Tweet
$1,000,000,000,000.00
As of today, that’s how much we’ve spent just in direct costs so far on the stupid wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
One trillion dollars, gone. And we’re just getting warmed up…there are trillions more in future direct and indirect costs coming.
These two wars mutilated our economy. There’s no other way to say it. We’ve taken a huge amount of wealth and done things with it that damaged the economy. People are out of work and hurting today because we chose to launch two wars that aren’t worth the cost.
The most glaring example of this dynamic is the use of hundreds of billions of taxpayer money to invade and occupy Iraq, which led to higher oil prices, which hit taxpayers again in their pocketbooks.
Many other examples exist: We pay to train American kids to kill in Afghanistan. We pay to ship them overseas where they die or get injured. We pay for medical care for the survivors. Their families lose both the wounded’s income and often lose additional income when loved ones reduce work hours to stay home and care for the wounded.
The list of these vicious cycles goes on and on. In all cases, our government actually charges us for the privilege of having an even harder time making it in this tough economy.
Actually, it’s worse than that. The government charges us for the privilege of having a tough economy in the first place.
According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research’s (CEPR) Dean Baker:
"In standard economic models, defense spending is a direct drain on the economy, reducing efficiency, slowing growth and costing jobs. …[S]tandard economic models…project that the increase in defense spending since 2000 will cost the economy close to two million jobs in the long run."
Baker’s point in his article was that groups that scream about potential "job loss" from government "interference" never put that "loss" in any context. Government spending does stimulate economic activity during a downturn. The question is, how stimulative is one type of spending versus another? So let’s make sure we’re playing fair and put this in some perspective in terms of job creation.
It turns out that, excluding tax cuts for consumption, war spending is the least stimulative type of government spending.
- Defense: 8,555 jobs
- Construction for home weatherization/infrastructure: 12,804 jobs
- Health care: 12,883 jobs
- Education: 17,687 jobs
- Mass transit: 19,795 jobs
So if you take $1 billion in taxpayer dollars and spend it on war versus on building energy efficient homes and other infrastructure, the opportunity cost for that spending is 4,249 potential jobs. Spending it on war versus mass transit costs you 11,240 potential jobs.
Now consider that $1 trillion is one thousand billion. Because we’re spending so many billions–now trillions–of dollars on these two wars, we’re losing hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of potential jobs.
PERI concludes that:
…[B]y addressing social needs in the areas of health care, education, education, mass transit, home weatherization and infrastructure repairs, we would also create more jobs and, depending on the specifics of how such a reallocation is pursued, both an overall higher level of compensation for working people in the U.S. and a better average quality of jobs.
These lost potential jobs aren’t even the whole picture. We also lose the fruits of spending that money in more productive ways, which, according to the National Priorities Project, include:
- 188,536,667 Students receiving Pell Grants of $5550 OR
- 8,139,680 Affordable Housing Units OR
- 461,193,337 Children with Health Care for One Year
But hey, at least these wars are working out well for BP, right?
36 Comments
Mahalo, Derrick…! Great job…!
Thx,Derrick,keep up the good work.
“In fact, the continued militarisation of US foreign policy – including this month’s appointment of a new cyber general – signals setbacks in the president’s original promise of change.
US militarising of cyberspace – and rejection of a ban on the militarisation of outer space – can hardly be conceived by the rest of the world as a serious shift.
Today, the US military budget is the highest ever with an estimated 52 cents of every tax payer dollar going to military and war expenses of sort; hardly the best way to re-jumpstart the US economy – a central instrument of Obama’s NSS.
The same goes for areas where Obama has distinguished himself from his predecessor. While Obama’s NSS foresees no ‘war on terror’, he does underline a “war” on al-Qaeda and its affiliates around the world.
But Obama acts no less aggressively than his predecessors in various countries around the Middle East and the world, as recently revealed by the US media.”
From here.
Derrick, could you provide separate costs for Iraq and Afghanistan, please.
We wouldn’t want to suggest that two different wars were one war or that they aren’t easily separable,
would we.
(Tuttle’s right. good post)
Regarding the Cheney Administration it was a one two punch. The insane, illegal, immoral invasion of Iraq AND the tax reductions for rich people. The Democrats could have reversed all that but they didn’t because, well, they suck.
But keep chipping away Derrick. Americans think they have a perfect right to slaughter people all over the globe for any or no reason. They might decide to stop if they knew it costs money.
Why would you go out of your way to distinguish between the two? The US doesn’t. They’re funded with the same bills (emergency supplemental), fought with the same crap strategy (COIN), even waged under the same commander (Petraeus).
Of course the two countries are wildly different, but its not really Derrick who has trouble making that distinction, is it?
C’mon Josh. You can do better than that.
The fucking Bush administration is gone and the US sure as shit distinguishes between the wars now.
Rhetorically I suppose they are separated, but is that all you’re asking for here?
Doesn’t that just say it all about the Obama administration? He says they’re different wars, so it really doesn’t matter that we’re repeating the same crimes over and over. They can say it’s a new strategy, but it’s really just backing our own corrupt warlords (Maliki, Karzai) and empowering the local crips and bloods (IP, ANP) to lay waste to the population (COIN). They’ve got the same IED casualties, the same concrete barriers, swindling contractors on out-of-touch FOBs, the same special forces kicking down doors and violating countless laws, the same cross border strikes (Syria, Pakistan) and the same unaccountable militias (Sahwa, Local Defense Initiative). And as I already said, it’s even the same on paper, the funding all comes from the same emergency supplementals.
But you’re right. I guess we do say they’re different.
That’s better Josh.
Good rhetoric. Now how about some fact?
How about pointing out how much of the blood and treasure went to Iraq and how much (or little) went to Afghanistan?
Mac, pause and reflect…! If Rummy, on 9/10/01, said the DoD couldn’t account for 2.3 Trillion dollars, what makes you think they could possibly account for what has been expended since…?
You can see the separate costs on this page, along with that furiously spinning cost for the total war:
http://www.costofwar.com/
Roughly, the costs are:
$725.5 billion for Iraq so far; and
$275 billion for Afghanistan so far.
But let me back up a bit and say why I didn’t split them for the purpose of the post:
When you want to talk about the effect on job creation and the opportunity costs of spending your money this way, the studies on the impact of government spending by sector just talk about “defense spending,” and do not break it down between wars. Defense spending is defense spending, as far as that goes.
Second, I group them because they are both the result of a general strategic frame with regards to terrorism: counter-terrorism via military invasion and counterinsurgency. Or, in a more nerdy international relations way, from the idea that states are the unitary actors that matter in international politics and that states are bound to fight terrorism initially by fighting against a state, then creating a new client state and defending its germination via military occupation of the old state’s territory. Now, with regard to Iraq, it’s more complicated, because the rationale for that war was “whatever shit will stick to the wall this week,” but “fighting al Qaida” was definitely part of the crap pie sold to the American people. That’s why at one point the majority of people in the U.S. said Saddam had something to do with 9-11.
Third, it’s fine in my mind to group them together because people get stuck on the imbalance and use that to justify the misadventure in Afghanistan because it looks so much more inexpensive than the Iraq war, but that is now a very convenient illusion. Now that we’ve switched to COIN in Afghanistan, even if troop deployments remained equal, Afghanistan would overtake Iraq in costs per year. In other words, this imbalance in the cost so far won’t last long because of the logistical difficulties involved in Afghanistan’s terrain and location.
Now, if you want to rate them as far as “which is most economically destructive,” you could do that, and so far, you’d definitely point to the war in Iraq, because the vicious cycle that set up re: oil prices was a real work of art. That killed economies the world over. However, the specifics of the damage that I talk about above don’t figure that in. Those figures on job creation just have to do with defense spending in general, and just focus on job creation, and don’t reckon with those other drags on the economy you create through the particulars of various wars.
Thanks!
Good article. They’re right…hardly the best way to jump start the economy. In fact, the only way you could make it worse is to use the money for tax cuts to spur consumption. Oh wait. Thanks George and Barry.
Thank you, Derrick, for providing the break-out.
I promise not to use the information to compound the errors in my thoughts, though I am a bit unsure how that
bit fits in with anything happening in Afghanistan.
But I don’t always understand stuff real good.
Sure you do.
Guess who the largest government-body petroleum customer in the world is? You guessed it: the U.S. military.
Guess who’s made roughly a billion dollars per year on sales to the U.S. military every year since 2005?
The Afghanistan war requires moving an incredible amount of people and material in inhospitable terrain, which drives the total cost of a gallon of gas in Afghanistan to the U.S. military to something like $400 a gallon. Oil companies aren’t the only ones getting rich off that cost, but BP is absolutely one of the prime winners.
Doncha know war is the US economy.
Take a trillion dollar surplus and go to war. Sick!
Isn’t one of the advantages of being in the business of supplying war makers, that there isn’t any oversight, and since the money is unlimited, no concern about price?
And, a bonus, if the weapon, or other product being supplied, doesn’t work or isn’t fit for the purpose,
That’s ok too, it doesn’t matter.
The customer buys it anyway, pays full price, and will never complain.
Unlike automobiles, there are no recalls for military suppliers.
What could be better than that?
How much of that money went directly into the pockets of war-profiteers (e.g. corporations)?
Which was the original reason to start those wars in the first place.
Shorter: welfare for the excessively wealthy. The rest of the serfs can suck rocks.
My mother-in-law last night was commenting about “what a shame it is” that the powers that be simply cannot “find a way” to “solve conflicts” without going to war. I just laughed and said: but the “powers that be” make huge profits from War, Inc. There is not gov’t oversight. They’re not interested in stinking “peace.” They ain’t no profit in that.
She stopped listening after that. I don’t think most citizens can really take in what’s going on and/or they just don’t want to have contend with reality. Last night on PBS was some jingoistic extravaganza (I believe it was a repeat of an event that happened last year) in Wash DC with loads of movie stars and big-name singers all hired to SELL citizens on how necessary WAR, Inc. is. It was all rather disgusting. I’m all for honoring the troops, but such “honor” gets all bundled in with the rah-rah what the USA is doing is “right.” Disgusting. I had to turn off that b.s. propoganda; too disgusting to watch. All the stars who got paid to participate in that muck should be ashamed of themselves… sell outs to the War & killing machine.
Duh, BP supplies 80% of military needs.
Derrick, good thread.
Which leaves progressives with the question of who, is sustaining Bush’s loon crusades?
The last time I checked, it wasn’t Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck, or any of the rightwing peckerheads. When Obama came in with those big margins, and with so much of the country clearly enthusiastic about real change, those people were squatting under the troll-bridge shitting green nickels.
Now, as we watch Mr. Centrist move to the right, they needn’t have worried. It looks like his main purpose was doing rehab on them, and their corporate-fascist philosophy…
Barack Obama has pissed away an historic opportunity to make the changes that we so badly needed. If his agenda had been nothing but using the pulpit to speak the truth about our problems, and the solutions for them, and if he’d run the GOOD legislation up to the hill, repeatedly, and dared the repubs to filibuster it, right now, he’d look like Captain America and fuck that trojan-horse “accomplishment” of spayed-and-neutered healthcare reform. If he had fought the good fight, there would be democrats begging him to come to their states and congressional districts to campaign for them. Now that he and the dems are revealed as nothing but the usual bunch of status-quo-protecting jellyfish, and with the mood of the voters steadily moving toward a ferocious anti-incumbent passion, the democrats running will be begging him NOT to come.
It’s like this:
“Vote for us; we’re not quite as bad a bunch of political hacks as the republicans!”…
Is going to get our asses shellacked in the mid-terms.
Bmaz has a fresh cross-post up: Top Hat and Tails; BP Has Yet Another “Solution”
“…and the U.S. sure as shit distinguishes between the wars now.”
You betcha. They’re not Bush’s any more. Now, they’re Obama’s, and when you have Joe Biden, about 6 weeks ago, saying that 90,000 of the troops in Iraq will be home by the end of the summer.
And, about 10 days ago, Obama releasing that little trial balloon about “gee whillikers, we might not be able to keep to my withdrawal plan.” the shelf-life on voter patience with MORE latex-covered bullshit is set to expire right around the mid-terms. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bi-partisan.
While I understand this article is primarily about the fiscal costs of the wars, I still think its irresponsible when discussing “costs” of the wars when it is not aknowleged from the start (or at least somewhere) that the fiscal costs, while staggering, pale in comparison to the reality of 2 wars of aggression leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of unique human beings, and the displacement of millions.
Discussing the fiscal aspects is valuable. Reducing war to fiscal costs is irresponsible. If you dont want wars, never forget to remind people of the fundemental horrors of all Wars when discussing them.
While american voters (let’s cut to the chase here…) may make a small distinction between Iraq and Afghanistan, the notion that they perceive one of them as a “good” war and the other one as a “bad” war, is, I think, mistaken.
Obama has never had the political courage or honesty to speak the bedrock truth to americans; that being:
Whatever “stability” or Kabuki-democracy we impose on both of those countries, won’t survive 90 days without our committing huge amounts of our military and our money to the attempt to preserve a bloody, fractious, and cosmetic status-quo.
We can argue about which is worse, staying or leaving, but staying will just mean that we’re stringing out the same line of “freedom and democracy” bullshit that Bush spent most of his two terms doing.
(BTW, at this point, I’m thinking that the current occupant of the Oval Office isn’t going to get his lease renewed, in 2012.)
The center cannot hold.
Cynthia McKinney?
Governments fail while Shadow Governments never fail.
How many of us have caught ourselves saying, “Happy Memorial Day” or “Have a nice holiday” on Memorial Day? If you’re a liberal and especially a veteran like me, Memorial Day is never a “happy holiday” nor should it ever be.
This is an understatement, he is going to get his ass ran out of office on a rail. The people who didnt vote for him are NEVER going to vote for him and yet he spends all of his time trying to win their affection. Then you have people like me who voted for him but will NEVER voter for him again bcz he spent too much time wooing voters who are NEVER going to vote for him. He had an opportunity to really make a difference and he chose the status quo which unfortunately only makes things worse. Lets face it guys, Bin Ladin won, he played us like a fiddle and he is still doing it. His goal was to bankrupt the US and that is what he is going to do. He knew that the American Imperial psyche would not have an alternative plan to deal with him. He knew that we would send our military and spread it across the middle east to show them jihadist that you cant attack the US and get away with it. Other countries might have tackled 911 as a law enforcement issue but not the US, no way were we going to handle this any other way than an act of war. And he knows that we will borrow and spend our last to make him pay for what he did. Even if it means going bankrupt and ruining our country and our way of life. Somewhere in the mountains of Pakistan there is a wise enemy of the US who is laughing his ass off. Obama may be intelligent but I have yet to see any wisdom from him.
The ultimate reality is simply that we are no longer a nation which can pride itself on prosperity and peace. We are financially bankrupt, morally vacuous,and the planet’s number one killer of innocent civilians. And all of this because of the greed of a few and a pathological dependence on oil. I hear the bell ringing, and I hear the book closing, and I the see candle sputtering into oblivion. May the cosmos have pity on us.
Dear Doctor: It is comforting to be reminded that the well being of all human beings is still a doctor’s highest calling. So how can we clone you?
Oops. Sorry about that. This comment really belongs over at the great article “Shareholders Rise, Bush Collapese, Wellpoint on the Hot Seat.”
A stray neutron got me, again.
The most attention-getting statistic I’ve seen: It costs $1 million to deploy one soldier or Marine to Afghanistan for a year, excluding salaries and equipment.
Someone has to protect the oil revenues in Iraq as well as the drug revenues coming out of Afghanistan. It’s that revenue that keeps the world spinning on its axis after all.
Forget the loss of jobs, education, police, firefighters, economic recovery for many.
As Bush & Cheney saw it the large corporations like those making military equipment are doing just fine!
The military complex is doing fine! Stop gripping. Who cares about loss troops, the economy for the big corporations, not the un-true American people, are the only ones suffering here.
karma is as karma does.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cr7ePrCAqzo
just a few minutes of your time to watch carlin do his thing.
ike warned us but no one listened.
most still dont.
roosvelt knew who the enemy was obama is in bed with them like the rest of wash.
http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/text/us/fdr1936.html