Cost of Iraq/Afghan war estimates adjusted to $4-6 trillion

[CTBengalsFan]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-10-27/the-economic-crisis-and-the-hidden-cost-of-the-wars/full/

[quote]As Election Day draws near, it's pretty clear: Voters are worried about jobs, the budget deficit and the rising national debt.

But behind those issues—behind the ads and candidates' speeches, behind the rhetoric about "out-of-control" government spending—there lurks a hidden, less-talked-about issue: the cost of the on-going wars.

Already, we've spent more than $1 trillion in Iraq, not counting the $700 billion consumed each year by the Pentagon budget. And spending in Iraq and Afghanistan now comes to more than $3 billion weekly, making the wars a major reason for record-level budget deficits.

Two years ago, Joseph Stiglitz and I published The Three Trillion Dollar War in which we estimated that the budgetary and economic costs of the war would reach $3 trillion.

Taking new numbers into account, however, we now believe that our initial estimate was far too conservative—the cost of the wars will reach between $4 trillion and $6 trillion.

For example, we recently analyzed the medical and disability claim patterns for almost a million troops who have returned from the wars, and, based on this record, we've revised our estimate upward to between $600 and $900 billion—a broad specter, yes, but certainly also a significant upward tick from our earlier projection of $400 billion to $700 billion, based on historical patterns.

Similarly, our estimates for the economic and social costs associated with returning veterans can be expected to rise by at least a third - the staggering toll of repeated deployments over the past decade.

We have already spent more than $1 trillion in Iraq… and weekly—yes, weekly—spending in Iraq and Afghanistan now comes to more than $3 billion.

The Bush administration not only vastly underestimated the cost of the wars but cut taxes twice—in 2001 and 2003—just as we were ramping up the war effort. This was the first time in U.S. history that a government cut taxes while also appropriating huge new sums to fight a war. And the consequence is that the wars added substantially to the federal debt.

Between 2003 and 2008 - before the financial crisis unfolded - the debt rose from $6.4 trillion to $10 trillion, and, at least one-quarter of this increase was directly attributable to the wars, first in Iraq and then in Afghanistan.

For example, in March 2003—the month of the Iraq invasion - oil prices hovered just under $25 per barrel. Immediately afterward, however, prices started to soar, reaching $140 a barrel five years later. Add to that: for Americans, the war-spending left us with much less wiggle room domestically to deal with the financial crisis.

In the run up to the election, people have expressed concerns about the debt and the deficit, as well as the huge ongoing burden of funding the conflict, and the constraints they exert on the size of the economic stimulus package.

Here is what we know: the legacy of the wars will continue to drag the economy down.

The long-term costs of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan will be higher than previous wars because of higher survival rates, greater incidence of PTSD and other mental health disorders. Additionally, a higher percentage of veterans are claiming disability benefits, and far more veterans have served multiple tours of duty.

Taken in context, history shows that the cost of caring for war veterans typically peaks 40 years after a conflict ends. The peak year for paying out disability claims to World War I veterans didn't occur until 1969; the peak for paying out World War II benefits was in the 1980s, and we have not yet reached the peak cost for Vietnam veterans. Even the Gulf War of 1991, which lasted just six weeks, now costs more than $4 billion a year in veterans' disability compensation.

Hundreds of thousands of veterans have already been treated in VA medical facilities; and many will require care for the rest of their lives. Half a million people plus have filed for disability compensation. And the total lifetime cost of providing for these veterans is likely to tally between $600 billion and $900 billion, as mentioned above. But of course, even these huge numbers doesn't include the economic costs that are borne by veterans and their families, in terms of diminished quality of life, lost employment and long-term suffering.

Even after "combat," when troops have withdrawn, we will need to find billions of dollars to replace vehicles, weapons and other equipment, stolen from the military and now repatriated.

It is this spending (and the accompanying debt) that will one day need to be paid, that is truly haunting the November elections. We just don't care to connect the dots. Iraq and Afghanistan cast a long shadow. We will be living with their legacy for decades.[/quote]

[Ben]

It is unpatriotic to think we are not doing baby jesus's work in those godforsaken lands!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[oldschooler]

What amount would have been acceptable?

And I know most here believe we shouldn't have went to Iraq.
But we shouldn't have went to Afghanistan either?

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='oldschooler' timestamp='1288182261' post='935031']
What amount would have been acceptable?

And I know most here believe we shouldn't have went to Iraq.
But we shouldn't have went to Afghanistan either?
[/quote]


We shouldnt be fighting this war in the way we are fighting it. You dont win this kind of war with a large brute force attack, just ask Russia, it needs to be a covert which would cost less imo.

[|Elflocko|]

Stop funding NPR!!!

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Elflocko' timestamp='1288186492' post='935055']
Stop funding NPR!!!























[/quote]

[Ben]

Their liberal viewpoints have emboldened the enemy. The mission was accomplished prior to their hate campaign.


[quote name='Elflocko' timestamp='1288186492' post='935055']
Stop funding NPR!!!























[/quote]

[sois]

Freedom isn't free.

[oldschooler]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1288186151' post='935053']
We shouldnt be fighting this war in the way we are fighting it. You dont win this kind of war with a large brute force attack, just ask Russia, it needs to be a covert which would cost less imo.
[/quote]

Weren't we fighting it mostly covert, until the recent surge?
And didn't we surge because the Taliban was gaining strength?


Russia never had as much success there as we have had.

[mullichicken25]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1288186151' post='935053']
We shouldnt be fighting this war in the way we are fighting it. You dont win this kind of war with a large brute force attack, just ask Russia, it needs to be a covert which would cost less imo.
[/quote]

i think we really have no clue how the fuck to win that war

theres no simple answer

its a complicated enviorment with an extremely complex and dificult to define enemy

covert style operations arent as "simple" as they'd seem due to complexity of the structure of the enemy, there is no central web or real hiearchy of their operations. each piece of the puzzle knows almost nothing of the other pieces and operates in near complete isolation.

also, going striaght to the top and removing "leaders" is inefective because there is always a next guy ready to take the job. its continuously fed from the bottom

to me it seems like we got there ready to blow some shit up, then sotpped and said, "wait a minute...what the fuck is going on here?" and thats how you end up with a 9 year war

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='oldschooler' timestamp='1288188267' post='935067']
Weren't we fighting it mostly covert, until the recent surge?
And didn't we surge because the Taliban was gaining strength?


Russia never had as much success there as we have had.
[/quote]


Covert as in nobody should have even knew we were there.

[oldschooler]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1288190282' post='935070']
Covert as in nobody should have even knew we were there.
[/quote]


I don't even know what to think about this post, or how to respond to it.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='oldschooler' timestamp='1288190523' post='935071']
I don't even know what to think about this post, or how to respond to it.
[/quote]


I'm not saying not be there, Im saying it should have been a war that nobody knew about. I also realize that sadly this is impossible because it wouldnt satisfy the blood lust of the American people for revenge.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='sois' timestamp='1288187461' post='935063']
Freedom isn't free.
[/quote]


"Not only is freedom not free, it ain't cheep" - Stephen Colbert

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/363236/october-26-2010/the-word---invisible-inc-?xrs=synd_facebook

[CTBengalsFan]

[quote name='oldschooler' timestamp='1288182261' post='935031']
What amount would have been acceptable?

And I know most here believe we shouldn't have went to Iraq.
But we shouldn't have went to Afghanistan either?
[/quote]

Let's see we went to Afghanistan to [s]kill bin Laden[/s] (woops he's probably already dead, can't admit that thoguh), [s]dispense al-Qaeda[/s] (oh wait they're not even in Afghanistan anymore), [s]defeat the Taliban[/s] (another group who didn't attack us on 9/11, and of course we now refer to anyone resisting foreign occupation there as Taliban), support the building of a new nation with our new favorite puppet (who likes to talk shit about the USA behind our backs - but can we really blame him)? Wait, why are we there again?

It took them less time to realize Vietnam had been a waste of time.

[oldschooler]

[quote name='CTBengalsFan' timestamp='1288208943' post='935149']
Let's see we went to Afghanistan to [s]kill bin Laden[/s] (woops he's probably already dead, can't admit that thoguh), [s]dispense al-Qaeda[/s] (oh wait they're not even in Afghanistan anymore), [s]defeat the Taliban[/s] (another group who didn't attack us on 9/11, and of course we now refer to anyone resisting foreign occupation there as Taliban), support the building of a new nation with our new favorite puppet (who likes to talk shit about the USA behind our backs - but can we really blame him)? Wait, why are we there again?

It took them less time to realize Vietnam had been a waste of time.
[/quote]


You're a conspiracy freak. You need to lay off the weed.
It is making you paranoid. Thankfully, I never had that problem.
But seriously, you have issues.


So Bin Laden is dead?

The Taliban was in charge and is fighting along side Al-Qaeda.
So what if they didn't attack, they gave refufe to the motherfuckers.
And when we told them to hand them over, they said fuck you come
and get them.

They are there.

Waste of time?

I guess we should have just let them attack and go about our biness, huh?

Good Lord.

[oldschooler]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1288194896' post='935102']
I'm not saying not be there, Im saying it should have been a war that nobody knew about. I also realize that sadly this is impossible because it wouldnt satisfy the blood lust of the American people for revenge.
[/quote]


Wait, so we should have just invaded a Country secretly and killed people secretly
without anyone knowing anything about it, without there being any prisoners or anything?

I thought you were against that kind of shit?

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='oldschooler' timestamp='1288215503' post='935172']
Wait, so we should have just invaded a Country secretly and killed people secretly
without anyone knowing anything about it, without there being any prisoners or anything?

I thought you were against that kind of shit?
[/quote]


I'm against it when its in South American countries that didnt do anything to us yes.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='oldschooler' timestamp='1288215365' post='935171']
You're a conspiracy freak. You need to lay off the weed.
It is making you paranoid. Thankfully, I never had that problem.
But seriously, you have issues.


So Bin Laden is dead?

The Taliban was in charge and is fighting along side Al-Qaeda.
So what if they didn't attack, they gave refufe to the motherfuckers.
And when we told them to hand them over, they said fuck you come
and get them.

They are there.

Waste of time?

I guess we should have just let them attack and go about our biness, huh?

Good Lord.
[/quote]


What exactly have we accomplished in Afghanistan? Honestly.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1288194896' post='935102']
I'm not saying not be there, Im saying it should have been a war that nobody knew about. I also realize that sadly this is impossible because it wouldnt satisfy the blood lust of the American people for revenge.
[/quote]

[b]Jamie[/b], this "secret covert war" you propose isn't impossible due to your claim about Americans wanting revenge, its impossible from a logistical, communication, intelligence, supply, support and media standpoint. Nor is it an easy task, at all, even given overcoming those obstacles. Our special forces, "dark ops", Delta Force and all the rest of them are the best trained troops in the world and all of that doesn't amount to a hill of beans in a covert operation if you don't have actionable intel from the ground that you can immediately pounce upon. These shady Taliban and Al-Qaeda types are [i]constantly[/i] on the move, living in ungodly terrain, moving about with underground tunnel networks as well as mingling with a sympathetic civilian population. Satellites in this war are as useless as tanks. We would need to infiltrate their networks and operations for this to succeed. We simply do not have enough Arab-looking, Pashtun-speaking people in our armed forces that are as highly trained as all the rest of our special forces.

The way we are approaching this war now (under the McChrystal plan, which we are still operating under despite his retirement) is the best way we can do it with what we have, which is to clear areas and hold them, then work with the native population and help them and show them how they can eke out a better life under the protection of a fledgling government and the soon to be highly trained Afghani security forces than relying on the unstable Taliban. As far as I can tell, it seems to be meeting with gradual success, but this isn't going to end overnight and there are no guarantees. But the alternative to simply withdraw and allow the bad guys to regain control isn't an option either.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='oldschooler' timestamp='1288182261' post='935031']
What amount would have been acceptable?

And I know most here believe we shouldn't have went to Iraq.
But we shouldn't have went to Afghanistan either?
[/quote]
No, we should not have invaded Afghanistan either. It's ironic that our foreign policy outlook is so short-sighted that we essentially walked right into the same trap the Russians did considering that the US had a lot to do with bleeding Russia dry when they invaded. And, geopolitically speaking, one could make a much better argument for the Russians initial intervention/invasion than ours.

But the interesting element here is the money question. And to understand the root problems here would require acknowledging that Eisenhower's warning was spot on. And if one does, then one would have to begin reviewing our expenditures beginning with Vietnam and the crucial role that shift in spending played in destroying the post WWII Bretton Woods gold-based clearing methods for international trade as it was transformed into an international standard based on the US T-bill as the central medium of trade reconciliation. Which shift has, in many respects, contributed to our current instabilities as a debtor instead of a creditor in the international arena. That chicken is coming home to roost now and will be more and more apparent of the next few years as other nations begin to more forcefully reject the Washington Consensus and dollar hegemony, if only to sabe their own national skins. Expect this process to accelerate beginning next week if Bernanke does move forward with QE2.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1288221509' post='935180']
No, we should not have invaded Afghanistan either. It's ironic that our foreign policy outlook is so short-sighted that we essentially walked right into the same trap the Russians did considering that the US had a lot to do with bleeding Russia dry when they invaded.
[/quote]

Yes we should have and no we didn't. It isn't the same as then. The terrorist organizations may be loosely organized, but they are a hell of a lot more well-funded and organized [i]now[/i] than they ever were [i]before[/i].

My biggest beef remains that we should have devoted more if not all of our efforts into Afghanistan from the outset rather than wasting blood and treasure in Iraq for even more ambiguous aims.

[|Elflocko|]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1288221509' post='935180']
No, we should not have invaded Afghanistan either. It's ironic that our foreign policy outlook is so short-sighted that we essentially walked right into the same trap the Russians did considering that the US had a lot to do with bleeding Russia dry when they invaded. And, geopolitically speaking, one could make a much better argument for the Russians initial intervention/invasion than ours.

[b]But the interesting element here is the money question. And to understand the root problems here would require acknowledging that Eisenhower's warning was spot on. [/b]
[/quote]


Damn straight.

And just how bad have things gotten that I'm actually agreeing with Michael fucking Moore?

[quote]Published on Thursday, September 30, 2010 by CommonDreams.org
[size="5"][b]Dwight Was Right[/b][/size]

by Michael Moore

So...it turns out President Eisenhower wasn't making up all that stuff about the military-industrial complex .

That's what you'll conclude if you read Bob Woodward's new book, Obama's War. (You can read excerpts of it here , here and here .) You thought you voted for change when you cast a ballot for Barack Obama? Um, not when it comes to America occupying countries that don't begin with a "U" and an "S."

In fact, after you read Woodward's book, you'll split a gut every time you hear a politician or a government teacher talk about "civilian control over the military." The only people really making the decisions about America's wars are across the river from Washington in the Pentagon. They wear uniforms. They have lots of weapons they bought from the corporations they will work for when they retire.

For everyone who supported Obama in 2008, it's reassuring to find out he understands we have to get out of Afghanistan. But for everyone who's worried about Obama in 2010, it's scary to find out that what he thinks should be done may not actually matter. And that's because he's not willing to stand up to the people who actually run this country.

And here's the part I don't even want to write -- and none of you really want to consider:

It matters not whom we elect. The Pentagon and the military contractors call the shots. The title "Commander in Chief" is ceremonial, like "Employee of the Month" at your local Burger King.

Everything you need to know can be found in just two paragraphs from Obama's War. Here's the scene: Obama is meeting with his National Security Council staff on the Saturday after Thanksgiving last year. He's getting ready to give a big speech announcing his new strategy for Afghanistan. Except...the strategy isn't set yet. The military has presented him with just one option: escalation. But at the last minute, Obama tells everyone, hold up -- the door to a plan for withdrawal isn't closed.

The brass isn't having it:

"Mr. President," [Army Col. John Tien] said, "I don't see how you can defy your military chain here. We kind of are where we are. Because if you tell General McChrystal, 'I got your assessment, got your resource constructs, but I've chosen to do something else,' you're going to probably have to replace him. You can't tell him, 'Just do it my way, thanks for your hard work.' And then where does that stop?"

The colonel did not have to elaborate. His implication was that not only McChrystal but the entire military high command might go in an unprecedented toppling -- Gates; Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and Gen. David H. Petraeus, then head of U.S. Central Command. Perhaps no president could weather that, especially a 48-year-old with four years in the U.S. Senate and 10 months as commander in chief.

And, well, the rest is history. Three days later Obama announced the escalation at West Point. And he became our newest war president .

But here's the question Woodward doesn't answer: Why, exactly, can't a president weather ending a war, even if he has to fire all his generals to do it? It's right there in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution: The President's in charge of the military. And so is Congress: the army can't just march over to the Treasury Department and steal the money for wars. Article I, Section 9 says Congress has to appropriate it.

In the real world, though, the Constitution's just a piece of paper. In the real world, a President who fired his top military in order to stop a war would be ruined before you could say "bloodless coup." The Washington Post (filled with ads from Boeing and Northrop Grumman) would scream about how he was the reincarnation of Neville Chamberlain. Fox and CNN (filled with "experts" who work for think tanks funded by Raytheon and General Dynamics) would say he was a girly-man who had to be impeached. And Congress (which experienced its own escalation in lobbying from defense contractors just as the Afghanistan escalation was being decided) might well do it. (By the way, if you want to listen to Lyndon Johnson talk in 1964 about how he might be impeached if he didn't follow the military-industrial complex's orders and escalate the war in Vietnam, just go here .)

So here's your assignment for tonight: Watch Eisenhower's famous farewell speech . And then start thinking about how we can tame this beast. The Soviet Union had its own military-industrial complex, which is one reason they got into Afghanistan...which is one reason there's no more Soviet Union. It happened to them.

Don't think it can happen to us?


Michael Moore is an activist, author, and filmmaker. See more of his work at his website MichaelMoore.com[/quote]

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='Bunghole' timestamp='1288221509' post='935179']
[b]Jamie[/b], this "secret covert war" you propose isn't impossible due to your claim about Americans wanting revenge, its impossible from a logistical, communication, intelligence, supply, support and media standpoint. Nor is it an easy task, at all, even given overcoming those obstacles. Our special forces, "dark ops", Delta Force and all the rest of them are the best trained troops in the world and all of that doesn't amount to a hill of beans in a covert operation if you don't have actionable intel from the ground that you can immediately pounce upon. These shady Taliban and Al-Qaeda types are [i]constantly[/i] on the move, living in ungodly terrain, moving about with underground tunnel networks as well as mingling with a sympathetic civilian population. Satellites in this war are as useless as tanks. We would need to infiltrate their networks and operations for this to succeed. We simply do not have enough Arab-looking, Pashtun-speaking people in our armed forces that are as highly trained as all the rest of our special forces.

The way we are approaching this war now (under the McChrystal plan, which we are still operating under despite his retirement) is the best way we can do it with what we have, which is to clear areas and hold them, then work with the native population and help them and show them how they can eke out a better life under the protection of a fledgling government and the soon to be highly trained Afghani security forces than relying on the unstable Taliban. As far as I can tell, it seems to be meeting with gradual success, but this isn't going to end overnight and there are no guarantees. But the alternative to simply withdraw and allow the bad guys to regain control isn't an option either.
[/quote]
Good post, Bung.

I was driving home the other night and heard a radio announcement stating that another Ft. Campbell soldier had died from an IED. The kid was from around Dayton if I remember correctly. This sort of thing always makes me sad, but in this case, I was particularly saddened because I think this kid was part of the unit that [url="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2010/11/the-last-patrol/8266/"]replaced this outfit, which is profiled in The Atlantic.[/url] I could be mistaken about that, but in any case that was the immediate connection I made in my mind.

You and I, and I'm sure the many other veterans on this board, too, probably are pretty sensitive to the human costs of war. And as I have stated before, I'm proud to have served my country, but not so proud to have been tacitly a pawn in what I believe to be our foreign policy goofs since the time of Vietnam. That's why I disagree with the notion that we have to go off willy-nilly in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. And while I think Jamie is a little unrealistic in his "covert" thoughts--for reasons you aptly point out--I do sympathize with the idea that there are ways to handle some of these conflicts at a threshold lower than an undeclared, but [i]de facto[/i], war.

Our boys and girls are just too important to our future than to be cynically sending them off to get their arms and legs blown off in the interests of folks who, in many cases, demonstrably don't give a hoot about their fellow citizens. I say "demonstrably" with confidence because many of the folks who favor these monstrous foreign adventures are the very same people who are keenly hammering our economy and our working and middle classes, into the ground.

So, Fuck them. And fuck anybody who keeps apologizing for this crap, especially those who do so from incredible ignorance.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='Bunghole' timestamp='1288221759' post='935182']
Yes we should have and no we didn't. It isn't the same as then. The terrorist organizations may be loosely organized, but they are a hell of a lot more well-funded and organized [i]now[/i] than they ever were [i]before[/i].

My biggest beef remains that we should have devoted more if not all of our efforts into Afghanistan from the outset rather than wasting blood and treasure in Iraq for even more ambiguous aims.
[/quote]
We're just going to disagree on this.