1. Nobody does know how long. That's why as Republican Richard Lugar, and others have said. The administration should come up with a five year plan. If it takes longer they can ask for more money or supplemental requests along the way. But to refuse to have a plan, lacks forsight, strategy, organization. It could also be horrible for the economy since the Bush team won't submit any kind of budget at all on the war, but will then ask for money in supplementary requests. That's money that congress has no possible of allotting for in it's budgets. None of things are a good way to win a war or win the peace. There is actually a way to predict how much at least some of the costs will be. They've been suggested by Richard Lugar(R) and Joe Biden(D) among others. Bush's team could look at the budgets needed for running Iraq for five years prior to the war. Make adjustments based on not spending for Palaces, spending for the troops, infrastructure repair etc. Then submit a five year plan. It can always be changed later since it's impossible to be 100% accurate. Also we know that we will need at least the same amount of troops over there now for at least one year. We know how much it costs to keep those troops over there now, at least that much could be put forth in the budget requests, but Bush refuses to do even that. It's impossible to predict any budget but the White House regularly submits one to congress. Saying that the shouldn't submit a budget or have a plan because it's impossible to predict doesn't hold water. 2.Even if the idea doesn't have a a price tag, it does cost money. Allowing Congress to budget at least some of that money would be wise. This isn't a partisan issue either. Almost to man both Dems and Republicans on the foreign relations committee have called repeatedly for these kinds of things.
