It doesn't seem like this sort of comparison is particularly useful. Never was anyone presented with the decision to pick between those two items for where to

It doesn't seem like this sort of comparison is particularly useful. Never was anyone presented with the decision to pick between those two items for where to spend the next $10 billion. So $10 billion on Web vs $10 billion split between 5 other missions that didn't happen, for example, might have been the sort of tradeoff that could be analyzed (then or now). Or $10++++ billion to enforce the provisions of the UN agreement to end the Gulf War vs. the hypothetical concern that Iraq would create more geo-political problems in the future that would ultimately cost more than taking some action now. Also a tradeoff that is hard to evaluate in hindsight, never mind at the time (hard -- but not immune from criticism or evaluation). I'm not saying that either of the choices, $10 billion on Webb or $10++++ billion on the Iraq war, were the right choices -- just that the comparison isn't particularly useful, IMHO.