One of the first salvos in the war over Iraq was — along with a set of missiles targeting Saddam Hussein — a volley of complaints from the anti-war camp on the projected cost of military action. Even while the 7 th United States Cavalry was rolling unopposed northward across the enemy plains toward Baghdad, Democrats in Congress were bitterly protesting a decision of the Republicans to press ahead this week with the 2004 federal budget.

Even before the fighting began, the pro-Democratic Party newspapers were fretting hysterically about the budget. It’s not just that the war could cost tens of billions of dollars, though Secretary Rumsfeld has been a picture of prudence in refusing to speculate on how much the conflict might cost (presumably it would be a lot less than not fighting the conflict until after America is attacked again). There are those who worry that a failure of the administration to park in public a huge cost estimate is part of a scheme to withhold ammunition from the anti-war movement.

The buckshot fired yesterday by the Democrats was designed not only to stir the anti-war factions but also to scare the Congress out of early consideration of the president’s tax cuts, which advocates of static analysis reckon will cost $725 billion in revenues. The president, of course, reckons that the reduction of taxes is precisely what the economy needs at this time in order to provide incentives for the kind of growth that will bring new revenues. Rejecting the idea of a delay, Senator Frist, the majority leader, asserted,” The nation’s business must keep going.”

This is a moment when it is illuminating to look at the situation in the context of past experience. Even if the war were to cost $60 billion at the start and $10 billion for war-related foreign aid and another $10 billion for this year’s share of rebuilding (an analyst of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Steven Kosiak, has estimated peacekeeping could cost $45 billion over five years if 40,000 troops stay in the Gulf), one comes to a generous estimate of an $80 billion price tag for this year’s operations. That $80 billion would be on top of any currently projected deficit, since it hasn’t been budgeted for as of yet.

So how will America’s Iraq war costs stack up against those of the past? Currently, the White House’s Office of Management and Budget estimates that this year’s deficit, as a share of GDP, will be almost 3%. Adding in the estimated cost of a war, that number could climb to a little more than 4%. This deficit is in line with those we ran during the first Gulf War: 3.9% in 1990 and 4.5% in 1991. It is also roughly in line with our country’s deficits during the Vietnam and Korea conflicts. All these were dwarfed by the World War II deficits, which at one point topped 30% of GDP.

So in a sense the point that needs to be made is that this war is cheap at the price. It is, moreover, the most significant conflict we have entered since World War II, September 11 having been the first attack on the homeland since Pearl Harbor. Insurance claims alone from September 11 came in around $60 billion, with untold losses still being reckoned in New York City and around the nation. Set aside the fact that inaction in Iraq, or cutting and running early now that we’re in, would have significantly higher costs than action. One is still left with the impression that the latest from the Democrats is an effort to exploit this war in their battle against tax cuts.