How Much Does 4 Years Of War Cost?

The U.S. Has Spent Close To $500 Billion On The War In Iraq

(AP)  In four years, the United States has spent close to $500 billion on the war in Iraq — more than the total for the Korean War and nearly as much as 12 years in Vietnam, adjusting for inflation. The ultimate cost could reach $1 trillion or more.

A lot of money? No question.

But even though the war has turned out to be much more expensive than Bush administration officials predicted on the eve of the March 2003 invasion, it is relatively affordable — at least in historical terms.

Iraq eats up less than 1 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, compared with as much as 14 percent for Vietnam and 9 percent for Korea.

"I think it's hard to argue it's not affordable," said Steven M. Kosiak, director of budget studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a defense think tank in Washington, D.C.

The problem, he and other budget analysts argue, isn't so much the overall cost of the Iraq war. It's the way the government has chosen to pay for it.

For one thing, war funding for both Iraq and Afghanistan has come in the form of supplemental appropriations outside the normal federal budget process. Typically these "supplementals" are used to pay for unexpected emergencies such as Hurricane Katrina, and they receive much less scrutiny from Congress.

President Truman quit asking for supplementals after the first year of the Korean War. The Vietnam War started appearing in the federal budget beginning in 1966, the year after regular troops were committed.

But after four years the Iraq war is still being funded with supplementals. In December, congressional budget leaders from both parties sent a letter to President Bush asking him to start paying for Iraq through the traditional budget process. The administration has done that in its 2008 budget year request — but not before asking for another $100 billion supplemental to keep the war going through the end of this year.

And during previous wars, presidents have asked Americans to make tough sacrifices in order to help pay for the war effort, said Robert Hormats, a managing director at Goldman Sachs and author of the forthcoming book "The Price of Liberty: Paying for America's Wars."

Virtually every war in U.S. history has required the government to borrow at least some money, Hormats said. But Franklin D. Roosevelt also eliminated some New Deal programs and cut others to help pay for World War II (the most expensive of American wars, it cost more than $2 trillion in inflation-adjusted dollars). Truman raised taxes and slashed domestic spending to help pay for Korea.

"No such thing has occurred" during this war, Hormats lamented this month during a panel discussion held at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis in New York City. "This war we had no reassessment of fiscal policy, no alteration of fiscal policy to make room in the budget to pay for the war."

Instead, the war is being paid for with debt.

Administration officials downplay the war's cost and the growing defense budget, which will be larger by the end of this year than at any time since World War II.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates acknowledged in Congressional testimony last month that his department's 2008 budget request, along with supplemental funding for the war, had produced some "sticker shock." But he pointed out that defense and war spending is still only about 4 percent of the nation's total economic output, a much smaller fraction that it has been historically.

If anything, notes former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, that's a testament to how big and strong the U.S. economy has become in the past few decades.

"We've demonstrated tremendous capacity to do a very, very expensive program," said Kerrey, a Democrat who now serves as president of the New School.

He and others say that the continued strength of the economy itself is a demonstration of the war's affordability. But with projections that the costs of Social Security and especially Medicare are about to go through the roof — not to mention the possibility of future national security crises — the war is contributing to a fiscal problem that is expected to become increasingly apparent over the course of the next decade.

And the war's costs will continue to accrue long after the last U.S. troops finally leave Iraq. A recent study by Linda Bilmes of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government put the total cost of providing medical care and disability benefits to veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan at $350 billion to $700 billion.

That huge cost is partly a result of the number and type of casualties the Iraq war has produced. Troops in Iraq have a much better chance of surviving serious injuries than those wounded in previous wars; there have been 16 troops wounded there for every fatality, compared to 2.6 injuries per death in Vietnam and 2.8 in Korea.

"While it is welcome news and a credit to military medicine that more soldiers are surviving grievous wounds, the existence of so many veterans, with such a high level of injuries, is yet another aspect of this war for which the Pentagon and the administration failed to plan, prepare and budget," Bilmes wrote in a January working paper.

In a study co-authored with Columbia University economist and Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, Bilmes estimated that the real price of the Iraq war, when you add up spending to date, future costs and economic impacts such as elevated oil prices, is well over $2 trillion.

That's an impressive number. But it needs to be compared to the cost of leaving Saddam Hussein in power, said Steven J. Davis, a business professor at the University of Chicago.

"You might even still today hold the view that the other path would have been more costly in economic terms than the path we've gone down," Davis said.

Davis and two colleagues considered that possibility in a working paper they have presented several times and circulated through the National Bureau on Economic Research.

Certainly the military cost of keeping Saddam under wraps would have been less than the cost of the Iraq war. For more than a decade, enforcing no-fly zones and conducting weapons inspections contained the dictator at a fraction of the war's cost. Davis and his colleagues estimated that continuing that strategy would have cost of about $14.5 billion a year, a tenth of the cost of the Iraq war.

But what if it failed? What if an increasingly troublesome Saddam Hussein provoked repeated military responses from the United States? What if he grew more powerful and eventually had to be overthown by force? What if he sponsored a terrorist attack on the United States?

The Chicago team put the potential cost of such outcomes at anywhere between $50 billion and $700 billion. That's a shockingly broad range, and where the true figure lies depends on how much of a threat Saddam Hussein would have become had he remained in power — something nobody really knows.

[nrgspirit]

Where is ANYTHING promised by the Bush administration?

[seniorengine]

Four years of war is affordeable in comparison to Kore and Vietnam??? The author has definitely been smoking dope. If we would have put 500 billion into our own country, I can only start to imagine what could have been accomplished. That figure does not take into account the damage to soldiers and their families. But that is irrelevent to Bush, Cheney and Rice. None of them served one days active duty. There is a place in hell waiting for them.

[diplomacy3]

The United States has approved a visa for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to enable him to address the U.N. Security Council over Tehran's nuclear program, the State Department said on Monday....


Everybody likes America?? Let's show him around!

[randalds]

And just think folks, how much of that 500 BILLION when into the neocon's pockets.

Enough to make you sick, isn't it.
Posted by clestes at 03:44 PM : Mar 19, 2007

The sad truth is most of it did. This has been the largest robbery in world history. The neocons have robbed the American taxpayers for hundreds of trillions of dollars and used the blood of our troops to do it. Now the biggest beneficiary of the war, D*icky Cheney's company Halliburton is moving to Middle-East. Getting out of town with the money they stole like the criminals they are. this has not been an administration, it's been a criminal enterprise from the start and we're the ones who got robbed. Sick. Sick. Sick.

[clestes-2009]

And just think folks, how much of that 500 BILLION when into the neocon's pockets.

Enough to make you sick, isn't it.

[zoroastor]

US Infidel,

You and your ilk are naive, knee-jerk reactionaries who believes EVERYTHING you read that fits your idealogy - even when it is completely unsupported with facts. Everything you hear that does not support your PARANOID worldview, you catergorize as a conspiricy from the evil media.
You continue to support an administration in the face of irrefutable evidence indicating wrongdoing on every level. You do so in three steps, deny, distract and defend.
"Gonzales didn't lie!"
"Oh! Hey, look over there..."
"He had to lie to protect patriotism and national security!"
I am so sick and tired of the neo-cons WHINING about the liberal media, the alleged moral vacuum of the Democrats and the historically innaccurate fiscal irresponsibility of the left (in fact history says the opposite). It has all the tone and tenor of a SPOILED CHILD who cries when he or she doesn't get his way, and smirks and flaunts when she does.
The neo-cons, and thereby the entire Republican party by association, is a JOKE!
People like you should not be allowed to vote.

[dallison7]

You right wingnuts need to face the truth, Bush is a 'one-trick pony'... HE LIES!!

[coffeehead-2009]

Between the theft of personal income via banking scandals - costing taxpayers billions *enron/lucent/etc....
The raping of taxpayers fund to feed private corps. and privatized "detention" centers, privatized religious patronage for profit....
We could ALL be millionaires in this country.


Its largest obtainable government contract is with the State Department, for providing security to US diplomats and facilities in Iraq. That contract began in 2003 with the company's $21 million no-bid deal to protect Iraq proconsul Paul Bremer.
June 2004 Blackwater has been awarded $750 million in State Department contracts alone.The size and scope of the government contracts awarded to Halliburton in connection with the war in Iraq are significantly greater than was previously disclosed and demonstrate the U.S. military's increasing reliance on for-profit corporations to run its logistical operations. Independent experts estimate that as much as one-third of the monthly $3.9 billion cost of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq is going to independent contractors.

The value of Halliburton's Iraq contracts has crossed the $10 billion threshold. Halliburton has now received $8.3 billion in Iraq work under its LOGCAP troop support contract and $2.5 billion under its no-bid Restore Iraqi Oil (RIO) contract, a total of $10.8 billion.

[scott4261]

US_Infidel,

Unlike you and others who cannot find fault with Bush on ANYTHING, I read and get my news from sources other than FOX News. It takes quite a bit more research because the notion of a "liberal media" is a myth perpetuated by the Limbaughs and Hannitys of the broadcasting business it you guys just eat it up. Even to label CBS as "liberal media" is a joke.

The list of corruption is way too long for one post. Off the top of my head, though; if the I. Scooter Libby trial, Valerie Plame, the Department of Justice scandal, the blatant stealing of elections and suppression of eligible voters, and the Iraq war (along with the war profiteering that drives it) are not enough to convince you, then you are as myopic as they come.

But then, you are one of the most consistent of the Bush apologists on these blogs. You enjoy your punch.

[scott4261]

US_Infidel,

Unlike you and others who cannot find fault with Bush on ANYTHING, I read and get my news from sources other than FOX News. It takes quite a bit more research because the notion of a "liberal media" is a myth perpetuated by the Limbaughs and Hannitys of the broadcating business it you guys just eat it up. Even to call CBS "liberal media" is a joke.

The list of corruption is way too long for one post. Off the top of my head, though; if the I. Scooter Libby trial, Valerie Plame, the Department of Justice scandal, the balnatant stealing of elections and suppression of eligible voters, and the Iraq war along with the war profiteering that drives it are not enough to convince you, then you are as myopic as they come.

But then, you are one of the most consistant of the Bush apologists on these blogs. You enjoy your punch.

[canyoutellme-2009]

I've come to the conclusion that US_infidel is just a troll, trying to stir up trouble. He's constantly given proof and reason and yet pretends like it has never been said and just continues to throw in the republiCON talking points. He's a fake and he knows it. For some reason, he's getting his kicks on a message board which to me, shows that he is not taking these issues of Life and Death seriously.

If he is serious, then that's scary.. he's willing to blindly follow anything his master Bush tells him to do... truly sick.

[sshard]

When the House committee approved a bill calling for the withdrawal of the troop, and required troops have proper training, equipment and rest, Bush said all thing were unacceptable. His reason was it would handcuff his generals. I can see his problem with the withdrawal section, but the other parts. And this is saying he supports the troops?

[canyoutellme-2009]

US Infidel, you said..

"I agree, the war was an error. But unlike your kind, Americans don't stab their president in the back in front of the whole world. Pay attention.....if you badmouth the president, and the president sent the troops, then you are badmouthing the troops. Get it? "

That's such bullsh*t and you know it. We bad mouth the president because he's wrong on just about EVERYTHING including this war. "The war was an error" you say. If he had not gone into the war in the first place (LIKE THE DEMOCRATS WHO ARE NOT IN OFFICE TRIED TO TELL HIM OVER AND OVER AGAIN), then there would be no troops dead in Iraq today. THAT is supporting the troops. Blindly going into war and then YOU supporting him solely because he is the president thereby getting THOUSANDS of innocent Americans KILLED in the process is NOT supporting the troops. YOU are directly responsible for their deaths in a war that we cannot win. You are implicit in their deaths and not a D*MNED thing you say can get you out of it.

Supporting your troops is wanting them ALIVE, not purposefully wanting them to DIE for an idealistic war which has created MORE terrorists than EVER before. Unbelieveable.

BTW, your intention on wiping out terrorism is honorable. EVERYONE has that same exact goal. However, the ability to do so is like wiping out the balance between good and evil. It is too grand an idea. It's like saying "We want world peace and will kill everyone who is against it to get there"

[dallison7]

if you badmouth the president, and the president sent the troops, then you are badmouthing the troops. Get it?
Posted by US_Infidel


That is about the most ignorant thing I have ever read. I personally spit on Bush while I honor the troops.

[canyoutellme-2009]

Scott, i'm with you on that!

Let's see...

Republicans say they SUPPORT the troops. They willingly send our men and women into a battle with LESS than appropriate equipment. They are slaughtered every day for a war we supposedly won a long time ago. They're fighting a war of ideas which they cannot win. BUT hey ,they support the troops by putting that yellow sticker on their SUV's; wonderful support.

Democrats on the other hand, value the LIVES of the troops by wanting them back home. What more could we dems do to prove we support the troops? We don't want them killed over Bush's war on ideas which cannot be won. INstead, we want them here so they can be with their families and friends and LIVE. And this is somehow emboldening the enemy? HUH?

have the cons realized that our military is stretched so thin that if we DO get some kind of attack on our homeland right now, we're COMPLETELY vulnerable?? Did you know that? Yet DEMS are the ones who hate America?? Sounds to me like the CONs are the ones who HATE america and our troops and their families. Geez, everything that is going on proves it. They hate America SO MUCH that they're willing to vote away the freedoms of citizens (a la the Patriot Act, what a farce).

For once CONs, stop thinking about who will win an election and do what is RIGHT!!!!! What is RIGHT is we get out of this ridiculous war based on FALSE info and attend to matters at HOME in AMERICA... you know, the America that you CONs say that we DEMs hate.

[us_infidel]

of this corrupt administration.
This war has been a grave error.
Posted by scott4261 at 01:28 PM : Mar 19, 2007

Corrupt? How so? Let's see all your damning evidence. And I'm not talking about your left wing talking points......I'm talking about hard evidence!

I agree, the war was an error. But unlike your kind, Americans don't stab their president in the back in front of the whole world. Pay attention.....if you badmouth the president, and the president sent the troops, then you are badmouthing the troops. Get it?

[scott4261]

I have to ask the question again: HOW has the war in Iraq been worth it? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden couldn't have conspired to attack the U.S. because they hated each other. Saddam was secular and Osama is a religious extremist. This war was not worth one drop of American blood. And the very occupation by the U.S. has created a vacuum for terrorist activity where there was none before.

And for what? To benefit Exxon/Mobil, Halliburton, and KBR? I believe that one need only to follow the war profiteering money trail to find out just how much is wrong with this war and why I detest what is happening now.

And before the Bush apologist start bashing my post, let me say this: I get irritated when I am told that I am somehow undermining troop morale, that I hate America, that I'm a traitor, that I'm unpatriotic,.....whatever...you name it....just because I choose to speak out against the actions of this corrupt administration. I love my country and that is why I am willing to speak up.

This war has been a grave error.

[canyoutellme-2009]

This is ridiculous... "War on terror"... What are we really fighting anyway? That others who disagree with their "enemies" will use terror to scare them and defeat them? How in the world do you "win" a war of what goes on in people's minds? You can't! Even if we wipe out all the religous extremists in the world... there will STILL be murders, rapes, etc... and those who will use explosives 'n other such things to cause terror. Terror is a fact of LIFE as a human being. It SUCKS, but it will always be there. it has been there since the beginning of TIME and will continue long after we're gone. Republicans living in FEAR of Terror are ridiculous. You cannot fight a war on TERROR because TERROR has no time boundaries ... EVER! If you fight a war with a country because they've attacked you or something, that's different because when you wipe out the country or win that war, it's over (for the time being) with that nation. But when you fight a war on ideas and human behavior, it's by definition, UNWINNABLE. Geezus CHRIST people... get with it and get our people out of IRAQ, a war we CANNOT win.

[usvetjoker]

I find it impossible to understand how growing support for our troops is being ignored by the press in this country. The bulk of support seems to be by the very people who have the most to loose, vets and familys. I suppose they (being the majority) at least are able to understand what happens when terroism is allowed to go unchecked.

[sshard]

The reason and hope of many for a win in Iraq, is a win will destroy and deny a sanctuary the terrorists and Americans, can live in peace and security. But I wonder, will this be the end to the threat of terrorism. Southern Thailand is a scene of a brutal struggle between government and Islamic insurgents. If we %u2018win%u2019 in Iraq, then is the next line to be drawn in Thailand to stop Islamic insurgents from establishing sanctuary? We cannot solve this problem alone, not when we are losing proud men and women every day. The Bush administration needs to realize, we need a new strategy. Military might and money alone is not the answer, especially when its overwhelmingly our blood and our money. The US must mend fences with our allies, swallow its pride and listen to them as equal partners. By giving up this unilateral macho policy, can we ever hope to %u2018win%u2019 and find the peace and security for ourselves, for our children and for the world.