Special Analysis:
Costs to the U.S. of 20th and 21st Century Wars
In the aftermath of the attacks upon the United States of September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush officially declared a Global War on Terror (GWOT), which came to involve military operations and security measures conducted abroad and within the United States. The three principal operations comprising GWOT are Operation Enduring Freedom, covering Afghanistan and other GWOT operations; Operation Noble Eagle providing enhanced security at military bases; and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Within each of these three operations, funds are allocated among all or some of the following: military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care. According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS) in its June 14, 2006, report for Congress, "The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11," the combined cost across the three primary operations of GWOT had reached $437 billion.The table and associated graphics below present the cost of GWOT to June 2006 in comparison to approximate costs incurred by the United States in the major conflicts in which it engaged during the 20th Century. All data other than for GWOT were derived from the Statistical Summary, America's Major Wars Webpage of the U.S. Civil War Center (USCWC) of Louisiana State University. The cost to June 2006 of GWOT was obtained from the Congressional Research Service as cited above, and the population estimate for the United States in calculating the per capita cost of GWOT was estimated at 299 million, based upon recent U.S. Census Bureau data. USCWC cost figures for wars of the 20th Century were presented at the USCWC Website in 1990 dollars, but are presented here in 2006 dollars based upon adjustments made using consumer price index data provided by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, inflating the USCWC data from the year each war ended to the present. (Note that on the USCWC site, the 1990 cost equivalent of World War I is incorrect: the figure reported there is $97 billion dollars, but the original cost of the war, which was $26 billion, would be $225 billion in 1990 dollars.) War durations were derived from war timelines at Infoplease.com.
Readers are cautioned that, unlike the other wars presented below, the Global War on Terror is not yet completed and will not be in the foreseeable future. This will most specifically affect total cost of the conflict, but may also affect both monthly and per capita costs depending upon the level and direction of future expenditures.
The Dark Wraith encourages a careful review of the data presented above.
Published 10/17/2006 12:22:00 AM
<< 15 Comments Total
Good morning, Dark Wraith.
I'm afraid you must have made a mistake somewhere. As everyone knows, the Titanic Battle of Civilizations that we are currently fighting is unprecedented both in scope and importance. So serious is our situation that we have been forced to shred the constitution and place such outmoded ideas as Habeus Corpus on hold - perhaps indefinitely. Indeed we may even need to elect our current president to the newly minted office of Dictator for Life, such is our need for stability in this time of desperate, life-or-death struggle with Afghani cave-dwellers.
Please, swap the numbers for WWII and GWoT back into their proper places and cease this transparent attempt at misinformation.
Also of interest, Wraith, would be the percentage of GDP sucked up by each war. The state of the nation's economy as a whole may be an important factor in detirmining whether a specific cost is long-term sustainable or not.
This is especially true since military production is essentially "lost" to the economy as vs. virtually all other heavy capital investment. A fighter plane is not useful for creating further economic inputs, whereas a jet airliner increases economic efficiencies by reducing the amount of time spent on travel and increasing the amount of time spent on production and thus, in economic terms, pays for itself over time (otherwise in a free market no one would ever buy or fly a jet airliner!). The inputs that went into the fighter plane are essentially lost to productive use, just as human capital used as soldiers are essentially lost to the economy since they are producing neither goods nor services of use to the rest of the economy (unless, as with North Korea, you use the soldiers to run factories and harvest crops then claim to have a million man Army when what you really have is a million men who may or may not know which end of a rifle goes 'bang' but sure know how to harvest crops well!).
For those who are confused by my above paragraph, I believe it is important to remember that goods and services are the point of an economy, rather than pretty pieces of paper with pictures of dead Presidents. Said pictures of dead Presidents without goods and services to exchange for them are just so many pieces of toilet paper. Economic growth consists of growing the amount of goods and services provided by an economy. Military spending, since it reduces the amount of goods and services in an economy by diverting some of them to other uses not useful for further growing the economy, thus is a net negative to an economy. Its long-term sustainability depends upon whether there are sufficient remaining resources (after some are diverted to military use) to continue at least maintaining the per-capita production of goods and services in the economy. When you fail to do that, you get the Soviet Union circa 1992, an economy in free-fall where, due to starvation of capital investment due to the militarization of the economy, even the ability to maintain a viable military goes into drastic decline.
-BT
"And they fall back, over and over, on a resort of force (in its various expressions....war, law, taxation, rules, and regulations)which is extremely costly, instead of employing power which is very economical."
Dr. David R. Hawkins
Kinda makes you wonder to what degree man really knows anything! Pride does seem to goeth before a fall. Man has habitually died for pride---armies still regularly slaughter each other for that aspect of it called nationalism. Religious wars, political terrorism and zealotry, the ghastly history of the Middle East and Central Europe----this are all the price of pride, which all society pays. Arrogant, pompous pride. How else could something so outrageous as war even occur?
"The war to end all wars," did no such thing, nor could it possibly have done so. Wars--including wars on "vice," "drugs," or any of the human needs regularly traded for in the great hidden social market place that underlies conventional commerce.... can only be won by choosing peace.
Can anyone imagine what could have been done with the literally trillions of $s wasted by this idiot misadministration? The gawddamned fools. I apologize to the Dark One for my outburst. I now go out back to kick some fleas.
Good afternoon, blackdog.
We could, of course, have done quite a few things that didn't involve death and destruction. We might even have been able to topple the Ba'athist regime in Iraq by means other than brute force that has ultimately led to a total body count that would make Saddam Hussein, himself, blush.
We could have done some work on U.S. infrastructure—oh, say, maybe we could have upgraded some levees along the coast, perhaps done some work on rotting inner cities (which people seem to forget still exist), spent some money on cleaning up the penal system and making it actually effective instead of merely punitive, worked on some cures for diseases, done some research on why rates of premature birth are rising all over the world, looked into the causes and effective mitigations for workplace and schoolhouse violence...
Oh, well. At least we have some got some nice postcards from Baghdad.
The Dark Wraith thinks we should count our blessings.
Good afternoon, SB Gypsy.
It seems to me that some of the achievements for which I can look back with some degree of relief are the moments when I didn't let pride get in the way of a good solution to a problem. Unfortunately, that satisfaction is to some extent lessened by knowing that the prideful often get mistaken for the bold, and hubris is mistaken way too often for conviction and certainty. The distinctions are fine, and they are lost on the many people who are all too willing to reward stupidity because they think it is something other than that.
It seems to me there's some lessons we might want to give to children before they grow up to be Republicans.
The Dark Wraith ought to write a curriculum plan about that.
Good afternooon, BadTux.
Yes, I thought long and hard about the percent-of-GDP problem, but it's one I'd have to do a considerably more detailed analysis in order to present results. The problem is that all of these wars spanned months if not years, so I would have to break down the costs on a specific month-by-basis, then divide by the GDP for each relevant month. That would require seasonal adjustments not only of the GDP, but also of the expenditures on the particular war.
I could do it by year, but that would make the shorter conflicts challenging, especially the Gulf War since it lasted only three months.
Also, the longest of the conflicts was the Vietnam War, which spanned nearly a decade. Through that time, the war could very well have had, first, a stimulative effect on GDP, then a debilitating effect (the latter being entirely complicated by the fact that it was occurring in the same time frame as some other tumultuous, global economic circumstances).
That point above has to be taken into account: by Keynesian logic, wars have a stimulative, if inflationary, effect. Depending upon where a nation is in the cycle of moving along and then across Phillips curves, the inflationary effects of over-monetization of the war effort can come to bear either almost immediately or considerably later, complicating any effort to correct for its pecuniary effects on GDP numbers reported at the time the conflict is under way.
Tough treading—the kind of stuff that might be worthy of a decent master's thesis, if for no other reason than to offer a sound way to capture total output of an economy over a long period of time in comparison to expenditures on a war that might very well be actually differentially and variably affecting those very same numbers.
The Dark Wraith is getting way too deep into thinking about econometric modeling and signal processing analysis writing about this.
Good afternoon, Mr. Shakes.
Yes, this GWOT is most decidely a run-of-the-mill affair: by quite a few of the metrics, it is very similar to most conflicts of the 20th Century, with World War II being the 800-pound gorilla exception. That in itself is sort of telling, don't you think?—perhaps an indicator of when we are in a real fight against something very, very real and menacing, as opposed to when we're in a fight that isn't of the same character and quality.
One thing that sort of bothers me in those numbers and graphs, and this is purely the data analyst in me coming out with some gut sense: this GWOT looks by the numbers in some ways way too much like Vietnam. It's hard to put my finger on any one thing in those graphs or that table, but I swear there's something in that stream of visuals that just whispers "Vietnam... quagmire... long, long haul."
It might just be me, though. I hope so.
The Dark Wraith shouldn't look at graphs so intently.
How much is 2,700+ American dead worth in US dollars? (Given American attitudes about ragheads, I won't even bother to ask about 655,000 Iraqi dead.)
Good evening, jahf.
Multiply 2700 by $6 million.
That's a rough estimate in a government accounting sort of way.
You get $16.2 billion. That would be about 3.2 percent of the $437 billion the U.S. has expended to date in GWOT.
As is often the case in valuation of human lives, the dead aren't the greatest financial cost; it's the severely wounded, particularly those who are maimed, crippled, or otherwise impaired. American soldiers are surviving extraordinary battlefield injuries (both physical and psychological), and there are at least five costs involved in this morbid calculus:
1) Direct costs associated with immediate care to ensure survival in the hours and days after injury.
2) Direct costs of rehabilitation.
3) Direct costs of payments to those deemed partially or totally disabled.
4) Opportunity cost of lost earning power.
5) Extended hidden costs on family, friends, and others whose lives are redirected and in many cases diminished due to the impairment of the injured soldier.
Some costs are difficult, but by no means impossible, to calculate or at least estimate. Taking all of this into account, just as a number to toss out, if the 3.2 percent is a decent place to start with cost of mortality, then we could put about twice that percentage out as a starter for the wounded, putting us in the ballpark of maybe ten percent of GWOT, only part of which is actually included in the official $437 billion figure, and only part of which will be seen by the individual, his or her family, and the society at large in the short run. Many of the problems will incur more visibly as costs years later; and even then, only some of those costs that show up will ever be associated with GWOT. This is especially true in the case of children of wounded and killed soldiers, where you'll see both stark and subtle behavioral problems as these children grow up and become productive adults impaired because of family disruptions.
Going beyond that, you will see all kinds of secondary effects of dead and wounded soldiers. As an example, in the years ahead, once it soaks into the American electorate's thick skull that both attacking and occupying Iraq and Afghanistan the way we did were just plain stupid, that electorate will become quite gun-shy for a very, very long time about the use of military force; and that could be a disaster were there really an important reason to do so. Effectively, by the neo-cons using the armed forces of the United States as their little toy that blew up in our faces, we as a nation could very well become absolutely toothless across the globe, both because we will have depleted our will to use all means at our disposal when the situation merits military intervention (which should be extemely rare, anyway, and most likely in genuine—not pretend—coordination with a strong and reasoned coalition) and because our military will have been weakened to the point where it wouldn't be nearly as effective as possible even if we were to use it.
Eventually, I fear that we are going to become isolationists once again. It would be an extraordinarily rare circumstance where we would ever have a need to use firepower, but short of that, we are going to have to pull our horns in diplomatically, economically, and even psychologically for quite a long time, and we'll be doing that at one of the very worst times to be hiding under the blankets.
Now, jahf, I do know that your question was somewhat rhetorical, but my purpose in the extended answer I have provided is to point out that it isn't enough to simply declare a war as "incalculable" and beyond any metrics of association. That's not the way I analyze the world. When I look at the numbers and the graphs, I can see relationships between and among wars, and that helps me inordinately in understanding the path a particular war is going to take or, at the very least, the likely bounds on probable outcomes.
In the case of GWOT, as I noted above to Mr. Shakes, I see a garden-variety war of opportunity, pretty much the very same kind as we dabbled in over and over again throughout the 20th Century, except that it has the look and feel--from both the numbers and from the on-the-ground, human reporting--of another Vietnam: protracted; economically stimulating at first, then economically debilitating as it drags on; expensive; and ultimately unsuccessful in a way that diminishes the society at both the individual levels of soldiers and their families and at the level of the civil society, itself. And this is to say nothing about the long-term damage to the peoples of the victimized countries and to countries that bear the secondary effects of our insanity (as in the case of Europe right now, which is being flooded with cheap heroin thanks to our "allies," the Afghan warlords, who are back to their ancient business of cranking out the dope like there's no tomorrow).
The costs, both direct and indirect, are difficult to calculate, but the matter has to be undertaken; and I'll tell you this right now, jahf: I tore up a whole lot of turf trying to come up with these numbers. I thought to myself that, surely, this stuff is right out there where everyone can find it. Guess what?—it isn't, at least not where it's all easy for people to see.
As such, while others are rightfully talking about the human and social and psychological components of the outrages of this Administration, it serves no good purpose to ignore the hard-core valuation analysis, which is sometimes the only thing that gets politicians off their fat asses: when they start to see the costs going through the roof, that might get them motivated where protesters chanting, "Hey-hey, ho-ho; George Bush must go!" won't have much effect.
It's my craft, and it's part of the tapestry that presses the powers that be to once in a while pay attention to something other than their craven "Let's git tuff on somethin' 'cause that'll git us some o' them-thar redneck votes" mentality.
Once in a while, it's important to cut to the numbers.
The Dark Wraith can bring attention to bear both by numbers and by rhetoric, but has no desire to give up one just to be exclusive for the other.
Good evening, Dark Wraith.
I think that once you take WWI out of the mix (a conflict to which the U.S.A.'s contribution was comparitively marginal), and look at the monthly cost of each war, you get a pretty good idea of how much effort was expended on each of them. And it seems as though the monthly cost is the factor that most stongly correlates with the outcome. Vietnam, Korea and the GWoT all used up vast quantities of resources over long periods of time, but the overhwelming and sudden projection of power that is evident in the WWII and Gulf War numbers doesn't make an appearance. Instead we have just the long drip-drip of inevitable defeat, stalemate and disaster.
So I think you're right when you suggest that the GWoT has some numerical similarities to Vietnam. Especially when you consider that today's ordanance is exponentially more expensive. A fact which makes the GWoT numbers seem even less impressive.
Of course, this ignores the unique characterisitics of each war, and we're talking about a very small sample, but I share your gut instinct on this. Obviously, I wasn't around when Vietnam was being fought, but when I read about the history of that time I am struck by the familiar texture that those events share with today. Taken all together, it paints a bleak picture.
Good evening, Mr. Shakes.
And it's that gut sense that gives me this sick feeling.
I don't foresee any candidate from either party getting us out of there in the foreseeable future. Even if a candidate strongly in favor of a date certain for withdrawal were to be elected President in 2008, he or she would face an almost insurmountable challenge in the act of extricating us. Quite literally, the neo-cons have created such a mess that, if we stay, we get bled to death, but if we leave, the place simply degenerates into an even worse mess (if that's possible) than it is already. Even bleaker is that we've stirred up all kinds of parties in the region with interests that are not even close to being compatible with ours; and they're going to be slowly depleting us as we stay, and overrunning the situation if we leave.
I don't think one could have deliberately designed a more perfect mess than the Bush Administration has created.
But I'll tell you this much: Bush and his cabal have created a terrible temptation for the next President. By building that unbelievably ridiculous embassy complex there in Baghdad, the neo-cons have effectively created something that only the strongest-willed of future Presidents would have the strength to simply walk away from.
And as we establish war bases in Iraq, we'll have even more incentive to stay as a presence for a very, very long time. Essentially, the argument (fallacious as it is, falling as it does under the famous "sunk cost fallacy") will go like this: "Look at all the money we've spent on these military bases and on that embassy! Surely no one would expect us to just up and leave, what with all that stuff we've gotten set up and with all that money we've spent."
That's an argument (again, completely fallacious) that almost no future leadership in this country will be able to resist.
God! but it's depressing, especially when I get this vision of a day maybe ten years from now when televisions are showing the last U.S. helicopters pulling up and away from rooftops at that embassy in Baghdad just minutes before insurgents by the thousands overrun the place.
The Dark Wraith needs to find a neo-con to kick in the backside.
Good Morning, Dark One,
Your graphics are fabulous as usual and very illustrative of the dire situation.
Probably, no nation is rich enough to pay for both war and civilization. We must make our choice; we cannot have both.
~Abraham Flexner
Good Evening Dark Wraith:
Indeed, getting out of Iraq could be an even worse exercise. I have been worried about the eight mile trip from the green zone to the airport for quite awhile. They might find themselves in a La Noche Triste situation trying to get away from the angry multitude they have created.
As far as the value of a human life I offer this little tale of my college days.....
Back when I was fresh out of the military I decided to cash in on the G.I. Bill, this was in the late 70's when, if you were in a State or other reasonably priced institution you could get a decent education in return for your years of service. Having spent the last eight years in the Navy, three of those years in Viet Nam, with two more years in other, smaller conflicts in Africa and Central America I was wrapped a wee bit tighter than the usual undergraduate student.
Philosophy 101 was its usual bullshit self. The Professor was a notorious Pinko who had helped to organise various student demonstrations against Viet Nam. He had a hard on for veterans. He would single us out for little sarcasms and petty insults, he would blue pencil the living shit out of any paper we had the audacity to turn in.
I had no problem with anyone that was a anti-war protester. Still don't. A very close friend of mine who is a brilliant singer/songwriter chose to go to Canada rather than submit to the draft and I respected his choice then as I do now. I really have little problem with a person that chooses to follow the dictates of their conscience. What you have to remember though, is that I had spent the last five years in extreme circumstances, getting shot at and hit three times. What I had a problem with was not the man's politics but his pettiness. Usually his asides and snubs were done publicly for the entertainment of the young women who flocked around him and hung out in the hallways waiting for “office hours” and the like.
One afternoon we were in the lecture hall and Professor S. was up at the front grandstanding for the women again and he reached a point in the lecture where he rhetorically asked, “And what is the value of a human life?”
Without thinking I blurted “Eighty five bucks.”
He said “Who said that?”
I rose and said “I did Professor S.”
“How did you arrive at that figure?”
I replied, “That's what they charge you extra in Bangkok if you kill the girl.”
There was nothing but silence. I sat down and opened my notebook. When I looked up he was still standing there, his face blank and pale. I said:
“Please, do continue, I'm sorry I interrupted.”
Inside I was laughing my ass off.
I did become far better behaved in the classroom. Unless, of course, they only gave me the diploma to get rid of me....
Good Morning Dark Wraith
I must admit I'm amazed that the brief time spent in WWII cost that much money. In High School my World Civ teacher would ask us baby boomers a trick question each year: Why War? What's it good for?
My answer (it's good for the economy) was gleaned from dinner conversation that I was not invited to participate in. My teacher was overjoyed that someone actually finally got the right answer. It was soon proven erroneous by VietNam.
Military spending, since it reduces the amount of goods and services in an economy by diverting some of them to other uses not useful for further growing the economy, thus is a net negative to an economy.
WWII was different than the rest on your list, because it precipitated a retooling of industry unprecedented in our history. And that retooling is the reason that we are not quite yet on the metric standard. (only a cretin would throw out all those shiny new tools - so we wait for them to all grow so old and outmoded that they will be discarded)
It was also one of the reasons our economy took off after the war - to exhibit a sudden prosperity also unprecedented in our history. I wonder, if WWII had not been so wildly successful, would we have jumped into the rest of these messes with such enthusiasm?