A new Salon.com book review [1] gives us the depressing and infuriating answers to how much the Iraq adventure is costing the citizens of the United States. The book, written by Joseph Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes, is titled “The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict.” In typical dyfunctional White House style, White House spokesman Tony Fratto has argued that the book is misguided because “One can’t even begin to put a price tag on the cost to this nation of the attacks of 9/11.” [2] As though the occupation of Iraq has anything to do with 9/11 . . .
The numbers presented by Stiglitz and Bilmes are truly staggering:
“The Three Trillion Dollar War” talks about two types of war-related expenses: budgetary and social. Budgetary costs include operational spending on Iraq and Afghanistan, which they estimate will total from $1.7 trillion to $2.7 trillion. (Throughout the book, the authors put forward two sets of figures: one based on a “best-case scenario” and one on a far more likely “realistic-moderate” scenario.) This figure includes the expense of keeping armies in the field, paying veteran-related costs, replacing equipment ($400 billion for this alone), and paying interest on the vast debt we have incurred to fight the war. So far, Congress has actually appropriated $645 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001, plus the $200 billion Bush asked for in 2008. As the authors point out, this is more than the U.S. spends annually on Medicare and Medicaid combined. And the monthly “burn rate” to pay for the wars has gone steadily up, from $4.4 billion in 2003 to $16 billion today. This means that every American household is spending $138 a month on the current operating expenses of the wars.
The additional “social” costs that are not borne by the government are harder to calculate — and more controversial.
As an aside, I find the neocon sleight of hand interesting. The usual neocon line when it comes to taxes is that money paid as taxes really belongs to the people. Fair enough. Why then, don’t neocons emphasize that these wild, irresponsible, inefficient and often corrupt expenditures on the Iraq occupation (I don’t call it a “war”) are being paid with my money and your money, not “government” money? If any of you American families out there have a better use for $138 each month than blowing up buildings and people in Iraq, raise your hand!
In an interview published by McClatchy Newspapers Feb 27, 2008 [2], Stiglitz warns that the worst is yet to come regarding our military expenses in Iraq and Afghanistan:
In an interview, Stiglitz said that too much of the public debate had been over the wars’ operational costs while the real budget strains would show up only years from now.
“The peak expenditures are way out,” he said, noting that the peak expenditures for World War II vets came in 1993.
The McClatchy article reminds us of the rosy 2003 predictions of the Bush Administration:
When U.S. troops invaded Iraq in March 2003, the Bush administration predicted that the war would be self-financing and that rebuilding the nation would cost less than $2 billion.
Being off by a few decimal points in grade school gets a student a well-deserved “F.”
Print this post [3]
[4]