To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
What is a
trillion? It is a big number for sure. The best explanation I have
found for this mind-blowing figure is from children's book author David
Schwartz. "One million seconds comes out to be about 11 1/2 days. A
billion seconds is 32 years. And a trillion seconds is 32,000 years."
What is a trillion dollars? What can you get for that much money?
What is a
trillion? It is a big number for sure. The best explanation I have
found for this mind-blowing figure is from children's book author David
Schwartz. "One million seconds comes out to be about 11 1/2 days. A
billion seconds is 32 years. And a trillion seconds is 32,000 years."
What is a trillion dollars? What can you get for that much money?
Rethink Afghanistan -- Robert Greenwald's effort to help us
understand the war on terror, its costs, and consequences -- has a new Facebook application aimed at breaking down exactly how much we can get for one trillion dollars.
It is fun (in a qualified-world wide web-war on terror sort of way), and eye-opening.
During one round of the game, we were able to spend $999.5 billion to:
... And have $516.5 million left over (way more than enough to pay off my college loans).
A trillion dollars is also what the United States has spent since
2001 on military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, it is being
estimated that another $800 billion plus will be added to the tab
before the wars are ended.
If you're looking forward to a peace dividend as U.S. forces
withdraw from Iraq, you're going to have to wait a while. As the costs
of the Iraq war have been going down, the costs of the war in
Afghanistan have been rising. The financial costs, the numbers of
troops, and the number of casualties in Afghanistan are all getting
larger. This fiscal year (FY 2010), for the first time, more money is
being allocated to Afghanistan than to Iraq.
Since 2003, military operations in Iraq have absorbed the bulk of
war funding-- three or four times as much money as Afghanistan. But
that gap dropped precipitously in 2009.
Now, in 2010, we will spend 10 percent more in Afghanistan than in
Iraq -- and the spending difference will be even more once the $33
billion supplemental funding to pay for the Afghanistan troop surge is
factored in on top of the $72.9 billion allocated up front -- and for
2011, the administration is requesting $110.3 billion for military
operations in Afghanistan and $43.4 billion for ongoing military
operations in Iraq.
Another way to think about the costs of war is per person-how much
does it cost to deploy each individual member of the military. The
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment asserts that
"the annual cost per troop since FY 2005 has averaged $1.186 million in
Afghanistan and $0.685 million in Iraq, in constant-year FY 2011
dollars." That's another reason why, as the war in Iraq winds down - at
whatever rate - the savings are most likely going to be eaten up by the
rising costs of military operations in Afghanistan.
Another way to think about the costs of war is in hours, minutes and seconds. Laicie Olsen of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
has done the math: "In 2010, the troop increase in Afghanistan will
cost $2.5 billion per month, $82 million per day, $3.4 million per
hour, $57,000 per minute, and $951 per second." And that's just for
the $33 billion troop surge, not the $171 billion we're spending on the
two wars.
In short, if we want a peace dividend, we're going to have to find a way to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
There's new evidence to suggest that the current billions being thrown at Afghanistan are not particularly effective. A recent report
from the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction criticizes
the way the Pentagon has been evaluating progress in training the
Afghan military. Most tellingly, the report suggests that after $27
billion spent on training Afghan security forces, even the best-trained
units are still unable to operate independently (i.e., they need
support from U.S. troops to operate in combat zones). According to the New York Times account of the report, it also "details drug abuse, heavy attrition, corruption and illiteracy among the Afghan security forces."
As for U.S. economic aid to Afghanistan, similar problems have been identified. In response to an investigation by the Washington Post indicating that Afghan officials have systematically blocked corruption investigations of politically-connected individuals, Rep. Nita Lowey
(D-NY) has threatened to block a new round of $3.9 billion in aid until
she "has confidence that U.S. taxpayer money is not being abused to
line the pockets of corrupt Afghan government officials, drug lords,
and terrorists."
So, the costs of war and the costs of preparing for war continue to
soar, even in the midst of protracted economic recession and deep
anxiety about the future. New ideas and new perspectives are needed to
rebalance a deeply dysfunctional system.
In the mean time, the Pentagon's base budget-not counting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan-continues to increase. Of the over $700 billion in military spending in 2011, roughly $550 billion is for the "regular" Pentagon budget.
In short, base Pentagon spending is over three times as much as what
is being spent on the wars. Therefore, there is ample room to cut the
Pentagon's base budget even if the costs of Afghanistan and Iraq stay
at their current high levels.
A new report shows just how that might be done. Debt, Deficits and Defense: A Way Forward
was produced by the Sustainable Defense Task Force and illustrates how
the Pentagon can contribute significantly to deficit reduction while
advancing national security goals.
The report presents options for reducing the Pentagon's budget -- in sum saving nearly $1 trillion over the next decade.
Suggested cuts include more than $113 billion in savings by reducing
the U.S. nuclear arsenal to 1,050 total warheads deployed on 450
land-based missiles and seven Ohio-class submarines; Over $200 billion
in savings through reducing U.S. routine military presence in Europe
and Asia to 100,000 while reducing total uniformed military personnel
to 1.3 million; and more than $138 billion in savings by replacing
costly and unworkable weapons systems with more practical, affordable
alternatives. Some of the proposed systems for replacement would
include the F-35 combat aircraft, the MV-22 Osprey, and the
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.
And the list goes on.
A Way Forward is not the onlyset of good
ideas on how to reduce military spending. But-- taking another look at
the list of things we could buy for one trillion dollars if we were not
spending it on wars abroad-it is a good place to start this long over
due work.
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
What is a
trillion? It is a big number for sure. The best explanation I have
found for this mind-blowing figure is from children's book author David
Schwartz. "One million seconds comes out to be about 11 1/2 days. A
billion seconds is 32 years. And a trillion seconds is 32,000 years."
What is a trillion dollars? What can you get for that much money?
Rethink Afghanistan -- Robert Greenwald's effort to help us
understand the war on terror, its costs, and consequences -- has a new Facebook application aimed at breaking down exactly how much we can get for one trillion dollars.
It is fun (in a qualified-world wide web-war on terror sort of way), and eye-opening.
During one round of the game, we were able to spend $999.5 billion to:
... And have $516.5 million left over (way more than enough to pay off my college loans).
A trillion dollars is also what the United States has spent since
2001 on military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, it is being
estimated that another $800 billion plus will be added to the tab
before the wars are ended.
If you're looking forward to a peace dividend as U.S. forces
withdraw from Iraq, you're going to have to wait a while. As the costs
of the Iraq war have been going down, the costs of the war in
Afghanistan have been rising. The financial costs, the numbers of
troops, and the number of casualties in Afghanistan are all getting
larger. This fiscal year (FY 2010), for the first time, more money is
being allocated to Afghanistan than to Iraq.
Since 2003, military operations in Iraq have absorbed the bulk of
war funding-- three or four times as much money as Afghanistan. But
that gap dropped precipitously in 2009.
Now, in 2010, we will spend 10 percent more in Afghanistan than in
Iraq -- and the spending difference will be even more once the $33
billion supplemental funding to pay for the Afghanistan troop surge is
factored in on top of the $72.9 billion allocated up front -- and for
2011, the administration is requesting $110.3 billion for military
operations in Afghanistan and $43.4 billion for ongoing military
operations in Iraq.
Another way to think about the costs of war is per person-how much
does it cost to deploy each individual member of the military. The
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment asserts that
"the annual cost per troop since FY 2005 has averaged $1.186 million in
Afghanistan and $0.685 million in Iraq, in constant-year FY 2011
dollars." That's another reason why, as the war in Iraq winds down - at
whatever rate - the savings are most likely going to be eaten up by the
rising costs of military operations in Afghanistan.
Another way to think about the costs of war is in hours, minutes and seconds. Laicie Olsen of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
has done the math: "In 2010, the troop increase in Afghanistan will
cost $2.5 billion per month, $82 million per day, $3.4 million per
hour, $57,000 per minute, and $951 per second." And that's just for
the $33 billion troop surge, not the $171 billion we're spending on the
two wars.
In short, if we want a peace dividend, we're going to have to find a way to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
There's new evidence to suggest that the current billions being thrown at Afghanistan are not particularly effective. A recent report
from the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction criticizes
the way the Pentagon has been evaluating progress in training the
Afghan military. Most tellingly, the report suggests that after $27
billion spent on training Afghan security forces, even the best-trained
units are still unable to operate independently (i.e., they need
support from U.S. troops to operate in combat zones). According to the New York Times account of the report, it also "details drug abuse, heavy attrition, corruption and illiteracy among the Afghan security forces."
As for U.S. economic aid to Afghanistan, similar problems have been identified. In response to an investigation by the Washington Post indicating that Afghan officials have systematically blocked corruption investigations of politically-connected individuals, Rep. Nita Lowey
(D-NY) has threatened to block a new round of $3.9 billion in aid until
she "has confidence that U.S. taxpayer money is not being abused to
line the pockets of corrupt Afghan government officials, drug lords,
and terrorists."
So, the costs of war and the costs of preparing for war continue to
soar, even in the midst of protracted economic recession and deep
anxiety about the future. New ideas and new perspectives are needed to
rebalance a deeply dysfunctional system.
In the mean time, the Pentagon's base budget-not counting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan-continues to increase. Of the over $700 billion in military spending in 2011, roughly $550 billion is for the "regular" Pentagon budget.
In short, base Pentagon spending is over three times as much as what
is being spent on the wars. Therefore, there is ample room to cut the
Pentagon's base budget even if the costs of Afghanistan and Iraq stay
at their current high levels.
A new report shows just how that might be done. Debt, Deficits and Defense: A Way Forward
was produced by the Sustainable Defense Task Force and illustrates how
the Pentagon can contribute significantly to deficit reduction while
advancing national security goals.
The report presents options for reducing the Pentagon's budget -- in sum saving nearly $1 trillion over the next decade.
Suggested cuts include more than $113 billion in savings by reducing
the U.S. nuclear arsenal to 1,050 total warheads deployed on 450
land-based missiles and seven Ohio-class submarines; Over $200 billion
in savings through reducing U.S. routine military presence in Europe
and Asia to 100,000 while reducing total uniformed military personnel
to 1.3 million; and more than $138 billion in savings by replacing
costly and unworkable weapons systems with more practical, affordable
alternatives. Some of the proposed systems for replacement would
include the F-35 combat aircraft, the MV-22 Osprey, and the
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.
And the list goes on.
A Way Forward is not the onlyset of good
ideas on how to reduce military spending. But-- taking another look at
the list of things we could buy for one trillion dollars if we were not
spending it on wars abroad-it is a good place to start this long over
due work.
What is a
trillion? It is a big number for sure. The best explanation I have
found for this mind-blowing figure is from children's book author David
Schwartz. "One million seconds comes out to be about 11 1/2 days. A
billion seconds is 32 years. And a trillion seconds is 32,000 years."
What is a trillion dollars? What can you get for that much money?
Rethink Afghanistan -- Robert Greenwald's effort to help us
understand the war on terror, its costs, and consequences -- has a new Facebook application aimed at breaking down exactly how much we can get for one trillion dollars.
It is fun (in a qualified-world wide web-war on terror sort of way), and eye-opening.
During one round of the game, we were able to spend $999.5 billion to:
... And have $516.5 million left over (way more than enough to pay off my college loans).
A trillion dollars is also what the United States has spent since
2001 on military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, it is being
estimated that another $800 billion plus will be added to the tab
before the wars are ended.
If you're looking forward to a peace dividend as U.S. forces
withdraw from Iraq, you're going to have to wait a while. As the costs
of the Iraq war have been going down, the costs of the war in
Afghanistan have been rising. The financial costs, the numbers of
troops, and the number of casualties in Afghanistan are all getting
larger. This fiscal year (FY 2010), for the first time, more money is
being allocated to Afghanistan than to Iraq.
Since 2003, military operations in Iraq have absorbed the bulk of
war funding-- three or four times as much money as Afghanistan. But
that gap dropped precipitously in 2009.
Now, in 2010, we will spend 10 percent more in Afghanistan than in
Iraq -- and the spending difference will be even more once the $33
billion supplemental funding to pay for the Afghanistan troop surge is
factored in on top of the $72.9 billion allocated up front -- and for
2011, the administration is requesting $110.3 billion for military
operations in Afghanistan and $43.4 billion for ongoing military
operations in Iraq.
Another way to think about the costs of war is per person-how much
does it cost to deploy each individual member of the military. The
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment asserts that
"the annual cost per troop since FY 2005 has averaged $1.186 million in
Afghanistan and $0.685 million in Iraq, in constant-year FY 2011
dollars." That's another reason why, as the war in Iraq winds down - at
whatever rate - the savings are most likely going to be eaten up by the
rising costs of military operations in Afghanistan.
Another way to think about the costs of war is in hours, minutes and seconds. Laicie Olsen of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
has done the math: "In 2010, the troop increase in Afghanistan will
cost $2.5 billion per month, $82 million per day, $3.4 million per
hour, $57,000 per minute, and $951 per second." And that's just for
the $33 billion troop surge, not the $171 billion we're spending on the
two wars.
In short, if we want a peace dividend, we're going to have to find a way to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
There's new evidence to suggest that the current billions being thrown at Afghanistan are not particularly effective. A recent report
from the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction criticizes
the way the Pentagon has been evaluating progress in training the
Afghan military. Most tellingly, the report suggests that after $27
billion spent on training Afghan security forces, even the best-trained
units are still unable to operate independently (i.e., they need
support from U.S. troops to operate in combat zones). According to the New York Times account of the report, it also "details drug abuse, heavy attrition, corruption and illiteracy among the Afghan security forces."
As for U.S. economic aid to Afghanistan, similar problems have been identified. In response to an investigation by the Washington Post indicating that Afghan officials have systematically blocked corruption investigations of politically-connected individuals, Rep. Nita Lowey
(D-NY) has threatened to block a new round of $3.9 billion in aid until
she "has confidence that U.S. taxpayer money is not being abused to
line the pockets of corrupt Afghan government officials, drug lords,
and terrorists."
So, the costs of war and the costs of preparing for war continue to
soar, even in the midst of protracted economic recession and deep
anxiety about the future. New ideas and new perspectives are needed to
rebalance a deeply dysfunctional system.
In the mean time, the Pentagon's base budget-not counting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan-continues to increase. Of the over $700 billion in military spending in 2011, roughly $550 billion is for the "regular" Pentagon budget.
In short, base Pentagon spending is over three times as much as what
is being spent on the wars. Therefore, there is ample room to cut the
Pentagon's base budget even if the costs of Afghanistan and Iraq stay
at their current high levels.
A new report shows just how that might be done. Debt, Deficits and Defense: A Way Forward
was produced by the Sustainable Defense Task Force and illustrates how
the Pentagon can contribute significantly to deficit reduction while
advancing national security goals.
The report presents options for reducing the Pentagon's budget -- in sum saving nearly $1 trillion over the next decade.
Suggested cuts include more than $113 billion in savings by reducing
the U.S. nuclear arsenal to 1,050 total warheads deployed on 450
land-based missiles and seven Ohio-class submarines; Over $200 billion
in savings through reducing U.S. routine military presence in Europe
and Asia to 100,000 while reducing total uniformed military personnel
to 1.3 million; and more than $138 billion in savings by replacing
costly and unworkable weapons systems with more practical, affordable
alternatives. Some of the proposed systems for replacement would
include the F-35 combat aircraft, the MV-22 Osprey, and the
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.
And the list goes on.
A Way Forward is not the onlyset of good
ideas on how to reduce military spending. But-- taking another look at
the list of things we could buy for one trillion dollars if we were not
spending it on wars abroad-it is a good place to start this long over
due work.