks on the Senate floor, Byrd said the report "is quantified evidence that the long-term occupation is straining our forces close to the breaking point."

White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said Bush "has made clear our troops on the ground and those helping the Iraqi people build better lives will have every resource necessary to do their work and get the job done."

Close

Today's Top News		Top International News
+Three visions of China's road ahead ( 2003-09-03) +Beijing condemns Taiwan passport ploy ( 2003-09-03) +Typhoon sweeps through South; floods hit Shaanxi, Henan ( 2003-09-03) +US blaming of yuan misplaced ( 2003-09-03) +Pregnant teens need help & knowledge ( 2003-09-03)		+US foreign-born population hits 33 million ( 2003-09-03) +Kim Jong IL re-elected as DPRK National Defense Commission chief ( 2003-09-03) +US: Michigan officials ready to answer blackout questions ( 2003-09-03) +Arafat: 'Road map' is dead ( 2003-09-03) +As Hakim's funeral ends, many Shiites see a power vacuum ( 2003-09-03)