by Frank James
The Iraq War has cost more by itself than any other U.S. war with the exception of World War II.
That's just one sobering fact in the report issued this week by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments that examines the costs of the Iraq and Afghan wars.
Here's another fact. Both wars have cost more than any other war the U.S. has fought save World War II.
And how much have the wars cost all told since 2001? The CSBA says the costs are approaching $1 trillion and may by 2018 reach anywhere between $1.3 trillion to $1.7 trillion on the low end to $2 trillion to $2.5 trillion. The difference has a lot to do with how one calculates interest costs and certain components of overall costs such as veterans benefits.
As the CSBA explains in its report:
Since 2001, the US government and the American taxpayer have provided about $904 billion (unless otherwise noted, all cost and funding figures cited in this analysis are expressed in 2008 dollars) for military operations, including $66 billion to cover war-related costs for the first
part of 2009. Moreover, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan appear to be far from over. A set of illustrative scenarios developed by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) suggest that the direct budgetary costs of these military operations could amount to an additional $416-817 billion through 2018--assuming the number of US troops involved in the two conflicts is reduced from today's level of about 200,000 to some 30,000-75,000 over the next several years. This would bring the direct
budgetary costs of these wars to a total of some $1.3-1.7 trillion ...
In all cases, these estimates are rough--especially with regard to projected costs. The estimates of the cost of veterans' benefits should be treated with particular caution. They were derived from an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), but represent only preliminary
estimates. Figure B shows the direct budgetary costs of ongoing military operations broken down by major mission.
The question of whether and to what extent some share of interest payments on the federal debt should also be included in estimates of the cost of these conflicts is unclear and controversial. If it is assumed that borrowing has been (and will continue to be) used to finance about 10 percent of the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (the share of overall federal spending that has been debt-financed in recent years) interest payments would be projected to add about $68-78 billion to their costs through 2018--bringing total war costs to some $1.4-1.8 trillion. On the other hand, if it is assumed that these military operations have been (and will continue to be) financed entirely through borrowing, interest payments would be projected to add some $680-780 billion to their
costs--bringing the total cost of these wars to roughly $2-2.5 trillion.
Comments
Gosh...do ya think this could be part of our economic problems? I don't see a clear "victory" in 2.5 trillion.
Posted by: bill r. | December 16, 2008 12:17 PM
Great story Frank.
Math quiz what does:
1,000,000,000,000.00
+
1,000,000,000,000.00
+
1,000,000,000,000.00
+
1,000,000,000,000.00
+
1,000,000,000,000.00
+
(do we get to add the bailout money too?)
= Bush's legacy debt that he is passing along to your great, great, grandkids. Let me juxtapose 2 numbers next to each other for the simple minds out there.
1,000,000,000,000.00 (fraction of Bush Debt)
34,000,000,000
The 34B auto bailout, which is so hotly contested by pugs represents a mere 0.68% of Bush's estimated 5T debt he incurred. Even the pugs are turning against Bush! It's a pug eat pug world out there: http://conservativeforchange.blogspot.com/2008/12/national-debt-doubles-under-bush.html
Posted by: Xcellentform | December 16, 2008 1:09 PM
We are nearing the point of the UK when due to financial disaster and two world wars, they had to divest themselves of their empire.
We can't sustain this level of military waste, plus continue to support 2000 military bases worldwide, plus 11 (?) carrier battle groups, plus the financial meltdown/depression we are entering.
The tragedy is, we have neglected the Afg. war at our peril. Seven years and nothing to show for it. The place is worse off now than under the Taliban.
As I understand it, we are now putting troops around Kabul to protect the capitol. This is after seven years of the effort?
The only conclusion one can draw is, like Vietnam, there IS no plan to win in Afg.
PS; Happy Festivus, Bill R.!
Posted by: C.Morris | December 16, 2008 1:21 PM
Yet any talk of providing health insurance to everyone, Republicans scream we can't afford it. Any talk of paying every teacher a 6-figure salary and creating the best schools in the world, Republicans scream we can't afford it. What a joke.
Posted by: Paul | December 16, 2008 2:34 PM
So 2.5 Trillion IF we are still spending at this rate in both countries for another 9 years- when the deal on the table now for at least Iraq is to leave in 2011...
***
let me guess, if we keep spending at this rate until 2020-wouldn't the cost go ( gasp) even higher?
***
on a differnet note as long as we are playing gee whiz numbers games;
Imagine the savings we could have realized if al queda had been neutralized in the 90's instead of treating them like they were regular criminals..
OR
What if Saddam's 10 years of ignoring UN and US sanctions would have gotten the correct response ?
Posted by: heartburn | December 16, 2008 2:39 PM
The only conclusion one can draw is, like Vietnam, there IS no plan to win in Afg.
PS; Happy Festivus, Bill R.!
Posted by: C.Morris | December 16, 2008 1:21 PM
Unfortunately, after so many years of fighting in Afg. it will not be easy. This war was never won before we took our eyes off the ball with Iraq. The windows for a real "victory" close quickly. Does the reaction in support of the shoe-bomber in the region tell you anything? Oh...and please don't give me any of the "there better off now" or "under Saddam they would have been killed" malarky, living in a war for 7 years makes those days seem not so bad. It's easy for us to sit back in our easychair and say...hey...butlook at the good side...you can now throw shoes.
Posted by: bill r. | December 16, 2008 3:11 PM
PS; Happy Festivus to you C.Mo. and to all the Hommies as well!!!
Posted by: bill r. | December 16, 2008 3:19 PM
Thanks Bill....I was wondering about the rest of us! Happy Festivus to all the swampers too....even Heartburn, who likes to play history games around the misteltoe! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing
Posted by: Xcellentform | December 16, 2008 6:02 PM
"Iraq-Afghan costs by 2018 maybe $2.5 tr."
HECKUVA JOB, BUSH!!!
Posted by: 34 DAYS AND COUNTING UNTIL BUSH/CHENEY ARE GONE FOR GOOD | December 16, 2008 11:29 PM
What if Saddam's 10 years of ignoring UN and US sanctions would have gotten the correct response ?
Posted by: heartburn | December 16, 2008 2:39 PM
Enlighten us o wise one, what was the "Correct" response to Saddam that wasn't folowed for those ten years?
Invasion and occupation?
Bombing Baghdad flat?
Invading France?
.
Posted by: Liz | December 17, 2008 10:39 AM
2018???
What are we talkn' about here. The great Obama is going to end this thing by Ground Hog's Day, certainly before the new Congress takes its first 6 week vacation break. What "changed"?
Just end it. Every non-American in the entire world will have nothing but love for America as of January 20th, 2009. Let's just end this war business, as the great Obama promised, and stop projecting all of these wild, speculative 'If This / Then That' open-end borrow-finance-borrow scenarios. Why must this be so hard?
Posted by: Django - N Exile somewhere in/around the 30th Parallel | December 17, 2008 1:45 PM
"There will be resistance to this if necessary," Feingold said. "If necessary, we will act to prevent this mistake."
Posted by: r4 | October 26, 2009 8:18 AM