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This discussion has been archived.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.
(Score: 2, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday October 25 2016, @11:06AM
Shit, that's almost a quarter as much as Obamacare costs.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @11:37AM
Healthcare is useful.
Militarism, as practiced by USA, is just a stupid waste of money.
N.B. I'm not saying Obamacare would be my first choice for a healthcare system, but guns and bombs used for hegemonic aggression are completely off the list of useful spending.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday October 25 2016, @11:45AM
See, I figured you'd dig on it. I thought you were all for spending government money to create pointless jobs. Unnecessary military action is very Keynesian like that.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @12:12PM
I want the jobs in THIS country, building up OUR infrastructure.
Blowing up shit over there and sending No-Bid Cheney's guys to build it back ain't any part of my plan.
pointless jobs
There was a time when USA was the envy of the world.
Our stuff was way better than their stuff.
It wasn't pointless to create all that great stuff.
...and, in the 1930s, the Capitalists sure as hell weren't going to do it on their own.
Looked around lately?
Over the decades, all that great stuff been allowed to decay.
(Thanks, Republicans; Neoliberal Blue Dog Dems too).
There's plenty of actual work to be done without going to any make-work.
Unnecessary military action is very Keynesian like that.
...to a twisted mind.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday October 25 2016, @12:41PM
Cheney's guys are Americans. The guys who build the bombs and bullets and guns and everything else are Americans. The guys who fight the wars are Americans. Are they just not the right kind of Americans to be getting pointless jobs for you?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @12:48PM
Militarism has a very low multiplier effect. [wikipedia.org]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday October 25 2016, @01:01PM
Linking the SJW bible now? I figured you had more intellectual honesty than that, even if I do think you're wrong on most everything.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @03:57PM
WTH did you wake up and take an extra ahole pill this morning? Or is the realization that you are about to see hill take the election messing with your head.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday October 26 2016, @01:40AM
If you can't take the heat...
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday October 25 2016, @01:24PM
Cheney's guys spent more on air conditioning than the entire NASA budget.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday October 25 2016, @01:54PM
And? You think heating and air guys don't have bills to pay too or something? They contribute a hell of a lot more to civilization than NASA does.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday October 25 2016, @05:34PM
The figure wasn't for the heating and air guys, or their equipment, it was just the cost of fuel to keep the ACs running in-theater that exceeded NASA's annual budget within something like 6 months.
Point being, war is a big operation, even small parts of it have significant costs.
Main thing I think NASA has contributed to my lifetime is a solid demonstration of the ability to deliver ANY payload anywhere in the world via rocket, and the ensuing relative lack of war that followed from that demonstration. That and an incalculable advancement in technology, including digital computing.
But, hey, the modern grunt can't sweat like my grandfather did when he went to Iraq as a contractor in the 1950s.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday October 26 2016, @01:35AM
Oh the grunts sweated but you can't have an officer doing so. That just wouldn't be kosher.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday October 26 2016, @12:27AM
Fuck out of here with that bullshit. [nasa.gov]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday October 26 2016, @01:31AM
Tell me that when it's 90+ both temperature and humidity.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Tuesday October 25 2016, @03:53PM
Broken windows. We could do so much better than that.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday October 26 2016, @01:40AM
Kinda my point.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @02:19PM
> I thought you were all for spending government money to create pointless jobs.
And that is how you beg the question.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aclarke on Tuesday October 25 2016, @02:29PM
There should be an important distinction to a human between "creating pointless jobs" and "creating pointless jobs KILLING PEOPLE". I realize the article is about money spent and that's important to discuss, but fundamental to the discussion of war is the fact that much of war is about killing people. Anyone considering killing people because it's good for the economy has a seriously dysfunctional moral compass.
Even from a strictly economic perspective, spending $x to destroy infrastructure and society abroad and $y to attempt to rebuild it abroad is likely to be less economically and socially advantageous than spending $(x + y) on domestic infrastructure and social projects.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday October 25 2016, @03:06PM
I absolutely agree. I'm just arguing with gewg_ because I like making him refine his position. Now please explain this to Mrs. Clinton.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by RamiK on Tuesday October 25 2016, @12:27PM
It's not so simple. There's a lot of talk about oil since it can theoretically be replaced by solar, wind & nuclear while the pollution and climate changes are quite hazardous to our health and environment. But very few people track iron, coal, rare earths and the dozens other industry raw materials that US military presence keeps available cheaply for the domestic industry. Materials, that btw, are required for those catalysts, panels, batteries and other oil substitute.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday October 25 2016, @04:08PM
None of those come from the middle east.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RamiK on Tuesday October 25 2016, @04:34PM
None of those come from the middle east.
The article named:
The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, and other overseas operations
Iraq & Syria are middle east oil. Iraq is fields and Syria is a pipeline.
Afghanistan & Pakistan aren't middle east but South \ Central Asia. Afghanistan is rare earth, oil pipeline and a few other deposits. Pakistan... Pakistan is big, has nukes and neighbors Afghanistan and India so they get caught up in just about everything else in that region.
Other overseas operation are Africa since the US haven't done anything major in east Asia for some time. The resources gain there are obvious when looking at how much money China is pouring into the region.
Worth nothing China been a fair global player compared to the other global powers. When they have territorial disputes they default to pouring money into building islands and buying factories and resources instead of using their military. Post Mao, they had some Tibet style indiscretions regarding a few minorities and civic issues... But those don't begin to compare with US racial riots and police violence.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday October 25 2016, @04:46PM
So out of all of that, Afghanistan has some rare earths. But we mostly get them from China. We have plenty domestically but there's a lead time since we killed our domestic industry and because the Chinese rare earths are slightly cheaper.
The U.S. produces more oil than the Middle East.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @05:08PM
No, Afghanistan also has a large share of the world's Heroin production, which is needed to keep the War on Drugs going.
(Score: 3, Informative) by RamiK on Tuesday October 25 2016, @05:24PM
So out of all of that,
Nah. There's plenty of other stuff elsewhere like cheap iron and coal that doesn't necessitates deep mining and comes with cheap local labor.
Afghanistan has some rare earths. But we mostly get them from China.
And you're getting them cheap from China because you secure access to them. And the deposits in the states aren't as economical. Look up the Helium shortage and how US-China relationship work there. It's similar but less controversial since the alternative isn't war but production so the opinions are less biased by propaganda.
The U.S. produces more oil than the Middle East.
Fracking did that. There's a price AND a deadline for that little environmental blunder.
Instead of wasting both of our time on long resolved debates, look up game theory \ economics \ war studies dealing with these recent conflicts. Check out stuff that has citations from Thomas C. Schelling and Robert Aumann works as filter if you're not familiar with the terminology. You'll find there's a wide(absolute) consensus around the nature of these wars as resource wars. The debates are around who benefits, and who has the most to lose.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday October 29 2016, @05:17AM
And you're getting them cheap from China because you secure access to them.
Flushing trillions down the toilet in Afghanistan does nothing to secure our access to Chinese rare earths. Even if it did somehow, I have to wonder if using the more expensive domestic rare earths wouldn't still come out cheaper.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Saturday October 29 2016, @06:22PM
Flushing trillions down the toilet in Afghanistan does nothing to secure our access to Chinese rare earths.
International exports are almost entirely speculative since the true production and cost figures are not available. China had helium export caps that were removed following the announcement on renewing US production. Access to Afghanistan's rare earths achieved the same result. Similarly, post-fracking, middle-eastern oil barrels dropped in price in advance of any actual increases in US gas production.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday October 29 2016, @07:50PM
It would have been orders of magnitude cheaper to re-start our own rare earth production capability and then keep it mostly idle. It would have killed a lot less people as well.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Sunday October 30 2016, @12:17AM
When it comes to resources, "cheaper" is a concern for countries without nukes and self sufficient food production. More over, it's a nation-wide concern, something that's largely irrelevant to US politics which is governed by the few for the benefit of the few.
On the subject, there is only the one mine and the EPA had to be silenced by the Obama administration before the mine could have been reopened ( https://gizmodo.com/the-strange-second-life-of-americas-only-rare-earth-min-1702199894 [gizmodo.com] ).
It was a recent policy change that put peace, industry & paying back the national debt over environmental concerns.
It coincides with Flint switching from Lake Huron to the Flint River (April 2014) and a few other water aquifer pollutions \ gas leak affects on climate change reports getting pushed to the end of the term if you're wondering about the timeline.
Recently, we've even seen a new fission plant open in the states after almost half a century of moratorium in practice.
Well, I'll cut this short before digressing any further... But it will take so much intelligence (state department budget sits at $70million) just to start making sense of all the interests here. Overall, when you have so many interests coinciding from all over, a money sink of a war can perpetuate much like a recession can regardless of net cost in life and resources. Think, Hundred Years' War.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday October 30 2016, @01:43AM
I wouldn't say cheap is unimportant. The chickenhawks seem deeply concerned about it when talking about programs that don't blow people up.
Your gizmodo link isn't really good support for your statement since is says nothing about Obama or the EPA at all.
But in any event, that still leaves war in the middle east and surrounding areas unjustifiable.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday October 25 2016, @01:21PM
Or, put another way, that's less than $14,000 per capita - spread over a 15 year period (with some costs not yet realized.)
Since coffee is $3/cup these days, that's less than a cup of coffee per person per day.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Wednesday October 26 2016, @12:51AM
So all, or nearly all, of the taxes a person employed at minimum wage or near it go to funding the U.S. war machine?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday October 26 2016, @03:23AM
Well, persons employed at minimum wage actually don't pay net taxes - if they take advantage of the programs offered they are net gaining funding (pay some, get more back through programs.) So, yeah, all their money, and all the money that other people who don't earn income at all pay in taxes, that too.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tisI on Tuesday October 25 2016, @02:17PM
Obama care doesn't cost anything to you except your monthly mandatory insurance payment, which was thought up and implemented by republicans.
The only thing Obama did to the insurance system was to prevent insurance companies from denying you coverage for pre-existing conditions.
The rest is republican care all the way.
Your opinion is that of fox news corp. Nothing but propaganda without a scrap of truth.
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself."
(Score: 2, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday October 25 2016, @02:28PM
You're claiming the Republicans wrote the vast majority of Obamacare? Seriously? Wow. I don't think I've read a more willfully blind statement in my entire time on the Internet. Congrats!
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Tuesday October 25 2016, @04:22PM
In an odd indirect way, yes. It is little more than Romneycare repackaged. That was because the Dems (winners of the lifetime rubber spine award) hoped the Rs might not fight so bitterly against an essentially Republican plan. Honestly, once it became clear the Rs would reject any D suggestion simply because tyhe Ds wanted it, they should have started over with an actual single payer system and fought it out very publicly.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday October 25 2016, @06:20PM
Anything that gets through a Republican controlled congress is Republican legislation.
Fox News et al knew this would be a contentious issue, so they granted ownership to Obama.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by el_oscuro on Wednesday October 26 2016, @01:43AM
But the Democrats controlled both houses when Obamacare passed. And they had to do some really janky shit to get it passed even with the majority. Anyone remember "The Louisiana Purchase" and "The Corn husker kickback"?
And WTF is the Speaker of the House saying "we have to pass it to see what is in it"? They can't even be bothered to read the laws they are passing? Peloski should have been fired or impeached for even thinking some shit like that.
SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @06:47PM
Honestly, once it became clear the Rs would reject any D suggestion simply because tyhe Ds wanted it, they should have started over with an actual single payer system and fought it out very publicly.
Overall I'm a fan of Single Payer myself (although I do have some reservations about it)... but putting that all aside, how would you address the question of Constitutionality.
The Supreme Court let the current Affordable Care Act sneak past with a figleaf of "it's really a tax," but a single payer has no such pretenses. Under what grounds of the Constitution would a single payer work; or are you saying they should pass a Constitutional amendment?
Also, I'm personally of the belief that Democrats are more right-leaning than they like to present themselves (and Republicans are more left-leaning, too), so I'm guessing the substantial majority of Democrats actually don't want Single Payer. Let's be optimistic and say 25% of the Democratic legislators don't support a like Single Payer due to it being too socialist... Even with such modest numbers, there is no way such a bill could pass Congress.
(Score: 3, Informative) by J053 on Tuesday October 25 2016, @08:02PM
Under what grounds of the Constitution would a single payer work; or are you saying they should pass a Constitutional amendment?
Under whatever grounds were used to justify Social Security and medicare. Just (1) eliminate the income cap on SS/Medicare tax (and apply it to all income - not just wages) and (b) open Medicare to everybody in the country.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday October 26 2016, @01:36AM
Bullshit. The Republicans never even had a chance to read that monstrosity before it was passed. Nobody did. It was humanly impossible.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @02:25PM
> Shit, that's almost a quarter as much as Obamacare costs.
As usual, the mighty blubberbutt has got his numbers backwards
Cost of wars since 2001: $4.79 trillion
Cost of obamacare for the next decade [time.com]: $1.34 trillion
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday October 25 2016, @03:10PM
It's a fair cop. Though I do dispute the "As usual" bit. No code monkey can usually get his numbers wrong and stay a code monkey for very long.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @03:32PM
Unless said code monkey works for Microsoft.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @03:58PM
> No code monkey can usually get his numbers wrong and stay a code monkey for very long.
That's absolutely true and exactly why you should stick to code.
When it comes to anything non-technical, if you say it, 99% of the time its a fantasy.
And maybe the reason you think otherwise is because you conflate your expertise in one area with expertise in another. Kind of like Linus Pauling going full-quack for vitamin C.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday October 25 2016, @07:35PM
This is an unfortunate tendency of coder-bros, from what I've seen. They're basically the triple-digit-IQ arm of the good ol' boys club. INT and WIS are not and have never been the same stat, and for some reason this particular clade decided to make WIS its dump stat. Oh, and CHA, but that's a given for nerd types...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday October 26 2016, @01:39AM
Pffft, my CHA is rockin. You simply mistake my thinking you're an unintelligent waste of oxygen for not being able to charm someone.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday October 26 2016, @03:00AM
Uh...actually, I didn't have you in mind with that comment. But, um, thanks for proving my point about a zillion times over.
You DO know, don't you, that one symptom of low CHA is being very susceptible to demagoguery? Based on your posts relating to...well, everything outside coding, which I'm sure you do well, it leads me to suspect you somehow rolled a natural 0 on that. Like, the dice basically went "nope, fuck this guy" and disappeared into the ether. Stick to what you do well, okay? You have a niche; enjoy it.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday October 26 2016, @10:29AM
My bedpost notches tell an entirely different story.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday October 26 2016, @04:51PM
Another symptom of low CHA is a complete lack of understanding--or caring--that you've gone off the reservation. Also inappropriate remarks for your supposed level of age or maturity. But that's just "locker room talk," right, big man?
I think what I like most about you is that you prove my point, and expand on it, in ways I wouldn't ever have dreamed of. It's like shooting fish in a barrel, except the fish actually takes the pistol out of my hands and blows its own brains out. And then lays there with a smug look on its face. I know this is cruel, but I can't help enjoying it. You've got the same essential problem ol' Donny Drumpf does.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday October 26 2016, @09:47PM
No, that would be low WIS. RTFPHB.
And inappropriate remarks have done extremely well by me my entire life. Two keys to pulling them off properly: Be funny an don't give a shit if you butthurt the twats with no sense of humor. The latter? Yeah, that's you. You can tell by how utterly flat your attempts at humor fall.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday October 27 2016, @03:47AM
You're the gift that keeps on, givin', Uzzard :) Cthulhu bless you.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 27 2016, @10:22AM
Cthulu 2016
Why settle for the lesser evil?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday October 25 2016, @09:15PM
Damn, we could have killed 4 times as many people.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @09:40PM
Healthcare? Healing? That's like communism or socialism or Sharia Darwin heatheness or some other scary word. Bannit!
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @11:07AM
But we got osama
and obama
And lots of unqualified idiots got paid really well
Theo de raadt missed out. He could be a millionaire. Look at Linux and press backspace exactly 28 times.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by rts008 on Tuesday October 25 2016, @11:24AM
Is this ONLY the US foreign wars being counted? Why not add the costs of the War on Drugs to the tally for a more complete(Total, as the title claims) picture. The taxpayers are funding both.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @01:11PM
Don't forget the first of the "wars" we started losing: the war on poverty. You have to add in all the money that's been channelled to funding the indolence of the lowest classes and their multiplication through breeding while the working middle class starves and sees its Obamacare tax rise 25% this year alone.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday October 25 2016, @01:26PM
If the middle class has been forced to shop at WalMart these days, from what I can see, they're not starving.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @03:30PM
Maybe they are not starving, but they are suffering from poor nutrition. It is just as damaging to their health as starvation (results in diminished life satisfaction and eventual death), thou not as immediate.
Poor nutrition brought on by economic forces is very tragic. There are very good examples such as this [nih.gov] this [who.int] and this [bbc.com]. What is happening to the Walmart crowd is quite similar.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @06:16PM
What a bunch of politically correct drivel. People get fat because they eat too damned much. Some starving would do them good.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday October 25 2016, @06:25PM
If they are suffering from poor nutrition, it's due to poor choices of foods they stick in their faces. There's plenty of calories available, in many forms - nobody is forcing them to eat at McDonalds.
However, having said that, the fast and unhealthy food industry is quite strong, and gained a lot of ex-tobacco leadership in the late 1980s / early 1990s when tobacco was getting legislated into lower profitability. A sizeable chunk of the American population is addicted to unhealthy foods, and it's not just because they choose to indulge - the formulation and marketing is specifically designed to make that happen, as it was for cigarettes.
But, back to the earlier point, the middle class can afford food, healthy food if they want, junk food if they're addicted, but either is well within their means.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @02:08PM
What I'm still trying to figure out is that if being middle class is so bad right now, how does one become one of these lower classes that live completely and comfortably off government benefits? I'm gay, so I should qualify for something, right? Plus I'll be voting Democrat this year for the first time in my life. Where do I sign up for these freebies?
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Tuesday October 25 2016, @10:00PM
Don't forget the first of the "wars" we started losing: the war on poverty. You have to add in all the money that's been channelled to funding the indolence of the lowest classes and their multiplication through breeding while the working middle class starves and sees its Obamacare tax rise 25% this year alone.
Except that we weren't losing the war on poverty. The poverty rate declined steadily from roughly 22% in the late 1950's until it reached a low of roughly 11 percent in 1973. It fluctuated between 11 and 12.5% in the rest of the 1970's but started to rise quickly in 1980, reaching 15% by 1983. It started declining again in the early 1990's, almost back down to 11% again by 2000, but since then it has risen again, reaching 15% again by 2010.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by VLM on Tuesday October 25 2016, @11:33AM
Afghanistan is where empires go to die.
Don't matter if ten in a row did it "this time is different and we're gonna win" and plop there goes another dead empire.
Its the imperialist version of the TV trope of jumping the shark... Soon as some idiot tries to invade Afghanistan best start looking for a new world reserve currency, start planning on realigning stuff once the empire is gone, etc etc.
All over but the funeral pretty much. Maybe if we elect Hillary she can get us all cremated in a pointless war with Russia.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by inertnet on Tuesday October 25 2016, @11:56AM
I remember a documentary right after the Russians were kicked out, when an Afghan victoriously claimed that no foreign power had ever succeeded in conquering Afghanistan. What he didn't realize that even the name Afghanistan points to the fact that they've already been successfully conquered long ago, by an empire disguised as a religion. And he himself is a descendent from the victims of that takeover and all the generations in between were its slaves.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @12:03PM
The religion came there through the khan's who used it because it made it easier to administrate an empire if everyone has the same belief in it.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday October 25 2016, @12:02PM
As if The Donald is such a peacenik? You counting on his love for Putin to keep us from going to war with Russia while we bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran? Or, who knows, maybe The Donald would start a war with Mexico if they refuse to pay for a wall.
Hillary is a hawk. Who's going to stop her from going to war? Surely not a Republican Congress, they like war even more than she does. We the people are really the only ones.
It's ridiculous that we're still in Afghanistan and Iraq. We settled Germany and Japan down after WWII, took about 10 years. Been 15 since we entered Afghanistan and the place is still a mess which we haven't figured out.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Sulla on Tuesday October 25 2016, @02:31PM
Only one candidate in this election promised to bomb Iran. And its not the Don.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @06:04PM
Only one candidate has a known history of kicking it up with other countries. Still not the Don.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 26 2016, @12:36AM
Brian Wilson [youtube.com] is running for POTUS?
(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.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday October 25 2016, @03:44PM
It's the books. Lots of books, and a sheet of plywood or overturned table.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @11:52AM
The amount of $4.79 trillion, "so large as to be almost incomprehensible"
A quarter of US debt is incomprehensible?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @12:40PM
Most folk's biggest expense is housing.
Take your monthly payment and spend that amount every second that passes.
How long till you get to $4.79 trillion?
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @02:41PM
uh. 303 years for $ 500/month, but that's excluding interest payments on the debt.
With a 3 % interest rate, it would be 2.3 million years to pay back the 4.79 trillion + 37146.45 trillion interest.
Maybe I made a miscalculation. Or, maybe, that debt is just going to be paid back in Zimbabwe dollars.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday October 25 2016, @12:04PM
How many of us understand how and why the uS won it's independence from England?
Empires are expensive, in many different ways. It costs money, time, material, and lives to put down rebellions, to keep the colonials in line, to keep the natives subdued.
The US doesn't exactly have an empire, but what we have isn't so very different. We're paying the same bills, for basically the same things that the British empire couldn't afford.
And, funny enough, those costs are only a small part of the US' debt. We've squandered our great grandchildren's wealth. On and on we go, spending money foolishly, like there is no tomorrow. All for the sake of corporate interests, and corporate profits.
We should just dissolve the twenty or fifty largest corporations, those with the most lobbying influence, and start all over. Get a couple banks, a couple aircraft manufacturers, a military vehicle manufacturer, and several credit companies. Just seize their assets, and tell them they are personna non grata.
That would put all the rest of the corporations on notice that they can go down too.
Empire. England didn't build it's empire for the sake of the crown. The empire was built on business interests - the Hudson Bay company, various Indian interests, and so much more. Rich bastards lobbying the crown for aid in building a business empire, so that they could pay taxes to the crown, which they cheated on later.
History does repeat itself, doesn't it?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by pTamok on Tuesday October 25 2016, @12:28PM
The USA obtained its independence, in part, due to the aid of France.
Quoting from the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War [wikipedia.org]
Because the French involvement in the war was distant and naval in nature, over a billion livres tournois were spent by the French government to support the war effort. That sum was double the normal annual income of the French government, making the finances of the French state in disastrous shape. The heavy cost of servicing the debt, given the highly inefficient financial system, caused political instability in France. That instability was one of the immediate causes of the French Revolution of 1789.
In all the French spent 1.3 billion livres to support the Americans directly, in addition to the money it spent fighting Britain on land and sea outside the U.S.[15]
France's status as a great modern power was affirmed by the war, but it was detrimental to the country's finances. Even though France's European territories were not affected, victory in a war against Great Britain with battles like the decisive siege of Yorktown in 1781 had a large financial cost which severely degraded fragile finances and increased the national debt.[16] France gained little except that it weakened its main strategic enemy and gained a new, fast-growing ally that could become a welcome trading partner. However, the trade never materialized, and in 1793 the United States proclaimed its neutrality in the war between Great Britain and the French Republic.
One can draw parallels between France as a great power taking on disastrous debt servicing foreign wars, and the current behaviour of the USA.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 26 2016, @04:28AM
That war tumbled on and on for a long time too. The americans were getting beat in 1812. But the English had to withdraw and basically settled with what is now canada. Why did they withdraw? Because the french were back at it and they had to concentrate on Napoleon. Napoleon had to find a quick infusion of cash. Which he got from the Americans and the Louisiana purchase.
It wasn't until basically WWI that everyone started to get along to fight the germans. Even the civil war England and France took sides.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Tuesday October 25 2016, @12:39PM
It costs money, time, material, and lives to put down rebellions, to keep the colonials in line, to keep the natives subdued.
If you are restricted to doing it in a politically safe manner, I'm guessing.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday October 25 2016, @01:12PM
You sound like a Bernie Bro. So, you've gone full-commie?
Nah, just yanking your chain. I agree with you completely. It will never happen in America 1.0, though. That version of the republic is totally compromised and cannot be fixed. We gotta scrap it and start over. The system, that is. The people in America who are not part of the elite are as good and capable as they've always been, despite the nonsense Left vs. Right rhetoric, the Black Lives Matter vs. Others rhetoric, the old vs. young rhetoric. But the longer they wait to uproot the system, the less that will be true: the fish rots from the head first, but eventually the rot reaches the rest of the fish also.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0, Redundant) by khallow on Tuesday October 25 2016, @01:46PM
We should just dissolve the twenty or fifty largest corporations, those with the most lobbying influence, and start all over. Get a couple banks, a couple aircraft manufacturers, a military vehicle manufacturer, and several credit companies. Just seize their assets, and tell them they are personna non grata.
A powerful state which can just take like that is precisely the sort of state that gets into wars. Why do people continue to have this fantasy that a few corporations are running things when all the power is in the government? The corporations get better deals with the government than you because they have more to offer.
Here, you speak of 50 US businesses while ignoring that there is only one federal government with a captive revenue stream of over three trillion dollars.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday October 25 2016, @07:43PM
You're actually starting to sound reasonable in your old age, Runaway :) Quick, say something false and ignorant and jingoistic, before J-Mo and The Shitey Uzzard have you up on charges of insufficient patriotism!
...seriously, though, the US is going down the exact same path the USSR did 30-odd years ago and for the exact same reason. Putin must be laughing himself hoarse every night into his vodka ration. History might not repeat, precisely, but it sure as hell rhymes with itself. We got bogged down in Afghanistan, we're corrupt and decadent internally, we rely on effectively slave labor, we don't make much of anything, we're entangled in foreign alliances...it's the same story all over again. Rome, the Ottomans, the USSR...and now us.
What has me worried is that collapses tend to happen much faster than most peoples' imagination can accomodate. And the US has a lot of really, really bad karma concerning foreign policy, and a lot of powerful enemies. There are about a zillion ways things could go to hell in the blink of an eye.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @12:11PM
Just look at how Iraq has improved since Saddam was taken out, and Syria is now pretty much a paradise. The whole of the Middle East is now much more stable thanks to foreign intervention.
The US taxpayer's money has been well spent. The only question is where to intervene next? Many western leaders are desperate to get into a war with Russia. I think a war with Russia would be a good choice because it would improve everyone's life immensely. A few trillion more won't be missed...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @12:26PM
Muammar Gaddafi was the most progressive political leader in the world [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [paulcraigroberts.org]
...until USAian hegemony killed him.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Tuesday October 25 2016, @12:26PM
Funny you mention that: According to a report from a few months ago, the US DoD can't explain what happened to $6.5 trillion [rt.com]. For reference, that's approximately 1/3 of the US national debt. And hardly anyone has taken notice.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday October 25 2016, @01:02PM
That's easy. It's sitting in accounts in the Caymans, and Switzerland, and Luxembourg, and a half-dozen other offshore banks.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by Sarasani on Wednesday October 26 2016, @01:53AM
The black hole of accounting for black ops?
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday October 27 2016, @07:59AM
Note, however, that they're quite informative when it comes to US stories, as they seem to disagree in almost every possible way with US media like Fox. Which means that it's more likely to be true than Fox is.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday October 27 2016, @12:29PM
They are far from the only source of the story. Here's some more:
CNN [cnn.com]
Reuters [reuters.com]
Fiscal Times [thefiscaltimes.com]
These stories are all based on official government documents, which all demonstrate this same staggering amount of missing money.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Tuesday October 25 2016, @01:51PM
Just google for: damascus before and after
Then click Images.
We should not be spending this much money to inflict this much misery throughout the world.
We need to spend it domestically.
To inflict misery here at home. How about prisons that are run for profit. And an education system that produces a balance of graduates destined to either occupy the for profit prisons, or be worker drones to pay for the for profit prisons. This can replace the military industrial complex. Problem solved. Everyone happy.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bradley13 on Tuesday October 25 2016, @02:55PM
Reading the link about the accounting problems, it sounds mostly like incompetence. The money was most likely spend correctly, but they made a total muck of the accounting.
The government ought to hold itself to exactly the same accounting standards (GAAP) that it requires of companies. Failure to comply should carry equivalent penalties, up to and including jail time for the top managers.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jasassin on Tuesday October 25 2016, @11:23PM
Once in a blue moon there's a post that should be +5 funny, +5 informative, +5 insightful, and +5 touche. I hereby give you an honorary +20 mod.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Tuesday October 25 2016, @02:26PM
Some good and interesting points about empire and other stuff.
But, it is hard to use models of the past when technology has been advancing at an exponential rate.
The one advance I'll pick form the mix is the drones - the USA has almost perfected remote warfare, in a way that no nation has before (Germans V2 were imprecise, and mostly propaganda, even though probably killed 8000 if you believe what you read here [straightdope.com]).
The point being, the ideological war can only be won in hearts and minds, something we should probably start at home...
But can be really messily delayed using remote bombs...
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday October 25 2016, @03:49PM
The V2 cost as much as a bomber, but could be used just once, to deliver just one bomb.
While the V1 could be shot down by diving on it, they were much cheaper than V2s.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 25 2016, @06:27PM
the USA has almost perfected remote warfare
The obvious rebuttal: where are the self-replicating killbots? There's a long ways to go to perfect remote warfare.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday October 25 2016, @06:40PM
Sort of the definition of war is the "like no nation before." That's what true war is all about, innovation, killing the other guy as quickly and cheaply as possible.
Self replicating killbot tech would be more of an existential risk than an efficient or "perfect" tool of war... unless you are the killbot AI.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by jelizondo on Tuesday October 25 2016, @07:02PM
Models of the past are still applicable because you know, it is one thing to bomb remotely some people and quite another to engage in “country building” as Bush (the idiot, not the other one) put it.
You can make people fearful of dying with a drone but to people who are used to living in the mountains with their goats and not much more, it is not a great threat. The western point of view is askew because we think that Internet access, shopping malls and other shit is important (it is for a western citizen) but to a camel herder in the desert, it means nothing. Are you going to comb the entire desert to get them? Are you going to go cave to cave in the mountains? For that you need boots on the ground and then, bam! the old models apply.
So yeah, you can scare city dwellers with your drones, try scaring those guys in the mountains and this wonderful technology means nothing at all.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Wednesday October 26 2016, @02:25AM
Well the point is the wars of the past that saw huge protests, were partly due to the large number of bodies coming home.
With the bunker under a mountain in Colorado, and the dead along way away, the public outcry is lessened - part of the problem perhaps.
But, a possible viewpoint of the desparate actions of these zealots is exactly because they *are* desperate. Hopelessly out classed, and the western social juggernaut, rolling over them.
I don't have much sympathy for that viewpoint, because whether we like it or not, our view is that everyone can do what they like - so long as they don't hurt others (yes, I know that's over simplified...).
So perhaps we just have to except a certain level of random violence, until secularism can be discovered by the majority of these regions...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @07:00PM
Spread out over 15 years? Chump change, my man.
Show your math, said the teacher:
$5T split between 250M population of US => $20k each.
Divide that by 15 years, and 365 day/year... $3.66 per day.
Of course, you can sharpen your pencils for minor adjustments to the values.
And note that some of the 250M do not pay tax.
And some years do not have 365 days...
Regardless, this is your fault (you US taxpayer, you).
Makes me glad I moved to Canada years ago, I'm ~70% less guilty!