SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Intercept reports:
The total U.S. budgetary cost of war since 2001 is $4.79 trillion, according to a report [PDF] [...] from Brown University's Watson Institute. That's the highest estimate yet.
Neta Crawford of Boston University, the author of the report, included interest on borrowing, future veterans needs, and the cost of homeland security in her calculations.
The amount of $4.79 trillion, "so large as to be almost incomprehensible", she writes, adds up like this:
- The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, and other overseas operations already cost $1.7 trillion between 2001 and August 2016 with $103 billion more requested for 2017
- Homeland Security terrorism prevention costs from 2001 to 2016 were $548 billion.
- The estimated DOD base budget was $733 billion and veterans spending was $213 billion.
- Interest incurred on borrowing for wars was $453 billion.
- Estimated future costs for veterans' medical needs until the year 2053 is $1 trillion.
- And the amounts the DOD, State Department, and Homeland Security have requested for 2017 ($103 billion).
Crawford carried out a similar study[PDF] in June 2014 that estimated the cost of war at $4.4 trillion.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Total Cost of USA's Wars Since 2001 Approaches $5 Trillion
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 104 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing.
-- Elbert Hubbard
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday October 25 2016, @12:56PM
I thought Russia was where empires go to die. You know, that whole, "Never invade Russia in the winter!" meme?
Anyway, there are so many good choices for the next pointless war. Iran, since they've been laying the groundwork for that one for a long time. Syria, which is kind of a two-fer against Russia and ISIS at the same time. Venezuela, since there's nothing better than a feel-good invasion in our hemisphere to please the plebes. China, which would be a real hoot, and which is better to have sooner rather than later. Lots of angry, surplus population in America, too. Much better to launch them at a random, fabricated enemy rather than risk them fully waking up and realizing the only ones that really need to get got are Wall Street and Washington, DC.
You know that's the first order President Hillary would issue from her imperial throne, even before Obama has left the Whitehouse. Betcha she rolls right on down, elbows the guy out from behind the desk in the Oval Office, and starts screaming orders into the phone to drone the fuck out of her domestic enemies and detractors while bombs drop on the $TERRIBLE_FOREIGN_ENEMY.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday October 25 2016, @02:20PM
I thought Russia was where empires go to die.
The Swedes, French, and Germans. Arguably the Vikings handled it pretty well without collapsing... or did they? So 3 to 4 out of 4. You could get really meta and call out USSR as #5 but ... 3 out of 3 isn't too controversial. The Swedes should be embarrassed at being surprised by the whole "winter" thing, although arguably what they did was simply bite off more than they could chew and the climate was irrelevant to that.
Afghanistan has 8 invasions on its wikipedia page and the only eventual success was the Caliphate which did the typical Afghanistan thing of "hi we're the Afghanistan Welcome Wagon and here you can have a city we don't want anyway, we'll move to the mountains and guerilla warfare kill you for all eternity until you leave, now have a nice day" and then the rebels bled them for twelve centuries from the mountains until the last holdouts were finally wiped out a bit more than a century ago. So yeah to "win" in Afghanistan all we gotta to is keep up "The Surge" for another eleven centuries or so just like the Caliphate did. You could argue they never controlled the Afghani's anyway, they just got the city slickers to mostly go to mosque and follow most of the laws some of the time, it wasn't quite "Romans conquer Carthage" type of invasion. The mongols were kinda the same situation. Like when my kids argue in the car and I let one of them become "the president of the back seat" they're pretty happy about the job title but they don't really have executive power as power is conventionally understood. Arguably nobody has ever really run all of Afghanistan entirely even the Taliban never entirely controlled the whole place at any given moment. Not like India or western countries. More like American wild west. If it were not for all the recent unpleasantness and 9/11 and all that I think Americans would favorably compare our somewhat mythological "wild west" to Afghanistan's actual history. Its an interesting country to read about, preferably from a great distance. Well the USA hasn't collapsed entirely yet, just on the downward slope, but you can realistically argue at least 6, 7, maybe 8, out of 8. 7 out of 8 isn't too controversial as long as we don't discuss who the 8th was/is.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday October 25 2016, @06:33PM
The problem with wars today is that they don't stack up a significant body count (as a proportion of the country's population) - so the classical population drop just doesn't happen.
The whole 99% thing seemed like an awakening to the problems in Wall Street, somehow that got turned into a one-off fad - dobutless by the same factions that derailed Bernie.
China may well roll on the West someday, but we're pretty deep into a cultural conquering in the other direction already. If the internet remains relatively open for the next 50 years or so, there won't be much point in one side conquering the other because they'll both be basically the same anyway.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday October 25 2016, @09:43PM
Awesome, Flamebait!
Take note, everyone. If you do not love President Hillary, you will be sanctioned. Or maybe it's Wall Street and Washington DC that you must love, or get sanctioned. They are really all the same thing, though.
Washington DC delenda est.