Costs of Obama's New War in Iraq and Syria Set to Explode, say Analysts
Critics of the U.S. military operation say leaders should "look to our past involvement in the region"
The U.S. government's new war in Iraq that now also includes Syria has already cost American taxpayers between $780 and $930 million, and could amount to over $1 billion a month if U.S. efforts intensify on the scale demanded by war hawks in Congress, according to a think tank analysis published this week.
According to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments:
Assuming a moderate level of air operations and 2,000 deployed ground forces, the costs would likely run between $200 and $320 million per month. If air operations are conducted at a higher pace and 5,000 ground forces are deployed, the costs would be between $350 and $570 million per month. If operations expand significantly to include the deployment of 25,000 U.S. troops on the ground, as some have recommended, costs would likely reach $1.1 to $1.8 billion per month.
On an annual basis, CSBA estimates, the U.S. military's operation against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (or ISIS) could cost as much as $22 billion dollars a year.
The Pentagon is currently funding the attack through a controversial war fund, dubbed the Overseas Contingency Operations account, which is exempt from federal budget caps. The fund was originally created to fund the previous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan though defense officials say it will likely be around for the "long-term."
CSBA notes that the range in estimates highlights "the high degree of uncertainty involved in current operations." One source of uncertainty, the group writes, "are the desired end states in both Iraq and Syria--i.e. what the United States would like to leave in place if and when ISIL is destroyed."
The National Priorities Project (NPP) last month issued an estimate that the military action against ISIS had already cost U.S. taxpayers $312,500 per hour and, according to their running tally, has cost over $804 million.
In a statement issued following President Obama's announcement of the escalated bombing campaign, NPP wrote that U.S. leadership would be wise to "look to our past involvement in the region" before plunging American taxpayers into another costly and endless war.
In 2003, President Bush said his purported goal of bringing democracy to Iraq would require a "lengthy campaign" and cost and estimated $60 billion, which NPP notes is just a "small fraction" of their $817 billion estimate. (Economist Joseph Stiglitz even argues that the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could amount to as much as $4 trillion.)
As NPP writes, continued U.S. involvement in the region "has instead further muddied and even exacerbated centuries-old ethnic and religious divisions, while providing an endless supply of fodder to fuel the flames of extremist terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS."
NPP, which has spent over thirty years tracking the cost of war, adds that in exchange for the conflict, our nation has sacrificed lives as well as "our own social and economic potential, as we sunk over a trillion dollars into war while investing less in our domestic needs (such as addressing our crumbling infrastructure, revitalizing the job market, or reducing the burden of student loan debt)."
The irony, as Middle East scholar Juan Cole points out on Tuesday, is that the costly drums of war are being beaten by the same Congress that in February slashed $8.7 billion from federal food stamp funding.
Cole writes: "[T]he same people who have trouble justifying a safety net for the working poor and find it urgent to cut billions from the programs that keep us a civilized society rather than a predatory jungle--the same people have no difficulty authorizing billions for vague bombing campaigns that are unlikely to be successful on any genuine metric."
According to U.S. Central Command, U.S. air strikes in Iraq and Syria continued Monday and Tuesday with "attack, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft" conducting 11 strikes in each country.
The CSBA report uses the term "ground forces" to refer to any U.S. military personnel deployed on the ground, whether in a combat or logistical capacity. The highest estimate assumes a scenario in which combat troops are deployed to both Iraq and Syria. President Obama has repeatedly pledged that there will be "no U.S. combat troops on the ground" in Iraq. However, at least 1,600 U.S. troops that have been deployed since U.S. strikes began on August 8.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just three days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
The U.S. government's new war in Iraq that now also includes Syria has already cost American taxpayers between $780 and $930 million, and could amount to over $1 billion a month if U.S. efforts intensify on the scale demanded by war hawks in Congress, according to a think tank analysis published this week.
According to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments:
Assuming a moderate level of air operations and 2,000 deployed ground forces, the costs would likely run between $200 and $320 million per month. If air operations are conducted at a higher pace and 5,000 ground forces are deployed, the costs would be between $350 and $570 million per month. If operations expand significantly to include the deployment of 25,000 U.S. troops on the ground, as some have recommended, costs would likely reach $1.1 to $1.8 billion per month.
On an annual basis, CSBA estimates, the U.S. military's operation against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (or ISIS) could cost as much as $22 billion dollars a year.
The Pentagon is currently funding the attack through a controversial war fund, dubbed the Overseas Contingency Operations account, which is exempt from federal budget caps. The fund was originally created to fund the previous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan though defense officials say it will likely be around for the "long-term."
CSBA notes that the range in estimates highlights "the high degree of uncertainty involved in current operations." One source of uncertainty, the group writes, "are the desired end states in both Iraq and Syria--i.e. what the United States would like to leave in place if and when ISIL is destroyed."
The National Priorities Project (NPP) last month issued an estimate that the military action against ISIS had already cost U.S. taxpayers $312,500 per hour and, according to their running tally, has cost over $804 million.
In a statement issued following President Obama's announcement of the escalated bombing campaign, NPP wrote that U.S. leadership would be wise to "look to our past involvement in the region" before plunging American taxpayers into another costly and endless war.
In 2003, President Bush said his purported goal of bringing democracy to Iraq would require a "lengthy campaign" and cost and estimated $60 billion, which NPP notes is just a "small fraction" of their $817 billion estimate. (Economist Joseph Stiglitz even argues that the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could amount to as much as $4 trillion.)
As NPP writes, continued U.S. involvement in the region "has instead further muddied and even exacerbated centuries-old ethnic and religious divisions, while providing an endless supply of fodder to fuel the flames of extremist terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS."
NPP, which has spent over thirty years tracking the cost of war, adds that in exchange for the conflict, our nation has sacrificed lives as well as "our own social and economic potential, as we sunk over a trillion dollars into war while investing less in our domestic needs (such as addressing our crumbling infrastructure, revitalizing the job market, or reducing the burden of student loan debt)."
The irony, as Middle East scholar Juan Cole points out on Tuesday, is that the costly drums of war are being beaten by the same Congress that in February slashed $8.7 billion from federal food stamp funding.
Cole writes: "[T]he same people who have trouble justifying a safety net for the working poor and find it urgent to cut billions from the programs that keep us a civilized society rather than a predatory jungle--the same people have no difficulty authorizing billions for vague bombing campaigns that are unlikely to be successful on any genuine metric."
According to U.S. Central Command, U.S. air strikes in Iraq and Syria continued Monday and Tuesday with "attack, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft" conducting 11 strikes in each country.
The CSBA report uses the term "ground forces" to refer to any U.S. military personnel deployed on the ground, whether in a combat or logistical capacity. The highest estimate assumes a scenario in which combat troops are deployed to both Iraq and Syria. President Obama has repeatedly pledged that there will be "no U.S. combat troops on the ground" in Iraq. However, at least 1,600 U.S. troops that have been deployed since U.S. strikes began on August 8.
The U.S. government's new war in Iraq that now also includes Syria has already cost American taxpayers between $780 and $930 million, and could amount to over $1 billion a month if U.S. efforts intensify on the scale demanded by war hawks in Congress, according to a think tank analysis published this week.
According to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments:
Assuming a moderate level of air operations and 2,000 deployed ground forces, the costs would likely run between $200 and $320 million per month. If air operations are conducted at a higher pace and 5,000 ground forces are deployed, the costs would be between $350 and $570 million per month. If operations expand significantly to include the deployment of 25,000 U.S. troops on the ground, as some have recommended, costs would likely reach $1.1 to $1.8 billion per month.
On an annual basis, CSBA estimates, the U.S. military's operation against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (or ISIS) could cost as much as $22 billion dollars a year.
The Pentagon is currently funding the attack through a controversial war fund, dubbed the Overseas Contingency Operations account, which is exempt from federal budget caps. The fund was originally created to fund the previous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan though defense officials say it will likely be around for the "long-term."
CSBA notes that the range in estimates highlights "the high degree of uncertainty involved in current operations." One source of uncertainty, the group writes, "are the desired end states in both Iraq and Syria--i.e. what the United States would like to leave in place if and when ISIL is destroyed."
The National Priorities Project (NPP) last month issued an estimate that the military action against ISIS had already cost U.S. taxpayers $312,500 per hour and, according to their running tally, has cost over $804 million.
In a statement issued following President Obama's announcement of the escalated bombing campaign, NPP wrote that U.S. leadership would be wise to "look to our past involvement in the region" before plunging American taxpayers into another costly and endless war.
In 2003, President Bush said his purported goal of bringing democracy to Iraq would require a "lengthy campaign" and cost and estimated $60 billion, which NPP notes is just a "small fraction" of their $817 billion estimate. (Economist Joseph Stiglitz even argues that the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could amount to as much as $4 trillion.)
As NPP writes, continued U.S. involvement in the region "has instead further muddied and even exacerbated centuries-old ethnic and religious divisions, while providing an endless supply of fodder to fuel the flames of extremist terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS."
NPP, which has spent over thirty years tracking the cost of war, adds that in exchange for the conflict, our nation has sacrificed lives as well as "our own social and economic potential, as we sunk over a trillion dollars into war while investing less in our domestic needs (such as addressing our crumbling infrastructure, revitalizing the job market, or reducing the burden of student loan debt)."
The irony, as Middle East scholar Juan Cole points out on Tuesday, is that the costly drums of war are being beaten by the same Congress that in February slashed $8.7 billion from federal food stamp funding.
Cole writes: "[T]he same people who have trouble justifying a safety net for the working poor and find it urgent to cut billions from the programs that keep us a civilized society rather than a predatory jungle--the same people have no difficulty authorizing billions for vague bombing campaigns that are unlikely to be successful on any genuine metric."
According to U.S. Central Command, U.S. air strikes in Iraq and Syria continued Monday and Tuesday with "attack, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft" conducting 11 strikes in each country.
The CSBA report uses the term "ground forces" to refer to any U.S. military personnel deployed on the ground, whether in a combat or logistical capacity. The highest estimate assumes a scenario in which combat troops are deployed to both Iraq and Syria. President Obama has repeatedly pledged that there will be "no U.S. combat troops on the ground" in Iraq. However, at least 1,600 U.S. troops that have been deployed since U.S. strikes began on August 8.