| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Harvard, Yale say Iraq War More Expensive Than WW I |
| 2005-08-30 |
| Despite the relatively small number of American armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan (140,000), the war effort is rapidly shaping up to be the third-most expensive war in United States history. This conflict has already cost each American at least $850 in military and reconstruction costs since October 2001. If the war lasts another five years, it will cost nearly $1.4 trillion, calculates Linda Bilmes, who teaches budgeting at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. That's nearly $4,745 per capita. Her estimate is thorough. And no doubt, "Harvard-fair". She includes not only the military cost but also such things as veterans' benefits ... wouldn't those costs be incurred whether or not we were at war? That's loading up, not thorough, and not "fair". ... and additional interest on the federal debt. Were the costs of all the other wars calculated in the same fashion? But even in stripped-down terms, looking only at military costs and using current dollars, the war's cost for the US already exceeds that of World War I. That's in money, not in blood and tears. Fatalities from the combined Afghanistan-Iraq conflict now exceed 2,000. American participation in 1917-18 in World War I, a war infamous for its trench-warfare slaughter, resulted in 53,513 US deaths. So it seems the Harvard study does not consider the value of a human life.... Otherwise the WoT would be less costly. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, the current conflict is the fourth most costly US war, behind World War II, Vietnam, and Korea. The chart below, (see link) researched by Yale ... Yale? Oh, that'll be fair! ... University economist William Nordhaus just before President Bush launched the Iraq war (and now updated for inflation), estimates Korea's military cost at $361 billion. Given the Iraq-Afghanistan war is costing from $80 billion to $100 billion a year, its price is likely to exceed that of the Korean War by late 2006 or 2007 - if it lasts that long. Last week, President Bush told the Veterans of Foreign Wars that the US will "finish the task" in Afghanistan and Iraq to honor those already fallen. Some analysts say Bush's statement implies that he anticipates the war lasting a long time. Nice, vague, general statement, designed to make you uneasy. In terms of expenditures per soldier, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are the most costly ever for the US, experts say. That's because of expensive technology and equipment, which saves money when there is not a war, and if you figured in the cost of keeping those soldiers in uniform, could save money, too ... the higher pay and other inducements for an all-volunteer force, ... Yes, I miss the draft, too! ... rising fuel costs, and difficulties in supplying troops in the Middle East. Surely, the Civil War was cheaper, due to lower resupply costs. And the WoT would be cheaper if we fought it here? Military costs are only one aspect. Spending for reconstruction and security, so far, add up to $24 billion for Iraq and $7 billion in Afghanistan, Kosiak figures. He puts the combined ongoing military and reconstruction costs at $7 billion to $8 billion per month. < SPAN CLASS=HILITE>And did the WW II costs include the Marshall Plan costs, update to current dollars? In her estimate, Ms. Bilmes figures on $460 billion in military costs for the next five years, plus $315 billion in veterans' costs, $220 billion in added interest, and $119 billion for the economic impact of a $5 increase per barrel in the price of oil through July 2010. "I tried to be conservative," she says. Not like 'Republican conservative', but 'conservative estimates' can never be accused of being 'low'. (Her oil-cost estimate is based on the 15 percent reduction in Iraqi oil output since before the Iraq invasion and the increased instability in the Middle East.) And now, the silver lining... From one standpoint, the US economy should find it easier to absorb the present war. Today's defense budget is about 4 percent of gross domestic product, the nation's output of goods and services. A pretty samll 'tax' for security! That compares with 6.2 percent in the 1980s, 9.4 percent in 1960 (Vietnam), 14.2 percent in 1953 (Korea), and 38 percent in 1944 (World War II). In that respect, today's war "is much cheaper," says Kosiak. Too bad freedom isn't free. It certainly "should" be. |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #11 According to the Britannica, there were 22 MILLION Allied casualties in WW I and 37 MILLION Central Powers casualties. These figures includes 14 million killed out of a total European population at that time of maybe 250 million. Give me a break, how could anyone in his right mind compare the slaughter that went on then to the relatively minor action going on in the middle east. It just goes to show that most moderns have absolutely no historical perspective. If you want to compare costs, look at the human cost. |
| Posted by: Ulomomble Ebberesh6337 2005-08-30 22:26 |
| #10 Want a more realistic estimate of how costly the war is? Compare increase in US Defense spending from 2000 to 2003,w/increase in Defence spending from 1916 to 1918,from 1940 to 1943,from 1949 to 1952. |
| Posted by: Stephen 2005-08-30 19:34 |
| #9 as compared to the cost of a Yale or Harvard degree? |
| Posted by: Greack Chort6944 2005-08-30 18:12 |
| #8 Yeah and if it lasts long enough it might even surpass the combined endowments of Harvard and Yale combined. I figure about 3010 should be about right. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2005-08-30 17:55 |
| #7 Cost. The human factor is not quantifiable with any type of reasonable certainty is it. We don't know the true Cost of either war and never will. We don't know the Cost that would have been entailed in not acting either. Doesn't change the facts of what has happened. This exercise in soft science cross bred with a little politics by serious tinkers from academia is about as useful and welcome as vomit on your sidewalk. Yes, that's very nice, now go along and play with your toys nicely budgeting professor. |
| Posted by: MunkarKat 2005-08-30 16:22 |
| #6 Back in my day, gas was a nickel and you could go to war without breaking the damn piggy bank! And we wore an onion from our belt! It was the style in those days! /Grandpa Abe |
| Posted by: BH 2005-08-30 14:44 |
| #5 The only times liberals are 'concerned' with spending by the Federal government is when a) it's done by the military or b) when it's done by a Republican administration. Since these two themes merge, the only surprise should be to wonder why this article didn't appear sooner. |
| Posted by: Raj 2005-08-30 13:41 |
| #4 The GDP fraction is the only relevant metric here. The rest is statistical sensationalism. That's why it is at the bottom. As soon as I started thinking about it I went right to the bottom and sure enough, there it was. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-08-30 13:27 |
| #3 And the costs of nukes going off in U.S. cities? Oh wait, Iraq won't nuke us anytime soon, so I guess you don't have to include those. Can I throw those costs in anyway if the bombs originate from say...Iran via Al-Qaeda? I can't wait for those estimates. (If you love to hate the Iraq war costs, your really gonna love the Iran War costs.) I already have my checkbook out for that hootenanny. Do you take posthumous checks Yale and Harvard? |
| Posted by: Zpaz 2005-08-30 13:14 |
| #2 The GDP fraction is the only relevant metric here. The rest is statistical sensationalism. |
| Posted by: JAB 2005-08-30 13:13 |
| #1 Did they include the benefit of foregone terrorist attacks on the U. S.? Didn't think so. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-08-30 12:57 |