Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Wars Could Cost $2.4 Trillion Over Decade, Analysis Says
WASHINGTON - The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost as much as $2.4 trillion through the next decade, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said yesterday. The White House brushed off the analysis as "speculation."
The estimate was the most comprehensive and far-reaching one to date. It factored in costs previously not counted and assumed that large number of forces would remain in the regions.
According to the analysis, the United States has spent about $604 billion on the wars, including $39 billion in diplomatic operations and foreign aid.
If the United States were to reduce the number of troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan to 75,000 six years from now, it would cost the United States $1 trillion more for military and diplomatic operations and $705 billion in interest payments to pay for the wars through 2017.
Democrats, who say voters will not stand for it, would consider funding the military campaigns in short installments, instead of full one-year terms.
"That estimate is a far cry from the administration's original claim of a $50 billion price that the Iraqis could pay themselves," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California. "The depth of this tragedy is stunning, particularly for our military families - and for prospects for peace in the region."
The White House contended the estimate was too conditional.
"It's just a ton of speculation," said White House press secretary Dana Perino. "We don't know how much the war is going to cost in the future."
President Bush has asked for $196.4 billion for war-related operations this budget year, which began Oct. 1.
Democrats say they are unlikely to act on the request until early next year, calculating the Pentagon can cover war costs through February or March by borrowing against its annual budget.
Military officials say doing so can disrupt vital programs, such as base support and training exercises, and cost more money in the long run.
Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Democrats are considering approving the war spending six months at a time. Such a bill would require that Bush renew his request after a certain point, possibly in May or June, said Levin, Democrat of Michigan.
"That would put some pressure on the president to have a timetable," Levin told reporters at a breakfast yesterday.
At the same time, providing the money would avoid sending a "negative message to the troops," he said.
In recent months, Democrats have been divided on whether to continue paying for a war they oppose or cut off the money and be attacked politically for refusing to support the troops. Other legislation that would set a deadline for troop withdrawals has failed to attract enough Republicans, repeatedly short of the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate. "We are still working on a formula to get us to 60" votes, Levin said.
© 2007 Associated Press
27 Comments so far
Show AllAlthough the monetary costs of current military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere are staggering, other costs are also significant.
The thousands killed and injured, allegations of torture and the apparent deceptions involved by US Government officials are all parts of a depressing situation.
Food for thought in the article ...
"'Strength – Honor – Compassion' are words to live by in these times"
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=3351
It should not be lost on Americans that 2.4 Trillion is a similar number to that which is owed to the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds--owed to those funds by those who "borrowed" it, that is, owed by the payers of INCOME AND CAPITAL GAINS TAXES.
Republicans have no plan to pay either for wars, or to repay any debt, not now, not ever. They will keep telling you how "we'll grow out way out" and "cut the deficit in half in five years (maybe)", as long as you elect them.
A rational plan is two-fold. (1) Pack the government with Democrats (2) DEMAND that Democrats fix the problem -- via taxes at the high end.
An irrational plan is (1) Slander the Democrats now.
(2) Elect a new round of Republicans by default.
"A rational plan is two-fold. (1) Pack the government with Democrats (2) DEMAND that Democrats fix the problem — via taxes at the high end."
Demand? Demand? We elected a majority on an end the war and impeach the Bush Gang platform, which gets little more than lip service and token votes to pacify us as the agenda continues.
The "demands" of We the People are ignored with impunity by the people we elected as our alleged representatives, not the representatives of the Sugardaddy Bigbucks that run the war industries and pay them huge wads of blood soaked money, and don't want to pay taxes, ever. That's for the "people of no particular importance" to do.
$2 1/2 trillion is a low figure since it only counts the cost of the destruction rather than the costs of the reconstruction of what is being destroyed. And it does not calculate in the effects of Lebanon, Turkey, Pakistan, and Somalia, not to mention what is being planned for Iran.
They're bankrupting the government so everything will be privatised.
it's the reagan plan (not surprising, given how many of the same faces are back inside the beltway): borrow and spend unto abject insolvency, then announce with solemn regret that there's no money left for education, health, housing, social security, infrastructure, environment, etc., etc.
(charlie brown is shocked---shocked!---that he kicked the empty air again)
"A rational plan is two-fold. (1) Pack the government with Democrats (2) DEMAND that Democrats fix the problem — via taxes at the high end.
An irrational plan is (1) Slander the Democrats now.
(2) Elect a new round of Republicans by default."
A rational plan is to pack the government with representatives who did NOT give a blank check to these crimes and abuses.
An irrational response is to refer to facts as "slander" for no reason other than that they embarrass you.
The Republicans have no problem in spending the US Treasury into bankruptcy because they can use this excuse to defund social programs. This has been the plan all along. The Iraq disaster is just making it happen sooner.
Well don't say I didn't say so; many, many times... ACCRUED 2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS over 10 years written in stone....and I got no response, from common dreamers for over two months... Just imagine, then how much more in DENIAL average Americans are...
The collateral damage Bu$hCo have done here is simply astonishing...9 BILLION DOLLARS unaccounted for in IRAQ...DISAPPEARED...
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/24/donald-barlett-and-james-steele-2/
W is out to bankrupt the country. Impeach the terrorist...NOW! Before he can do anymore damage.
" What would have happened if millions of American and British people, struggling with coupons and lines at the gas stations, had learned that in 1942 Standard Oil of New Jersey [part of the Rockefeller empire] managers shipped the enemy's fuel through neutral Switzerland and that the enemy was shipping Allied fuel? Suppose the public had discovered that the Chase Bank in Nazi-occupied Paris after Pearl Harbor was doing millions of dollars' worth of business with the enemy with the full knowledge of the head office in Manhattan [the Rockefeller family among others?] Or that Ford trucks were being built for the German occupation troops in France with authorization from Dearborn, Michigan? Or that Colonel Sosthenes Behn, the head of the international American telephone conglomerate ITT, flew from New York to Madrid to Berne during the war to help improve Hitler's communications systems and improve the robot bombs that devastated London? Or that ITT built the FockeWulfs that dropped bombs on British and American troops? Or that crucial balI bearings were shipped to Nazi-associated customers in Latin America with the collusion of the vice-chairman of the U.S. War Production Board in partnership with Goering's cousin in Philadelphia when American forces were desperately short of them? Or that such arrangements were known about in Washington and either sanctioned or deliberately ignored?"
Charles Higham, researcher, about U.S.-Nazi collaboration during WWII
I will bet you euros to donuts that the 2.4 trillion figure doesn't even include the lifetime medical costs for the surviving military casualties. Many casualties are kept alive who would have died in previous wars and their injuries are so extensive that the cost of keeping them alive is extremely expensive and will be borne by the taxpayers for decades to come.
seriousprofessor,
I'm not "embarrassed" at all to advocate for Democrats, even though you imagine I might be.. But I am a practical sort, rather well versed, in fact on how conservatives keep winning. Just curious, are you really "serious"?
Daniel David
"But I am a practical sort, rather well versed, in fact on how conservatives keep winning. Just curious, are you really "serious"?"
Quite serious, DD, including in my comments about how Democrats regularly endorse radical right wing policies, a point that you have never successfully engaged.
I repeat: facts are not slander. To frame them as so is dishonest, and a claim of "pragmatism" does not rehabilitate that dishonesty. Therefore, get serious.
$2.4 TRILLION DOLLARS!
Let's see, if we make a stack of $100 bills (placing them one on top of another, flat side on top of flat side), one trillion dollars would reach 679 miles high. So, that would make a $2,400,000,000,000 dollar stack -- 1629.6 miles high.
Pretty tall stack of money! Could we just put that on Shrubs' card?
It will cost YOU , the mug taxpayer, collectively driving the population of USI into extreme poverty. This may be good for climate change, in that you cannot afford your electricity, water, rent AND food, so the entire population of USI will be dependent on government largesses of worthless dollars and food stamps, or the population will be reduced to banditry. The elite will be sheltered in large fortresses, protected by private armies. Survival will be by allegiance and enslavement to one local protector or other, involved in constant warfare to obtain the remaining necessities for life. This should whittle the population size down a lot. You will not miss you trillion trillion dollars. It was burnt into carbon dioxide in millions of other peoples deaths to help destroy the unsustainable USI way of life.
Here's the deal; when the economy is having a hard time, the Republicans will come to power, won't care about the budget deficit, but will make a lot of spending on huge projects (preferably declare war on some country) and borrow from abroad to fund it, that in turn will trigger the economy, create jobs, R&D, and other development.
However, the interest rates on all the money borrowed may raise at some point due to the continued borrowing (thus raised risks) and that could eventually cause a bankrupt USA.
You probably know, but this is the interpretation of the economic theory called "military keynesianism"....
Lingering question... why the heck didn't we just buy the Nation and Government of Iraq, put Saddam into exile for this price back in 2003... possible cheaper than 2.4 trillion too. Who's going to turn down 1 trillion dollars?
Tarry_Faster - how far will $2.4 terrabucks stretch? From Here to Eternity?
One big thing people on all sides of the equation get wrong is that this is "war for Oil". This is fundamentally incorrect. It is actually war about oil, but not FOR oil. It's war AGAINST oil.
This isn't a game of Sid Meier's Civilization where the goal is to attain more power for the nation. The goal is to make money.
The president, his family, and Mr. Cheney are heavily invested in fossil fuels. Very heavily invested. If the price per barrel of oil goes down, they lose money.
Similarly, if the price per barrel goes up, they make money. If Bush screams "World War III" nonsense at Iran on the world stage, the price per barrel shoots up. If he invades, it will go up much higher.
The game is to destabilize the market and raise the price artificially. We have two oilmen in the White House. Their goal is to destabilize the economy so their energy assets appreciate.
It's called "conflict of interest".
While the corporate oligarchy and bankers wage war on the People worldwide, we keep buying their shit and giving them the money to do it with.
The figure of $2.4 Trillion for a decade is a BLOODY SUPER SPIN MONSTER LIE AS USUAL !
According to Harvard budget expert Linda Bilmes and Columbia University Professor and Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz, the cost thus far is nearly $2 Trillion when all long term resulting expenses are figured.
And arguably, the war has been a primary cause of the devaluation of the dollar which has now lost about 40% since 2002. Even the possibility of such an ill-fated conflict cause the dollar to start dropping. And, DUH ! that means everyone has much less real money if holding dollars. Now figure that one, all of the dollars on earth minus 40% !
Old news:
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article137381.ece
Iraq war fears send dollar tumbling to new low. By Katherine Griffiths, Banking Correspondent Published: 27 December 2002
" The dollar yesterday fell to its lowest against the euro in almost three years, reflecting concern among investors that the US is moving closer to unleashing a war against Iraq.
The US currency has in the past few days slumped to a point which is 14 per cent lower than the euro and almost 9 per cent down on the yen compared with earlier this year."
And as a comforting thought, as confidence in our nation and economy continues to slide with war imbalances, and the failure of our military to resolve the situation, global confidence will erode for the dollar in the same way as British currency bit the dust as the empire declined.
The only "winners" right now are Big Oil (the Iraq mess has raised oil prices) and the military complex (funded with deficit spending) who are making out like bandits at everyone else's expense. This has become a wealth transfer from the many to the few !
And these undeniable costs may be just the beginning while the military oil congressional corporate complex plans to occupy Iraq through the 21st century along with Central Asia thus comprising the largest corporate subsidies in world history !
Peace Is Practical !
Let's not quibble. What's a trillion or two among friends?
Wow, that's a lot of money that the war profiteers can look forward to stealing from us and our kids.
$2.4 trillion as opposed to $50 billion? That's a 5,000% cost overrun. I wonder if that's the kind of business management skills Harvard Business School is still teaching.
http://www.chycho.com/?q=node/1152
Just to take this absurdity known as "America's War of Terror" one step further: Americans spending approximately $2,400,000,000,000 to kill 8,000,000 Iraqi's means that they are spending approximately $300,000 to kill a single Iraqi civilian.
How can the Iraq occupation cost 2.4 trillion dollars, when we don't have 2.4 trillion dollars?
Our mighty dollar is not backed by any hard metal, it is in truth, worthless paper, or will soon be.
When the depression hits, any money you will have on hand will be worthless, because there won't be any food available to purchase anyway and food and water are actually all we really need. Of course shelter is also a necessity, but anyone can survive in a big cardboard box in moderately cold weather.
When the depression hits, and it will, your bank accounts will be frozen, as will credit and debit cards. The very rich will have access to money of course. ___ Not American money.
BTW, was talking to Kem Patrick last week while fishing in Maryland. He asked me to say goodby to all of the wonderful bloggers here at Common Dreams who may remember him, he won't be back to have fun here anymore. I do believe he is rather sad about that.