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

The Three Trillion Dollar War

By Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, The Times of London UK. Posted February 25, 2008.


The cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts have grown to staggering proportions.
Advertisement

The Bush Administration was wrong about the benefits of the war and it was wrong about the costs of the war. The president and his advisers expected a quick, inexpensive conflict. Instead, we have a war that is costing more than anyone could have imagined.

The cost of direct US military operations -- not even including long-term costs such as taking care of wounded veterans -- already exceeds the cost of the 12-year war in Vietnam and is more than double the cost of the Korean War.

And, even in the best case scenario, these costs are projected to be almost ten times the cost of the first Gulf War, almost a third more than the cost of the Vietnam War, and twice that of the First World War. The only war in our history which cost more was the Second World War, when 16.3 million U.S. troops fought in a campaign lasting four years, at a total cost (in 2007 dollars, after adjusting for inflation) of about $5 trillion. With virtually the entire armed forces committed to fighting the Germans and Japanese, the cost per troop (in today's dollars) was less than $100,000 in 2007 dollars. By contrast, the Iraq war is costing upward of $400,000 per troop.

Most Americans have yet to feel these costs. The price in blood has been paid by our voluntary military and by hired contractors. The price in treasure has, in a sense, been financed entirely by borrowing. Taxes have not been raised to pay for it -- in fact, taxes on the rich have actually fallen. Deficit spending gives the illusion that the laws of economics can be repealed, that we can have both guns and butter. But of course the laws are not repealed. The costs of the war are real even if they have been deferred, possibly to another generation.

On the eve of war, there were discussions of the likely costs. Larry Lindsey, President Bush's economic adviser and head of the National Economic Council, suggested that they might reach $200 billion. But this estimate was dismissed as "baloney" by the Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. His deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, suggested that postwar reconstruction could pay for itself through increased oil revenues. Mitch Daniels, the Office of Management and Budget director, and Secretary Rumsfeld estimated the costs in the range of $50 to $60 billion, a portion of which they believed would be financed by other countries. (Adjusting for inflation, in 2007 dollars, they were projecting costs of between $57 and $69 billion.) The tone of the entire administration was cavalier, as if the sums involved were minimal.

Even Lindsey, after noting that the war could cost $200 billion, went on to say: "The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy." In retrospect, Lindsey grossly underestimated both the costs of the war itself and the costs to the economy. Assuming that Congress approves the rest of the $200 billion war supplemental requested for fiscal year 2008, as this book goes to press Congress will have appropriated a total of over $845 billion for military operations, reconstruction, embassy costs, enhanced security at US bases, and foreign aid programs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As the fifth year of the war draws to a close, operating costs (spending on the war itself, what you might call "running expenses") for 2008 are projected to exceed $12.5 billion a month for Iraq alone, up from $4.4 billion in 2003, and with Afghanistan the total is $16 billion a month. Sixteen billion dollars is equal to the annual budget of the United Nations, or of all but 13 of the US states. Even so, it does not include the $500 billion we already spend per year on the regular expenses of the Defense Department. Nor does it include other hidden expenditures, such as intelligence gathering, or funds mixed in with the budgets of other departments.

Because there are so many costs that the Administration does not count, the total cost of the war is higher than the official number. For example, government officials frequently talk about the lives of our soldiers as priceless. But from a cost perspective, these "priceless" lives show up on the Pentagon ledger simply as $500,000 -- the amount paid out to survivors in death benefits and life insurance. After the war began, these were increased from $12,240 to $100,000 (death benefit) and from $250,000 to $400,000 (life insurance). Even these increased amounts are a fraction of what the survivors might have received had these individuals lost their lives in a senseless automobile accident. In areas such as health and safety regulation, the US Government values a life of a young man at the peak of his future earnings capacity in excess of


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iraq, cost of war

Joseph Stiglitz was chief economist at the World Bank and won the Nobel Memorial Prize for Economics in 2001. Linda Bilmes is a lecturer in public policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University

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:
Thanks, W
Posted by: vox persona on Feb 25, 2008 12:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The damage is done, this idiotic decision to invade/occupy Muslim Holy Land will be seen as the colossal military blunder of this century, and will decimate our volunteer army as it has depleted our treasury to the point of a collapse of the value of the dollar. At least war profiteers and corporate cronies are making their fortunes off the blood of our soldiers, and that of the countless hundreds of thousands of Iraqis caught in the crossfire. The die is cast. I'm not usually a pessimist in life, but we aa a nation are as the busload of passengers hijacked by an insane bus driver (boy emperor), and driven off a high cliff. The stage we sit at right now is the freefall, and no way to bail. Hold on for the 'landing'. It might get a little bumpy.

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

» yes, we were hijacked. Posted by: kellysgarden
» RE: yes, we were hijacked. Posted by: aka_bozo
Bill
Posted by: Sweet Wm on Feb 25, 2008 3:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is an extremely minor point but one that is starting to irritate me more and more.
The word 'troop' used to be found when referring to large groups of military i.e. those gathering for the Normandy invasion.
Now it can be seen referencing just one individual. It seems so impersonal. Why not say 'soldier'? That feels more human to me.

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

» RE: Bill Posted by: VZEQICVA
Overlord
Posted by: Overlord on Feb 25, 2008 4:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As soon as Bush was sworn in as the president, the ties between China and USA began to deteriorate, the spy plan incident in April 2001 , took this tension to a climax. Guess the hawks in US administration wanted an enemy back then and knew that China was the next threat to USA with many analysts predicting China overtaking USA economically in 2030. Come 9/11, USA was embroiled in this unending war, against an invisible army and an ideology which is in minds of people. $ 3 trillion in war costs and thousands of lives, doesn’t end here, a hasty return of the American army would be by 2012, 4 more years of war.

China on the other hand continues to grow with the same 9% annual growth rate. Their leadership is smart enough to stay quiet and let America fight this unending war. China’s reserves today are in excess of $1.34 Trillion US dollars, and they are not going to keep this paper money for long. Already they are buying infrastructure in the US. On the other hand the economy going in a recession, mortgage crises and an increasing trade deficit, USA is a power in decline and in decline faster then probably any empire that ever existed before it. Guess this story will have a happy ending in the destruction of a rogue imperial empire.

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

oxheadone
Posted by: oxheadone on Feb 25, 2008 4:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If McCain is the next president, then the Iraq war will continue and the costs will be greater than this article indicates. If a democrat is elected, even with a huge gain in Congressional seats and a clear public outcry against the war (e.g. McCain is swamped), the US will be lucky to find a way out that isn't very costly in a whole variety of ways. Bush seems to belong to the category of men, who's good is interred with their bones, but who's evil lives on after them.

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

The Cost of War
Posted by: no more imperial pie on Feb 25, 2008 4:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Would it be possible to specify the "financial cost" war, rather than run the risk of reducing the fuller human/inhuman reality to simply what a war costs to perpetrate?

The article could thus run: "In addition to the catastrophic human cost of this war, with more than 1 million iraq citizens dead, the financial cost of perpetrating it has reached..."

This would avoid us forgetting every day of the terrible weapon of mass destruction this invasion is and has been for the people of iraq.

Than you.

James Dunne, Paris

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

» RE: The Cost of War...please Posted by: Captainmagic
Midway545
Posted by: Midway54 on Feb 25, 2008 5:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The military-industrial-media complex with its profit margins lives!

Why change things? McCain is almost hysterical about getting into the White House and picking up and continuing the Bush Disaster. In other words, it will be a third term Bush II. Already he is talking about every person for him/herself in those myriad circumstances of devastation to families who are innocent of any blame. For example, the 40 0r 50 million without health insurance don't need socialistic bigger government running things and telling us what to do. He wants to let working families decide on their health choices (never mind his ignoring the root problem of those without not being able to afford the premiums in the first place).

Moreover, and more importantly, the Iraqui war needs to continue and the U.S. needs to look around for more countries with governments that are not suitable (even if elected ones) for undermining, bombing, invading and occupying. The plutocrats love it, and McCain knows it. In fact, he recently suggested that he would introduce Obama to Karl Marx. Well, that's cute, but there is obviously no need to introduce McCain and his sponsors to Benito Mussolini, who described his government as that of corporate fascism.

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

Cost of War
Posted by: Roger Király on Feb 25, 2008 5:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gee, wasn't Iraqi oil going to "pay for" the war, not to mention the profits from the attar of roses manufactured from all of the welcoming petals thrown at our troops?

Of course, it's clear who's going to pay for this ill-conceived misadventure---and I'm not just talking about the monetary costs.

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

NEOCONS: "The invasion will pay for itself!!"
Posted by: xvictor on Feb 25, 2008 6:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHHAHAHA

NEOCONS: "Grateful Iraqi women will eagerly spread their legs for our GIs!!"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

NEOCONS: "Democracy and peace will burst forth thoughout the Middle East because we liberated Iraq."

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The list is rather long and I grow tired of justified, mocking laughter.

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

lindsey: the war will be good for the economy. pfft! Bastiat's ' broken window' parable
Posted by: KaptainSpiffy on Feb 25, 2008 7:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
they've asked for your money, your children, your country.

the looting continues. what else ya got?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

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

Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Feb 25, 2008 7:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Bush administration: Try 'em & Fry 'em

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

If anything underestimated
Posted by: paulmagillsmith on Feb 25, 2008 7:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although it is good to seeing someone putting a mathmatical pencil to this fiasco I believe the estimate is extremely conservative. A couple important factors were not mentioned in this article that have important consequences in both misery & money:

1) Perhaps the most devastating factor is the continued usage of the misnamed depleted uranium (real 'depleted' uranium is just lead, but the Newspeak 'depleted' uranium currently used still retains a third of its initial radioactivity or more). This bodes ill for residents of the entire middle-east in genetic damage that will transcend generations, if not centuries, and increased levels of radioactive fallout are now easily being detected in England (the radioactive particles from a DU shell shot in Iraq can spread worldwide in about two weeks, and since the half-life is 4.5 billion years wherever they land it will remain there virtually forever. Additionally, this radioactive polution can be brought back to the US by our troops, and passed to their partners through sexual intercourse).

Although the financial cost of a child born without arms or legs three generations from now might be difficult to quantify, the misery to those unfortunates & their families is certain. Of course the 'coalition of killers' only recognize the evil of using an internationally recognized WMD when the 'bad' guys use them. To their credit the US Navy has reportedly discontinued use of DU weapons on warships, but the key word there is 'reportedly'.

2) A report written a few years ago claimed the US military uses a tenth of the total world yearly output of oil. Perhaps this figure is inflated a bit, who knows, but from a bloated military budget (twice what the rest of the entire world spends on their military) it appears the Pentagon is more concerned with performance rather than economy. In times of diminishing fuel supplies worldwide this will come back to haunt us. We will need the fuel being currently wasted on our military mis-adventure of trying to steal oil from the middle-east to transform our nation from poluting fossil fuels to clean renewables, but it might not be available after being squandered in places like Iraq. How much does this cost us in money & misery? If the military industrial complex realizes their mouthwatering dream of the US attacking Iran gas prices could go to $5-10 per gallon. This is a 'hidden' tax on all Americans of sizeable proportions, but must be factored into the true costs of Bush's warmongering.

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

» RE: Bush's warmongering... Posted by: aka_bozo
3 trillion is a small price to pay
Posted by: aka_bozo on Feb 25, 2008 10:13 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to keep our country safe from the fascists.

The war demoralizes and kills those most dangerous to the American liberal democracy, and that's the Republican fascist peasants and their kids. Let’s not forget that 50% of the people VOTED fascist in the last TWO elections. There’s no way to get rid of these people, other than a good war. Let’s also not forget that the military is STILL voluntary, so people who are enlisting are simply entering the “Darwin Awards” contents; and, guess which demographic is still enlisting?

Plus, imagine what the country would be like if the Neocons and Blackwater were operating HERE instead of there.

All Freedom loving Americans should vote for McCain in 08.

Help Jesus thin the herd. VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!

Help the Republicans win the Darwin Awards!

Prove to Jesus you’re a PATRIOT, ENLIST TODAY!!!!

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

For The Love Of Money
Posted by: penobscotdziekuje@yahoo.com on Feb 25, 2008 11:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
America seems to love spending money, especially on war.
We spent billions to engage the Axis in WWII, billions to fight against Vietnam, billions on the proverbial "War" on drugs, poverty, terror, crime, etc. it's no secret we're always fighting, and having to keep our guard up against perceived threats.
And throwing enormous sums of money to fight something or someone is costing us. Sometimes the body count is secondary to the money count.
Now this latest imbroglio in Iraq and Afghanistan has reached trillion$! How much longer can we spend money on funding costly wars?
On the home front, our schools are strapped for money (hint: the Los Angeles Unified School District can't pay its teachers; the governor has proposed further cuts in school spending), roads and bridges are crumbling (see the I-35 collapse in Minneapoils), and let's not mention the soaring cost of a college education.
Hospitals and other health clinics are closing all over the land which denies low-income people a chance to seek affordable medical care. Again, Los Angeles' King-Drew Hospital had to lay off more than half its staff and lost its accreditation. Many South Central L.A. residents cannot afford to go to an HMO; there are none to be found south of the 10 Freeway. The Board of Supervisors said there is no money to keep it open.
Los Angeles seems to never have the money for projects the people sorely need. Charity is a pallid substitute.
The lack of money in American households is taking a toll on our mental health. All that trillions we blow on killing people could be put to better use.
Money talks. I long for the day when the Pentagon has to hold a bake sale just to buy ONE Stealth bomber.

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

$3 trillion in exchange for $20 trillion in petroleum reserves...
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 25, 2008 1:47 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey! We are still looking at a big fat (though slightly demonic) 666% return on investment, aren't we? If I told you you could invest $3 and get $20 back later, would you go for it? 200 billion barrels or proven reserves, more or less, mostly untouched, and cheap to produce - it's all gravy (well, with blood and gore mixed in, true).

Iraq's oil reserves are worth at least $20 trillion in today's dollars. This may be the central reason that the U.S. is still in Iraq - to attempt to ensure that the oil contracts flow to BP, Shell, Chevron, Exxon, Halliburton, and not to China or Russia.

Russia seems to understand that the carrot is often more effective than the stick: Russia writes off its Iraqi debt, Feb 12 2008

"Russia has agreed to write off $12bn (£6bn) of Iraqi debt built up by the regime of former leader Saddam Hussein to buy military supplies. In return, Russian companies, including oil giant Lukoil, will be given access to invest up to $4bn in Iraq."

If it all comes down to a match of wits between Putin and Bush...

The pesky Iraqi oil unions also keep claiming that they can run their oil industry if they nationalize it and reinvest their oil money in infrastructure. Horrors. The wild natives in control?

The waiting is almost over...

Oil giants are poised to move into Basra, Feb 24, Guardian UK.

The Door To Iraq's Oil Opens, By M K Bhadrakumar 15 February, 2008

The Iraq oil unions are still causing problems, in cahoots with U.S. labor:
Texans Join Iraqi Oil Workers in International Oil Action, Feb 19, 2005
.

The only way out of this mess is to get off fossil fuels, period. Even the oil producers states know that in the long run they'll need renewable energy: Solar City to Rise in Persian Gulf; Why Not Arizona?, NYT Feb 4 2008

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

Left behind
Posted by: zeofredo on Feb 26, 2008 11:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no miscalculation about the success of this mission in Iraq/Afghanistan... things are humming along just right for the puppeteers in Washington. The next venue for this operation is on home turf. Everywhere we will see what is a clear case of 'smash and grab'; a brazen attempt to rip off as much stuff as they can, convert it into genuinely valuable stuff (gold, or 'the rights' to any natural resources that are in high demand) and abandon the controls of state just before the moment of implosion.

I sincerely doubt that these manipulators believe in holy writ, but their actions appear to be an anticipation of a 'Rapture'-like crisis that will promise redemption for those in control, and damnation for those [of us] who are guilty of having no ambition to possess everything and corral our fellow beings to serve our endless whims.

The general population is DESPISED by the prosperous and powerful who see themselves as exalted creatures. They are preparing to insulate themselves from revolution and intend to grind us into gristle when the time is right. And will they realize these plans without any meaningful opposition?

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

Hilarious stuff!
Posted by: Doggycuny on Feb 26, 2008 12:48 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love it! This is just pure entertainment! Watching Americans vote for their war mongering, irresponsible and lying presidents and then turn in dismay at the 'unforeseen' consequences of their leaders actions is hilarious stuff.
Reading report after report of the spiralling costs of the war that will cripple the American economy and the American people is endlessly amusing. Even funnier still is that a large proportion of Americans still believe things in Iraq will turn out good or that America might actually 'win'. Ha ha ha! I love that! It's so cute! It's so, American!
And if that didn't make you laugh enough, check this out: Americans finally got sick of being lied to about the war so they voted in a Democratic congress to end it. Guess what happened next? (you're gonna love this) - the war didn't end! It just got more and more expensive! And more and more people died! That is pure genius! I'm beginning to see how the 'world's greatest democracy' works, and I love it! I cry with laughter when I think of those simple people!

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

» RE: Question for you Doggycuny Posted by: magiquarian1969
» RE: Hilarious stuff! Posted by: antonis
Iraq was not a "colossal military blunder"
Posted by: ibsteve2u on Feb 26, 2008 3:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ya'll need to read PNAC's papers. The primary goal - well, heck - I'll just quote them:

"While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

(From "Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century" - September, 2000)

Iraq was just an excuse to garrison the Middle East. "Blunder" and "failure" are highly inappropriate descriptions.

PNAC, Bush, and their respective people did not have to pay for this war, thanks to Bush's tax cuts.

PNAC, Bush, and their respective people did not have to fight and die in this war, because - well, they just don't do that.

But PNAC, Bush, and their respective people did achieve "a substantial American force presence in the Gulf", now, didn't they?

That makes the Iraq invasion a smashing success - from their perspective.

And those goals were laid out even before Bush's first election. That man takes direction well, doesn't he? He's President - of whatever Dick Cheney and PNAC let him play with.

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

$100 Billion
Posted by: ggeddis on Feb 27, 2008 9:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If memory serves me correctly, weren't Kerry and Edwards castigated for suggesting that the war was going to cost more than $100 Billion? That was just "silly Liberal Defeatocratism", I guess.

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