Candidates Should Hammer away at Wars' Costs

At a time of economic pain-- as the mortgage crisis metastasizes, bankruptcies and homelessness rise, and the costs of food, gasoline, and home heating oil soar, you'd think the candidates would be talking more boldly about the economic costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A just-released report by the Joint Economic Committee is a stark reminder of how the war is depleting resources desperately needed to fund programs at home and abroad. The report, according to the Washington Post, puts the wars' costs, so far, at approximately $1.5 trillion. {That's taking into account "hidden" costs--including higher oil prices, the costs of treating wounded vets and interest payments on money borrowed to pay for the wars.)

Monthly cost in Iraq: $2 billion. Cost, so far, to the average family of four: more than $20,000.

While today's new numbers are staggering, as my colleage Matthew Blake pointed out in a recent blog the Congressional Budget office estimated in August that the total costs of the war in Iraq and Afganistan could total a mind-boggling $2.4 trillion. According to the CBO report, that's enough to "provide every college freshman in the country with a free four-year education at a private college or university; provide health care coverage to every American for one year, [or] pay off 26% of our current national debt."

Of course, it's not just the money we're bleeding--every day innocent Iraqis and US troops are killed.

"Someday, somebody has to pay for this war and that's going to the children of the wounded," Congressman Jim McGovern (D, MA) said recently. Isn't it time for candidates to start talking about economic and human security, and speak clearly about how we can use the billions being squandered to fund desperately needed priorities?

Comments (41)

1. (Hope this isn't mean-spirited or bleak....)

   My favorite is one I heard 'round the blogs...

   for what we've spent on the Iraq War (so far, no less)...

   we could have sent EVERYONE of the soldiers killed ...to the Moon, and landed more than half of them on the surface.!

   The figure is 1500 Billion. In adjusted dollars, an "Apollo" moon mission would cost 1 billion dollars. The CSM/LM had a three-person crew, that's 4500 people, with 3000 of those able to board the Lunar Lander and touch-down on the surface.

   The difference of course is...Johnson and Nixon PAID for the Apollo Program, didn't put it on a "credit card" and leave it to their successors to figure out how to pay for it.

   Posted by Mask at 11/13/2007 @ 1:44pm

2. Way to go, KVH!!

   This IS the issue with supporting the current war and MORE war!

   How can Hillary vote for first steps for war with Iran as she did by voting for Kyl-Lieberman when we cannot even afford the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

   How can you fund universal healthcare or a slew of other domestic priorities when war is crowding out everything else in the budget?

   Posted by Metteyya at 11/13/2007 @ 1:47pm

3. yeah, though the one who enabled the war and refused to admit she was wrong...oh hell, what am i saying? that one can flip flop and talk out of both sides of her mouth as easily as she breathes...

   "i trusted george bush..." say no more 50 foot queenie! i've heard all i needed to here from your pandering, intelligence insulting, rupert murdoch ass smooching piehole!

   oh...bush tricked you once with the iraq resolution? really? well shame on him, eh? so when you voted to give him authority to war on iran...

   SHAME ON YOU, 50 FOOT PANDERING, INTELLIGENCE INSULTING, MURDOCH ASS KISSING QUEENIE!

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/13/2007 @ 1:52pm

4. I wonder whatever happended to Bush's bold plans to go to Mars? Did he finally figure out that there's no country there to invade?

   Posted by MATTMAN at 11/13/2007 @ 2:11pm

5. Posted by MATTMAN 11/13/2007 @ 2:11pm

   I remember when Mars missions were discussed in the 90s and balked at by what-were-then fiscal conservatives because the figure for the mission was....upto $200 Billion.

   That's less than a year in Iraq!

   Posted by Mask at 11/13/2007 @ 2:28pm

6. We can't afford to make our public schools the best in the world nor can we afford to provide poor children with health care,but we can afford pointless wars because a bunch of cowards were afraid of Saddam.If you get into reality you'll discover that that poor and uneducated child is far more likely to kill you than Saddam was.In fact,there is no comparison.Saddam has never killed anyone living in America,but those kids have.The biggest threat to America is what's happening within our borders and not from outside threats and we need to spend our money locally and not give it to some foreign government or to fight in some pointless war because some Americans are afraid of their own shadows..

   Posted by i'm nobody at 11/13/2007 @ 2:51pm

7. FG

   I do agree with the tone of points made on the $$$$ - as Operation Desert Debacle will ultimately be paid out by our grandchildren at best. So much we could have done that would be more useful other than create the world's largest terrorist training ground. (Although until cellulosic ethanol come on-line, alco-cars are not a"good thing") At worst, we will default on all the paper China owns and they come a-callin' one day. (On the upside of that, I really do like Chinese food!)

   However, I look at the further post regarding all the military support HRC gets and I gotta ask might this be because she will keep a-fightin' (which in military parlance could be called "job security!)

   Personally, am still hoping for an Edwards/Obama ticket!

   Posted by leftofcenter at 11/13/2007 @ 3:50pm

8. What's the cost of over 5000 vets committing suicide-- just this year alone?

   What's the cost of treating DU exposer for not only our vets, but for all the people living in the countries we contaminated with it for the next thousand years?

   hsuB/cHeney admin have truly screwed our nation forever, and then some. Way to go new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy, destroyers of our nation. Remember, not all your enemies will simply commit suicide while you profit off of their misery.

   Posted by hsuBfools at 11/13/2007 @ 4:07pm

9. The figure is 1500 Billion. In adjusted dollars, an "Apollo" moon mission would cost 1 billion dollars. The CSM/LM had a three-person crew, that's 4500 people, with 3000 of those able to board the Lunar Lander and touch-down on the surface.

   The difference of course is...Johnson and Nixon PAID for the Apollo Program, didn't put it on a "credit card" and leave it to their successors to figure out how to pay for it.

   Posted by MASK 11/13/2007 @ 1:44pm |

   but how do you get them back?

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/13/2007 @ 4:40pm

10. Cost, so far, to the average family of four: more than $20,000.

    plus interest.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/13/2007 @ 4:49pm

11. I wonder whatever happended to Bush's bold plans to go to Mars? Did he finally figure out that there's no country there to invade?

    Posted by MATTMAN 11/13/2007 @ 2:11pm

    actually, the new plan is to turn earth into mars.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/13/2007 @ 4:51pm

12. What it shows is that nobody is going to call the Clintons soft on defense and have any credibility. Big difference.

    This is Hillary's problem: by focusing on probable attacks by Republicans, she loses her capacity to pursue a progressive agenda.

    We simply cannot afford to tackle any of the social issues that have been neglected if all of our tax dollars are going to defense!

    Posted by Metteyya at 11/13/2007 @ 4:51pm

13. actually, the new plan is to turn earth into mars.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/13/2007 @ 4:51pm

    Aw hell, this one's just crazy enough to work!!

    Posted by MATTMAN at 11/13/2007 @ 5:04pm

14. but how do you get them back?----Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/13/2007 @ 4:40pm

    That's a round-trip ticket. (1970- $750 Billion a mission, figure another $250 Billion with inflation)

    Posted by Mask at 11/13/2007 @ 5:38pm

15. Posted by MASK 11/13/2007 @ 5:38pm

    Sorry "Million" not "Billion"...i.e. a Billion a mission today.

    Posted by Mask at 11/13/2007 @ 5:39pm

16. FG

    True enough - two people can look at the same info and come to a differeing end point. Looked on the "duel" thread, and at some level I agree with her leadership potential. However, her waffley answers to hard questions appear to me (among others) as too safe and evasive to get me all "warm and fuzzy". Yes, she could likely lead....probably has a pair as big as Bill's (arrgh...ugly mental image) I remain unconvinced though she will lead in the direction the nation should go. Edwards on the other hand, has given more forthright answers in my opinion, and has elucidated with clarity his direction on tough issues.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 11/13/2007 @ 6:30pm

17. Mailed to the Webmeister of The Nation:

    The Campaign Blog "Clinton's Planting Story" has had its blog thread mysteriously deleted. Hope its not an HRC campaign ploy!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 11/13/2007 @ 6:33pm

18. Frank

    All kidding aside, if the option was between HRC and the any one of the GOP field, I would go HRC.

    (Sent a idea to Jib-Jab. Howzabout doing a GOP debate to the tune of "Send in the Clowns!")

    Posted by leftofcenter at 11/13/2007 @ 7:25pm

19. Posted by ZERO 11/13/2007 @ 7:54pm |

    Hard to say. There are a few issues that I find important that he has no stated position on, some views I like, but others I find way too conservative. I will ponder it though.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 11/13/2007 @ 10:01pm

20. Re: War Cost. Well, up to $2,000 billion and nothing in return, except a mess in Iraq and Afgan and $4-per-gallon gas at home. Sure, Dick's and Dubya's cronies like Halliburton and Blackwater and Rove and Hughes got a lion's share of the people's money.

    Posted by HelenDAO at 11/13/2007 @ 10:51pm

21. What is the definition of a traitor?

    Posted by MARKCANYON 11/14/2007 @ 01:13am

    I believe you are the definition of a traitor you lying sob. First of all, we spend about half our resources on the pentagon. The United States spends more on it's military than all of the major countries of the world combined. Is this throwing money down the toilet.....hell yes.

    Explain this to me if you can. How is it that the deficit is increasing, but the U.S. is able to spend billions of dollars on two wars and the number you come up with is 3.7% of the GDP? Has it ever occurred to you that this war is being fought on borrowed money moron boy? 3.7% of the GDP sure as hell isnt' what this war costs.

    Also, comparing this war to WWII is completely insane. WWII was multiple times the scale compared to this war. The Korean and Vietnam wars were also larger in scope than this "war on terror".

    If the U.S. continues on the trajectory we are presently on, we will become a bankrupt nation controlled by international power brokers...oops, I guess we already are.

    WWII was literally fought all over the world. This war is isolated in 2 small countries with pretty much zero military force, so spending billions of dollars on fighting idiots with IED and handguns doesn't wash too well. We would do better to let the intelligence community fight this war than the military for two reasons. 1) We aren't fighting a country, we are fighting small pockets of fighters. 2) The people we are fighting do small quick attacks and get out quick, buy the time the military responds, they have blended in with the crowd and are long gone. This is a job for special forces and the CIA, not the army.

    This whole fiasco is nothing more than a money drain on our government. Not only does it line the pockets of the defense contractors, but it bankrupts the federal government which is the complete wet dream for neocons. They wish to destroy or weaken the government to the point where private industry wields more political and economical power than does the government. So, while waving the flag with the national anthem playing in the background, and all the bible thumpers screaming at the top of their lungs, this country will go down in flames. The rich will gain control of everything worth having and the poor and middle classes will become modern day slaves to the wealthy.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/14/2007 @ 07:21am

22. What is the definition of a traitor?

    Posted by MARKCANYON 11/14/2007 @ 01:13am

    From the Merriam Webster:

    1 : one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty

    2 : one who commits treason (the legal definition being "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." from Oran's Dictionary of Law

    Under definition 1, I think we can safely place Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, and nearly everyone in the Exec as they have all purposefully distorted the truth and were otherwise derelict of duty.

    You do realize that in Dante's Inferno the lowest circle of Hell is for traitors. So let's get rid of them traitors! Send'em all where they belong - the lowest reaches of Hell. Bush, Cheney, Gonzales and Judas can play pinochle thru eternity (well, until Dick gets pissed and shoots everyone in the face...)

    Posted by leftofcenter at 11/14/2007 @ 09:29am

23. What is the definition of a traitor?

    MarkCanyon,

    The definition of a traitor is one who lies to the American people to make his friends in the defense industry rich at the taxpayer's expense. In fact, the real word to describe this is "fraudster" and "thief", although traitor is certainly "one" aspect of this crime.

    Geopolitical? What a joke! Saddam had been relatively tame after we drove him out of Kuwait in 1991 and therefore there really was no NEED to go in there and take him out. This is why Bush/Cheney/AIPAC conjured up all these lies to the American people. Absent a need, why not just "make up" a need and sell it to the American people?

    How would you feel as a family of one of these soldiers who died in Iraq if you knew that we really didn't need to go to war there? Wouldn't you feel betrayed by your government?

    The real fight against Al Qaeda was not in Iraq, and they only showed up in Iraq because we invaded Iraq. CREATING a terrorist problem in Iraq doesn't justify the invasion, and if you really understood the politics of this, you would know that the defense industry, oil industry, and AIPAC, were the three groups "lobbying" (buying) Congress to go to war in Iraq.

    KVH makes the point that we all should be debating: Can we afford this?

    The answer is HELL NO, unless you want to sacrifice every other domestic priority of this nation. Percent of GDP is not the correct analysis, percent of the BUDGET is what we should be concerned about.

    Posted by Metteyya at 11/14/2007 @ 09:30am

24. Posted by METTEYYA 11/14/2007 @ 09:30am |

    Now, now, METTEYYA, you and MARKHIMMLER shouldn't be fighting.

    Those of you who thought "Schindler's List" was a comedy, should stick together!

    Posted by Mask at 11/14/2007 @ 09:32am

25. Those of you who thought "Schindler's List" was a comedy, should stick together!

    Mask,

    Your false accusations that I am an Anti-Semite because I speak out against the corrupt right-wing Jews in AIPAC and the irresponsible Jews who have prominent positions in the mainstream media is getting kind of old.

    For the record, I saw Schindler's List THREE TIMES, and was deeply moved by this movie. The Holocaust was one of the darkest moments in human history, and it is therefore quite a tragedy to see right-wing AIPAC Jews pushing our government into more wars that kill more innocent people.

    Killing innocent people is sick, whether you are talking about Jews in the Holocaust, Africans in Rwanda, or innocent Iraqi civilians.

    Posted by Metteyya at 11/14/2007 @ 09:49am

26. Posted by METTEYYA 11/14/2007 @ 09:49am

    See, METTE, you could get away with it....

    if it was simply "AIPAC" or "people in prominent positions in mainstream media"....but you don't say that.

    You HAVE to add "Jews". Sorry Minister Farrakhan...ain't buying it. You may not actually endorse the Holocaust like MARKGOEBBELS does, but you're not that far apart when it comes to "knowing who the 'real enemy' is"...and it isn't JUST "the Israel lobby" or JUST "Big Media".

    Posted by Mask at 11/14/2007 @ 10:53am

27. Mask,

    The "real enemy" is not Jewish people. The real enemy is "government corruption".

    Unfortunately, "one" of these corrupt groups, AIPAC, is "ostensibly" a Jewish group, even though the majority of Jewish Americans do not support their war-mongering ways. I am not going to give AIPAC a pass because they are ostensibly a Jewish group, and the fact that they hide behind their Jewishness is quite disturbing.

    AIPAC is every much as right-wing as the Neocons, and their recent efforts to recruit and promote right-wing Christian groups that are hoping for a "return of Jesus" and a "new Jerusalem" if Israel can succeed in becoming much larger and much more powerful, is shameful!

    And why doesn't the mainstream press talk about Israeli nukes and why Israel won't sign the same Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that has been signed by Iran? Don't you think that is odd, Mask, since they also seem to be promoting this idea that it may be good to invade Iran over nukes?

    I don't have a problem with Jews being in prominent positions in the mainstream press, but when they neglect their responsibility to act as a "fourth branch", by shining a bright light on the spin of our government, then they rightly should be called to account.

    Editorial bias is also found in papers like the New York Times. The Times occasionally criticizes Israeli policies and sometimes concedes that the Palestinians have legitimate grievances, but it is not even‐handed. In his memoirs, for example, former Times executive editor Max Frankel acknowledged the impact his own pro‐Israel attitude had on his editorial choices. In his words: "I was much more deeply devoted to Israel than I dared to assert." He goes on: "Fortified by my knowledge of Israel and my friendships there, I myself wrote most of our Middle East commentaries. As more Arab than Jewish readers recognized, I wrote them from a pro‐Israel perspective." - Mearsheimer and Walt, The Israel Lobby

    If the editor and chief of the New York Times admits to a pro-Israeli bias, why would any thinking person have reason to doubt this?

    Posted by Metteyya at 11/14/2007 @ 11:27am

28. BLOG | Posted 06/05/2007 @ 4:25pm Comments for "Opposing Occupation" by Peter Rothberg

    Israel's position is simply ridiculous, and it is truly amazing that the mainstream press continues to pretend that Israel is justified in its actions. I'm not a big Farrahkan fan, but his statement about the Jews controlling the mainstream press appears to be accurate.

    When the funniest guy in America, Arsenio Hall, can no longer get a job after inviting Farrahkan on as a guest on his talk show, then we know Jewish power over the media is way out of control.----Posted by METTEYYA 06/06/2007 @ 2:38pm

    Posted by Mask at 11/14/2007 @ 11:48am

29. Mask,

    Let's get back the topic: Can we afford more war?

    Posted by Metteyya at 11/14/2007 @ 11:58am

30. The Afghan war: 1979 to '89; 15,000 Russian military dead; 42,000 disabled; 11,000 permanently disabled; 1,000,000 Afghans killed. The Russians won almost all the conventional battles while failing to control the countryside. Brzezinski's letter to Carter when the Soviets crossed the Afghan border, "We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviets its Vietnam War."

    AND, that war crippled the Russian economy to the extent that it has yet to recover.

    Posted by felicity at 11/14/2007 @ 1:09pm

31. Posted by FELICITY 11/14/2007 @ 1:09pm

    Felicity,

    That is a great observation! I wish more comparison would be done to how military costs broke the Soviet Union and will do the same to America if we continue down this path!

    Posted by Metteyya at 11/14/2007 @ 1:34pm

32. Naw guys...you're all crazy. The POTUS says we are making "progress" - don't you all believe him?

    Bwah-ha-ha-ha

    Posted by leftofcenter at 11/14/2007 @ 2:58pm

33. What it shows is that nobody is going to call the Clintons soft on defense and have any credibility. Big difference.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/13/2007 @ 4:39pm

    What it tells me is that the military recognizes in Hillary a candidate who would not end the Pentagon's $600 billion a year gravy train.

    We spend more on defense appropriations than the rest of the world combined. (See link below)

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm

    Time to put an end to that travesty and start doing something a little more constructive with our money

    Posted by scoff0165 at 11/14/2007 @ 3:42pm

34. Posted by ZERO 11/14/2007 @ 3:33pm

    LaRouche'ites real nervous about the anti-Semite charge ever since Lyndon "hinted" at Holocaust Denial and th Jeremiah Duggan incident.

    Posted by Mask at 11/14/2007 @ 4:14pm

35. MarkCanyon

    On what basis do you ascertain this? (Or are you just about name-calling and feeble bravado like your clueless leader?)

    Posted by leftofcenter at 11/14/2007 @ 5:16pm

36. BTW Canyon.....watch the news sometime because "chaos and catastrophe." is just what we got in the mideast.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 11/14/2007 @ 5:17pm

37. Traitors! Imbeciles! Benedict Arnolds! Lollapaloozas! Muckrakers! Hammerers! Duncefaces! Inflatable Sex Toys! Stalinists! Loony Tunists! Vice Duncelings! Papal Apologists! Pigmy Swine! Demented Runt Offspring of a Remaindered Sow! Italianists! Irishmen! Poetry Fanciers! Translators! Cheesebrokers! Real Estate Agents!

    The jig is up, "Mr. Canyon". Or should I say, Mr. Travelling Salesman? Always loved a shitstorm, didn't you? You though nobody would see through your persona? Bottom feeding. Hunting for weaknesses. Slapping people around. Never grows old...

    Didn't you get the message? the Problem has been Solved. Time to come home, Peregrinator.

    And now, if you'll excuse me, I'll hie me back to my far more important business of shouting insults at everyone who strays within attack range.

    Maggots! Infidels! Bashi-bazouks! Disbarred Canadian Mounties! Puppy dogs! Reconstructionists! Royalists! Fuddy Duddies! Pretenders! Punks! Pugilistic Pusillanimous Ping-Pong Preachers! Bow down before me, like bowers bowing bowfully before bow-worthy bowmasters! Banditos! Decrepit Dandies and Diddley Squatters! Moochers! Minnieless Mickies! I spit in your general direction! All of you! Like that! ptooey! and that! ptooey! and that! ptooey!

    Posted by markkkanyon at 11/14/2007 @ 8:25pm

38. and jesus F**cking Christ, Rese, learn how to post links in your messages, please.

    Posted by markkkanyon at 11/14/2007 @ 8:31pm

39. Mr Canyon, you're less bright than I thought you were...

    Pigdogs! Perfidious Danes! Pissbuckets! Sandblasters! Ewoks! Marzipan Piglets! Scribblers! Pamphleteers!

    Posted by markkkanyon at 11/15/2007 @ 11:31am

40. You go, Katrina!! The cost of our commitments in Iraq AND Afghanistan are just astronomical, and i doesn't appear an end is truly in sight. You are my most favorite businesswoman of all time. Keep up the good work!!

    Posted by Mark2196 at 11/15/2007 @ 9:07pm

41. Absolutely right! The Dems, or MoveOn, or both, should run tv commercials announcing the cost of the Iraq War on a daily, weekly, yearly, and so-far basis.

    After all, we could be spending far less than this to inspect imports in port cities and manage airport security, not to mention repair our domestic infrastructure, improve our schools, and provide health care for everyone. The citizens' money should be spent first on the citizens' needs. Do a cost-benefit analysis! On a daily basis, as we live our lives much as we did before 9/11, we're not getting our money's worth out of this war.

    Not to mention the fact that the cost of gas has gone way up. And that the number of Americans killed in Iraq now exceeds that of the number who died in 9/11. Talk about a losing proposition!

    Posted by retmarut at 11/17/2007 @ 10:25pm