Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

War on Iraq

War Costs May Total $2.4 Trillion

By Ken Dilanian, USA Today. Posted October 24, 2007.


Bush war spending highest since WW II.

The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could total $2.4 trillion through the next decade, or nearly $8,000 per man, woman and child in the country, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate scheduled for release Wednesday.

A previous CBO estimate put the wars' costs at more than $1.6 trillion. This one adds $705 billion in interest, taking into account that the conflicts are being funded with borrowed money.

The new estimate also includes President Bush's request Monday for another $46 billion in war funding, said Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., budget committee chairman, who provided the CBO's new numbers to USA TODAY.

Assuming that Iraq accounts for about 80% of that total, the Iraq war would cost $1.9 trillion, including $564 million in interest, said Thomas Kahn, Spratt's staff director. The committee holds a hearing on war costs this morning.

"The number is so big, it boggles the mind," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill.

Sean Kevelighan, a spokesman for the White House budget office, said, "Congress should stop playing politics with our troops by trying to artificially inflate war funding levels." He declined to provide a White House estimate.

The CBO estimates assume that 75,000 troops will remain in both countries through 2017, including roughly 50,000 in Iraq. That is a "very speculative" projection, though it's not entirely unreasonable, said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the non-partisan Lexington Institute.

As of Sept. 30, the two wars have cost $604 billion, the CBO says. Adjusted for inflation, that is higher than the costs of the Korea and Vietnam conflicts, according to the Washington-based Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

Defense spending during those two wars accounted for a far larger share of the American economy.

In the months before the March 2003 Iraq invasion, the Bush administration estimated the Iraq war would cost no more than $50 billion.

AlterNet is making this material available in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107: This article is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: defense appropriations, costs of war, afghanistan, iraq

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Bush and Cheney's agenda
Posted by: Constitutionalist75 on Oct 24, 2007 11:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
continues to be the bankruptcy and nullification of our once solvent and sovereign USA in favor of a corporate North American Union owned and operated by big corporations that turn we the people into medieval servants and serfs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The real cost in monetary terms: Immeasurable!
Posted by: CASF.MSRB on Oct 24, 2007 7:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A number of major items are missing from the $2.4 trillion war account, namely the enormous ecological, social and human costs of the catastrophes caused by the fraudulent “war on terror.”

1. Total cost (!) of killing the future by NOT replacing the current “laws of jungle” rules of cannibalistic hegemony with a sustainable economy.

2. The sum values of irreplaceable ecosystems in Iraq and Persian Gulf that have been destroyed as a result of Mr. Bush’s fraudulent “war on terror.”

3. Full cost of NOT educating the nation to offset the widespread ignorance among this and the next generations because all the money was misappropriated under the guise of the fraudulent war and there was nothing left for education.

4. The cost of NOT fighting the onset and reemergence of various viral and infectious diseases caused by war, poverty, man-made climatic catastrophes and the crumbling social and economic infrastructure, all of which could have been prevented by spending the nation’s wealth [and credit] wisely to addressing the critical issues instead of diverting all the money to the fraudulent war. These are the manifestations of a hijacked government riddled with racketeering, deception and outright larceny by the elite and special interest groups.

5. Full cost of all future consequence arising from genocide of Iraqis, including rehabilitating surviving war victims.

6. The cost of “re-humanizing” the American [and British] image in the minds of the world’s “other” 6.2 billion peoples.

http://msrb.wordpress.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The numbers reported by Mr. Dilanian for the interest on the war debt make no sense
Posted by: JohnMarohn on Oct 24, 2007 8:41 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Early in the article Mr. Dilanian reports "A previous CBO estimate put the wars' costs at more than $1.6 trillion. This one adds $705 billion in interest, ..." Later in the article he reports "Assuming that Iraq accounts for about 80% of that total, the Iraq war would cost $1.9 trillion, including $564 million in interest, ... "

An interest of $0.7 trillion on a principle of $1.6 trillion makes sense, but isn't an interest of $0.000564 trillion = $564 million on a principle of $1.9 trillion a little low?

In other words, the two implied interest rates are wildly inconsistent. No explanation is offered. I am amazed at this, given that the story ran on the front page of the print edition of USA Today this morning. How can a representative democracy function with such sloppy ask-no-questions reporting?

I would like an explanation for the wildly inconsistent interests reported in the story from the article's author, Mr. Ken Dilanian.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.