
US federal price tag for the post-9/11 wars is over $6.4T dollars - nibepins
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/
======
nibepins
Summary:

\- Over 801,000 people have died due to direct war violence, and several times
as many indirectly

\- Over 335,000 civilians have been killed as a result of the fighting

\- 37 million - the number of war refugees and displaced persons

\- The US federal price tag for the post-9/11 wars is over $6.4 trillion
dollars

\- The US government is conducting counterterror activities in 80 countries

\- The wars have been accompanied by violations of human rights and civil
liberties, in the US and abroad

~~~
dmarlow
Before each war, leaders should sit down, write down hypothetical outcomes and
see if they still feel it makes sense. Then, after the conflict, come back and
see how their estimates were. I'm hopeful that people would be more prudent if
they could foresee the impact of their decisions.

~~~
nibepins
They do that, it happens that

"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the
most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in
scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the
losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is
not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group
knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at
the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket)

~~~
nostromo
It reminds me of a recent quote I saw in the news:

"The top people in the Pentagon probably aren’t [in love with me], because
they want to do nothing but fight wars so that all of those wonderful
companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else
stay happy, but we're getting out of the endless wars."

~~~
gumby
That same person boasts about an increased pentagon budget. Where does he
think that money goes?

It doesn’t seem like either leading candidate has taken a position on the
military-industrial complex.

~~~
Jtsummers
The fetishization (despite the massive reduction in the percentage of the
population who have served) of the military in the US makes it _really_ hard
to take a strong stance against the MIC as a politician (aiming for the
presidency, representatives and some senate seats have more freedom here).

~~~
gumby
Congress less so: Rockwell was the pioneer in making sure every congressional
district had a contractor or manufacturer making a part of the B-1 bomber to
keep congress from cancelling it.

------
miles
"Bush Fired Larry Lindsey for Saying the War Might Cost $100 Billion"
[https://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/10/bush-fired-
larr.html](https://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/10/bush-fired-larr.html)

"On September 15, 2002, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Lindsey
estimated the high limit on the cost of the Bush administration's plan in 2002
of invasion and regime change in Iraq to be 1–2% of GNP, or about $100–$200
billion. Mitch Daniels, Director of the Office of Management and Budget,
discounted this estimate as 'very, very high' and Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld stated that the costs would be under $50 billion. Rumsfeld called
Lindsey's estimate 'baloney'."
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_B._Lindsey#Cost_of_th...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_B._Lindsey#Cost_of_the_Iraq_War)

------
t0mbstone
How many trillions of dollars has the USA saved on oil costs by keeping the
middle east in a constant state of turmoil, though?

[https://www.cfr.org/timeline/oil-dependence-and-us-
foreign-p...](https://www.cfr.org/timeline/oil-dependence-and-us-foreign-
policy)

~~~
nickff
It would have been much cheaper to buy off the Hussein family, and play them
against the Iranians if cheap oil was the objective.

------
WarOnPrivacy
I believe the $6.4T doesn't include the >$1T spent domestically on security
theater (TSA), NatSec tech used for low level crimes (eg: Fusion Centers) and
bulk surveillance of Americans not suspected of a crime.

~~~
gumby
Yes, this refers only to waging war on foreigners. Waging war on Americans has
its own budget.

------
pgustafs
A little arithmetic:

6.4T USD / 128M US households = 50K USD/household

50K USD/household/ 9 years = 5.5K USD/household/yr

~~~
slezakattack
That's pretty significant when you see that median household income across the
nation ranged from $38,000/yr - $68,000/yr [1]. 5% - 13% of your paycheck
going to a war

[1] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Median_household_income_by_state)

~~~
ghego1
Thanks for the additional context, the numbers are even more astonishing when
compared to the median income

------
submeta
And despite all of the efforts the adversaries haven‘t effectively been taken
down, the world is not a more secure place, the reputation of the US has taken
damage, in a few years the next IS and taliban are coming, under another name.

~~~
AtlasBarfed
The point of the war was never to accomplish anything. It was to burn money.

~~~
newen
A mechanism to transfer money from people's paychecks to defense contracting
companies.

------
peter303
3 million veterans of these wars will require up to 80 years of veteran
pension, health and disability services.

WWII had 16 million veterans and Vietnam 9 million.

------
YarickR2
So roughly 100 were killed for every american dead in 9/11\. Thas's a harsh
punishment, US certainly doesn't know what mercy is . Edit: missed by two
orders of magnitude. Still, a lot. Also: not a blame, just observations.

~~~
gridlockd
The vast majority of these deaths are due to internal strife, they weren't
killed on the orders of the US.

In hindsight, the second war in Iraq was a disaster of course, but why blame
the US for every bad part of the outcome? What about the Iraqis? What about
Iran? If the US hadn't started that war, the regime may well have collapsed
during the Arab spring.

As for Afghanistan, that conflict started well before US involvement after
9/11.

~~~
boomboomsubban
>In hindsight, the second war in Iraq was a disaster of course, but why blame
the US for every bad part of the outcome? What about the Iraqis? What about
Iran?

The US destroyed their lives. Their communities were destroyed, their jobs
vanished, and their loved ones were dead. Many certainly reacted despicably,
but the US deserves most of the blame.

>If the US hadn't started that war, the regime may well have collapsed during
the Arab spring.

One of the major triggers for the Arab Spring was the US diplomatic cable
leaks, and much of the military power any insurgents had was a result of US
backing. Without the War on Terror, the Arab Spring would have been a
completely different thing if it happened at all.

~~~
gridlockd
> The US destroyed their lives. Their communities were destroyed, their jobs
> vanished, and their loved ones were dead. Many certainly reacted despicably,
> but the US deserves most of the blame.

The US gets blamed for the deaths that occured, but it won't get praise for
the deaths that may have been prevented. Consider who Saddam Hussein was, how
he came to power, how he stayed in power and what his dictatorship was like.

Does he strike you as someone who can maintain a dynasty? In a country like
Iraq, where the regime is Sunni despite being in the minority, where the Shia
majority is being supported by neighboring Iran?

Consider what the Iraqi military could have done under Saddam Hussein _to its
own people_ , in the case of a civil war. Consider that Saddam Hussein didn't
hesitate to kill over 100,000 Kurds and Assyrians.

> One of the major triggers for the Arab Spring was the US diplomatic cable
> leaks, and much of the military power any insurgents had was a result of US
> backing. Without the War on Terror, the Arab Spring would have been a
> completely different thing if it happened at all.

That almost sounds like your average dictator blaming all civil unrest on
"foreign meddling". Sure, you can blame the US or Wikileaks for exposing these
regimes, or for running a couple of covert support operations, but it also
takes a huge part of the people to actually _do the uprising_.

~~~
boomboomsubban
>Consider who Saddam Hussein was, how he came to power, how he stayed in power
and what his dictatorship was like

Though Hussein's power grab was later, let's not forget the US support for the
Ba'ath party takeover. They were willing to purge communists, they must be
good guys.

Then we gave Hussein billions in aid, because if they're willing to kill
Iranians they must be good guys. Even after hearing he was gassing Kurds, we
tried to blame it on Iran and continued aiding him.

>Does he strike you as someone who can maintain a dynasty?

His reign, as terrible as much of it was, at least kept the country
functioning. Succession likely would have led to problems, but it's nonsense
to say that justifies US action. We ensured it caused major issues to avoid a
risk of it causing major issues?

>That almost sounds like your average dictator blaming all civil unrest on
"foreign meddling". Sure, you can blame the US or Wikileaks for exposing these
regimes, or for running a couple of covert support operations, but it also
takes a huge part of the people to actually do the uprising

The US is not the main reason the people were willing to rise up, but US
action unquestionably influenced when and how they rose up. If you change your
original sentence I quoted to "the regime may well have collapsed over the
past twenty years," I think we're in agreement.

~~~
gridlockd
Don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily in favor of any of these foreign
interventions. I just don't accept that the US gets so much blame just for
being _involved at some level_ in a conflict that they have some strategic
interest in.

~~~
boomboomsubban
We're talking about the Iraq War here, they deserve far more blame than they
get.

------
mytailorisrich
From the point of view of economics I suspect this is akin to a stimulus
package because, again I suspect, that the bulk of that sum of money goes to
American contractors and American personel.

------
nibepins
About 10 minutes after this submission made to the top of HN's homepage, it
disappeared from the homepage

~~~
jjcon
That’s because it breaks HN rules

~~~
AtlasBarfed
I guess HN has some un-utterable numbers of it's own.

~~~
jjcon
Its right in the footer on every page

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
jcims
Before 2000 we were spending ~$250B/y on defense budget. That alone would be
$5T since 9/11.

------
jarym
Less money than the Fed has pumped into the economy over the same time period.

~~~
ChomskyNormal4m
Much of the reason for it is to pump money into the economy via Raytheon,
Lockheed Martin etc. It all ultimately boils down to money.

------
devvep
That is bullshit.

Everyone in the world knows that most dangerous countries are North Korea,
Iran and Russia. So that US has to spend enormous amount of money to protect
themselves.

------
ed25519FUUU
I woke up yesterday to a breaking news that the Trump admin announced new
troop withdraws from Iraq and Afghanistan and was really encouraged.

War is one of those things I’ve gone from hawk to dove on as I’ve become
older. I want a total drawdown in the entire Middle East, and I would love to
see the majority of our overseas bases closed.

------
m0zg
Reminder: Trump is the first president since Reagan to not start any wars.

