One Trillion Bucks: Cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

[RobinFinderson]

Huffpo is headlining with a report on the current cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- One trillion dollars (mostly borrowed from our children and grandchildren), and counting.

And what did we get for that?

Hypothetical: Lets say the wars prevented 20,000 deaths in the US, that would have been the result of terrorism. It has also cost the US 5000 soldiers (rounded down), for a net savings of 15,000 lives.

$one trillion / 15,000 lives = $66,666,666/life.

$66+ million per life, which of course assumes that there would have been a series of successful catastrophic terrorist attacks against the US, at least one of which would have eclipsed the attacks on the WTC.

Did that one trillion buy lasting democracy in Iraq or Afghanistan? The jury is still out. Did that one trillion deter Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons? Looks doubtful.

On the bright side, according to WolframAlpha, the cost of these wars only comes to $3210 dollars for every American man, woman and child. Cheap, right? For a one-time payment of $10,000, LR, Faith and I could do our part for this country to break even on this war.

What else can one trillion dollars buy?

[Moliere]

What else can one trillion dollars buy?

health care for all Americans that currently don't have it or don't want it for at least the next ten years.

[All-American]

health care for all Americans that currently don't have it or don't want it for at least the next ten years.

A stable economy.

[Babs]

why do I hear Dr. Evil when I see this thread title?

[RobinFinderson]

A stable economy.

If you can believe Nestor Kirchner, former president of Argentina, in an interview with Oliver Stone for an upcoming documentary (yes, Stone+Kirchner = two strikes for any conservative wanting to dismiss all of this out of hand), then Bush planned on having the war help out the economy.

[YOUTUBE]fI446mXonu0[/YOUTUBE]

[Maximus]

If you can believe Nestor Kirchner, former president of Argentina, in an interview with Oliver Stone for an upcoming documentary (yes, Stone+Kirchner = two strikes for any conservative wanting to dismiss all of this out of hand), then Bush planned on having the war help out the economy.

[YOUTUBE]fI446mXonu0[/YOUTUBE]

I wonder why conservatives dismiss stone...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...WNXMgD9G08FL02

[RC Vikings]

I would guess for a trillion we could secure our borders and take care of that problem.

[Uncle Ted]

Huffpo is headlining with a report on the current cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- One trillion dollars (mostly borrowed from our children and grandchildren), and counting.

And what did we get for that?

Hypothetical: Lets say the wars prevented 20,000 deaths in the US, that would have been the result of terrorism. It has also cost the US 5000 soldiers (rounded down), for a net savings of 15,000 lives.

$one trillion / 15,000 lives = $66,666,666/life.

$66+ million per life, which of course assumes that there would have been a series of successful catastrophic terrorist attacks against the US, at least one of which would have eclipsed the attacks on the WTC.

According to this analysis terrorism shouldn't be our top risk concern::

To border on becoming unacceptable by established risk conventions -- that is, to reach an annual fatality risk of 1 in 100,000 -- the number of fatalities from terrorist attacks in the United States and Canada would have to increase 35-fold; in Great Britain (excluding Northern Ireland), more than 50-fold; and in Australia, more than 70-fold. For the United States, this would mean experiencing attacks on the scale of 9/11 at least once a year, or 18 Oklahoma City bombings every year.

[...]

As a hazard to human life in the United States, or in virtually any country outside of a war zone, terrorism under present conditions presents a threat that is hardly existential. Applying widely accepted criteria established after much research by regulators and decision-makers, the risks from terrorism are low enough to be deemed acceptable. Overall, vastly more lives could have been saved if counterterrorism funds had instead been spent on combating hazards that present unacceptable risks.

[...]

But even if all the (mostly embryonic) terrorist plots exposed since 9/11 had been successfully carried out, their likely consequences would have been far less severe. Indeed, both before and after 2001, the total number of people killed by terrorists outside (and sometimes within) war zones generally registers far below that number. Also relevant: the United Kingdom seems to be about as secure from terrorism as the United States while spending proportionately half as much on its counterterrorism efforts.

[RobinFinderson]

According to this analysis terrorism shouldn't be our top risk concern::

Exactly, Ted. This is the ironic part of my post -- assuming the war has been wildly successful by the very terms that were used to sell it to the public, namely that it was a rational response to the tragic attacks on 9/11, even then the cost of the war is a failure. It is hard to imagine what kind of success in the war regions could ever constitute 'success' when the unfinished price of that business is already so astronomically high. On top of that, most Americans have no idea why we are still there.

[8BR]

What else can one trillion dollars buy?

A single TARP program or one "Stimulus" bill.

[CardiacCoug]

Besides the enormous expense and the lives lost there are two more things I hate about these wars:

1. They will likely increase the number of future terrorists (by means of increased resentment throughout the Islamic world of the US invasion and presence in Afghanistan and Iraq).

2. The wars will hurt military recruitment for decades. By and large, American kids with other options have been avoiding a military career and will continue to avoid one because they know that right now joining the military or reserves likely means deployment.

Don't get me wrong, I think putting Osama and Al Qaeda on the run with cruise missiles and special ops is important. But a full-scale occupation of a country on the other side of the planet seems foolish to me. Obviously those resources could have made a huge difference in our own country.

On the plus side, I do think to some degree there me be some small deterrence to rogue foreign governments (e.g. Iran, North Korea) by the US showing it has the will and military might to carry out simultaneous invasions and occupations of 2 large countries on the opposite hemisphere.

[Uncle Ted]

Besides the enormous expense and the lives lost there are two more things I hate about these wars:

1. They will likely increase the number of future terrorists (by means of increased resentment throughout the Islamic world of the US invasion and presence in Afghanistan and Iraq).

2. The wars will hurt military recruitment for decades. By and large, American kids with other options have been avoiding a military career and will continue to avoid one because they know that right now joining the military or reserves likely means deployment.

Man, you guys are starting to sound like that crazy Ron Paul guy from Texas.

[wuapinmon]

http://costofwar.com/en/

Sobering

[mUUser]

Makes me ill thinking about it.

Nothing we can do there will "fix" the area. What a gigantic waste.

[NorthwestUteFan]

That is unbelievably sad. Our grandchildren will curse our names (or at least the names of our politicians) for selling their birthright for a mess of pottage, and bankrupting many future generations in the process.

It seems so bizarre that we were 'struggling' under the weight of a $68B annual budget deficit in the late 70s and now seem to happily swallow our way to a current deficit approaching 300 times as large, and will maintain that structural deficit, annually, for much of the coming decade.

Ike Eisenhower was indeed prescient to warn us of the 'vast military-industrial complex'. Now we have an unbelievable military power, so we feel entitled to use it. It is a vicious cycle.