We Can't Afford This War Anymore

I have been against the Iraq war from the very beginning. However, my arguments didn't rest on the lofty perches of ethics or morals; they rested on the far cruder cost benefit analysis of war. The bottom line is war costs far more than it is worth economically. And the longer this war progresses, the more expensive it gets.

According to the Congressional Budget office, this war has cost $752 billion dollars. Let that figure sink in -- $752 billion dollars. And it's getting more expensive. According to the same report, the yearly increase in costs are increasing at a high rate. In 2003 total appropriations for the war were $76 billion. In 2007 they were $165 billion. And the increase in cost is largely from the ongoing operations. Operation and Maintenance costs were $46 billion in 2003 and $92 billion in 2007 -- a doubling of costs within 5 years. In addition, procurement expenses over the same period of time increased from $10 billion to $51 billion. So, the longer this war progresses, the more expensive in gets.

Let's place this cost in a larger perspective. Here is a chart of total Federal expenditures and receipts since 2001:

Notice the federal government has never even come close to balancing a budget for the entire duration of the "MBA President."

Also notice the mammoth amount of debt the Federal Government has issued over the entire time in office of the "MBA President."

Here is a list of total debt outstanding at the end of the government's fiscal year:

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86

To place that in perspective, total debt as a percentage of GDP increased from 57% to 64% under Bush's tenure.

And in the current fiscal year, we're on target to have a record deficit (h/t Calculated Risk).

The Treasury Department says the federal deficit through the first half of this budget year is at an all-time high, underscoring the pressure the budget is coming under as the economy slumps.

The US economy is facing a financial crisis right now -- the worst crisis since the great depression. Yet we continue to spend money for Bush's Iraq folly at a record pace. Whoever gets elected next year is going to have an extremely unpleasant first conversation with the Treasury Secretary. The conversation will start with, "Mr. President, we're screwed financially."

Comments

[pmag88]

Not long ago we were warned that if we left there might be a major war leading to oil prices exceeding $60.00 a barrel. That was supposed to scare us into staying the course.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/02/iraq.scenarios/index.html

Now we're at 100.00 per barrel and rising.

[indypete]

Hello boys and girls... can you say "Mission accomplished?"

[appleknocker]

How about a cost/benefit analysis of the American Empire as a whole? With particular emphasis on who's paying the costs and who's reaping the benefits. The costs should include not only the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the "war in terror" . And the costs of stationing U.S. troops in 100-odd countries. And, oh yeah, the upcoming costs of "liberating" Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and whoever else is on the neocons' list.

[Bladernr1001]

I would suggest what we really cannot afford is SS and Medicare. Spending on these unconsitutiional programs makes the war spending look like chicken feed.

Figures a liberal would single out war spending (the power to wage war is actually granted by the constitution) rather than point out any of the unconstiutitional mess of programs that are most responsible for government overpsending at every level.

[ImmanuelGoldstein]

Yes but the public wants them. And your personal interpretation of the Constitution has not prevailed. And the public no longer wants the war. So.....

[olephart]

"we really cannot afford is SS and Medicare. Spending on these unconsitutiional programs"

If they're unconstitutional why hasn't anyone taken it to court?

"makes the war spending look like chicken feed."

So why haven't you paid for this chicken feed? Social Security and Medicare are currently running surpluses, it's your chicken ass War that's running a deficit.

"the power to wage war is actually granted by the constitution"

And is delegated to the Congress. In 2002 the Republican led Congress couldn't find their balls with the exceptions of Lincoln Chaffee, Ron Paul, five other Republicans and 148 Democrats.

"unconstiutitional mess of programs that are most responsible for government overpsending at every level."

As pointed out, they're not unconstitutional and are running surpluses, something Republicans haven't done since Eisenhower. Speaking of overspending, how about the first six years of the Bush Administration where the Republicans broke all the records for spending and deficits! It took 194 years to reach the trillion dollar budget under Reagan. It took 19 years to reach the two trillion dollar budget under Bush but only 5 years to reach the 3 trillion dollar budget under Bush.

[Rule Of Law]

And BladderN says, "yeah, but but but...."

[BARRISTER]

And, most importantly, who benefits from Medicare and Social Security?/ AMERICAN TAXPAYERS!! Now, who benefits from all this deficit spending on the phony Iraq and Afghanistan "Wars"?? "......, Say it AGAIN Sam...."!

[newworldman777]

Perhaps we should abolish those pesky domestic programs, such as SS and medicare, that are draining our treasury and hindering our ability to wage war, eh? After all, who cares about the well-being of our own sick and elderly, when there are many more Islamic countries to invade, to nation-build, to "spread democracy throughout the Middle East." For Pete's sake, Iran is just sitting there, her people minding their own business, begging to be invaded by the Bush/Cheney cabal. Maybe we should stop repairing our infrastructure, and we should cut funding for education to provide us with even more money to throw into our war machine, to throw our military weight around in the world and show all of these petty countries "what fer." By gobs, that'll teach 'em!

[LeftRight]

First, the SS and medicare programs are NOT unconstitutional! They are not MENTIONED in the constitution, but they don't VIOLATE it!

Second, even allowing for the interest that we owe to the SS and medicare programs are STILL less than what we will spend in this ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL war!!!!

[itmaybetoolate]

At least you believe we should keep Medicaid to help the poor (at least you didn't include it in your list - I guess it is constitutional).

Why do you have it out for the elderly? You might not ever be poor but you WILL be elderly.

[LeftRight]

but he obviously won't have to worry. I guess he'll be one of those RICH elderly that I hear so much about, but who don't exist around me!!

[bogananda666]

Their is a proverb which I heard at least 35 years ago. "Never hire a Harvard MBA"! nuff said

[PADDYWHACK]

bogan,I don't think you can blame Harvard or any school W attended,he remembered nothing and certainly learned nothing.

[LeftRight]

Except that the MBA's from EVERY school have proven their inability to know how to run a company during the last 20 years or so.....

[european]

As in times not too long past, just follow the money...

And where does it lead?

Why to businesses like Fox Industries, MO., and their ilk, that are doing very nicely, in these recessionary times, on all those no-bid contracts.

Ike was spot on with his predictions of where the future "Enemies of the State" would be found.

[tedbear]

The other night while watching C-Span's Senate hearings, I almost fell off of the chair!

This is what I heard:
In the Senate hearings the other day, it was stated by a Senator that $153,000,000 A MONTH IS PAID TO THE IRAQ GOVERNMENT EVERY MONTH FOR OIL THE UNITED STATES MILITARY IS USING TO PROTECT THE IRAQI PEOPLE!!!!

Yes, ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THREE MILLION DOLLARS A MONTH IS PAID TO THE IRAQ GOVERNMENT, EVERY MONTH ,RIGHT NOW ,FOR THE OIL THE UNITED STATES MILITARY USES TO PROTECT THE IRAQI PEOPLE.

Why isn't this plastered on the front pages of newspapers and on the "Breaking News?"

[LeftRight]

Because the bushco(tm) admin doesn't want it splattered all over the news, and the media is too freaking cowed to even BEGIN to talk about it! Look how long it took the NYT to finally run a story about the ILLEGAL wiretapping of the bushco(tm) admin!!

[Dunnage]

Glad your writing about this, about time I'd say. Many conservative estimates out there of costs of 2 to 3 Trillion Dollars over next 20 years if the war were to be stopped now.

[Crowhaul]

$752 billion of our dollars spent on an illegal invasion?? As if we taxpayers had that much money to donate to this "cause" anyway???

Hey, on a sidenote, am I able to not pay my taxes if I respectfully disagree with how they are being appropriated?

[newworldman777]

Refusing to pay your taxes because you disagree with the way that our government spends it is indeed a noble thing to do -- especially when you know that the government is dead wrong. Unfortunately, be prepared to spend time in jail. Just ask Henry David Thoreau, who indeed was jailed for refusing to pay taxes because of his opposition to the Mexican War and slavery. Our government has no patience for someone who acts according to their moral conscience.

[johnuw93]

You are not even allowed to know how your tax dollars are being spent. The various black budgets that take up tens of billions of dollars are plainly unconstitutional, but the practice is maintained through Democratic and Republican administrations nonetheless.

[SamThornton]

We presumably have yet another "supplemental" Iraq appropriations bill coming up soon which, like the rest proposed by the Bush Administration, will undoubtedly pass. This time around, as part of the bill, I'd like to see a special tax assessment to pay for the appropriation. Let the tax burden fall on whomever Congress thinks it can safely ignore. Dare the President to veto it.

[olephart]

The War is but a symptom of a much more malignant disorder known by most as the U.S. Foreign Policy. Indeed the events of 9/11 were not caused by the War but rather were used as a ruse to start the War. Examining the root causes of 9/11, as was done by Ron Paul, will bring up some glaring but totally ignored facts.

In a 2001 interview former Secretary of State and current Clinton advisor, Madeleine Albright, admitted that the Policies initiated by Bush Senior and enforced by Bill Clinton against Iraq had led to the deaths of 500,000 women and children. Her take was “it was worth it”. These Policies had necessitated the expansion of the US military presence in the Middle East to “contain” Saddam Hussein.

Question: Was the elevation of former US ally Saddam Hussein to #1 boogeyman just after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 a coincidence? After all, Reagan had supported his War against Iran, had given him the equipment he used to gas the Kurds, had supplied him with Anthrax (whose only use is mass murder) and Bush Senior had kept his regime afloat with a 3 billion dollar loan. Bush’s Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, told Saddam one week prior to the invasion of Kuwait “But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.”

[olephart]

Continued:

There are numerous other examples I could cite but it is sufficient to conclude that our Foreign Policy has caused the very dangers that our Military Industrial Complex has used to justify its yearly trillion dollar boondoggle (War, Defense, CIA, Homeland Security......... Budgets). This trillion dollar drain on our Nation dwarfs all other problems by one to three orders of magnitude.

[Rule Of Law]

So what you're really saying, is that Bush attacked the twin towers because he hates our freedoms?

[MilwaukeeDan]

ole, great comment, Hale, we can't afford our foreign policy. What does NATO cost us and what is its purpose? It's there to irritate the Russians into another cold war(AKA cold war II, the sequel). We are a war mongering society and the MIC is making a killing. The only way this will change is total economic collapse, and that's doubtfull.

[WMG]

And Bush Senior was quoted in the NYTimes the day b4 the invasion of Kuwait stating the same principle. The Bush Sr administration gave Hussein the green light publicly. It is this event that Arab nationals refer to when they claim Hussein was "tricked" into the Kuwait war.

And the MSM and both political parties happily ignore the truth and fiddle away as our Republic burns.

[rektruax]

I know this is boring semantics, but I feel undue weight is given to the occupation of Iraq by it's continued reference as a "war". The "war" ended several years ago following the defeat of Iraq's army, and capture of it's leader. By calling it a "war" the speaker/blogger aids in the illusion of necessity, and to be honest, both sides seem to use the word in the hopes of some dramatic impact.

This is an occupation. An insanely expensive occupation.

[Clinton]

That's good point. It will be difficult to get people to stop calling it a war, though.

[duckfan00]

When many US soldiers and Iraqis are killed weekly I believe it is still accurate to call this a war ' to be honest'.

[castlerider]

If there was someone occupying this country, you damn right it would be a lot of SOB's killed.

You can call it a war, you can "call" it anything you want, but my point is, historically, and fundamentally, our campaign in Iraq is an Occupation/ Colonization for strategic positioning for our military and for safeguarding resources THAT DONT BELONG TO THE USA.
SO: We can leave anytime we damn well please, if we simply decide this occupation is over and done with. It won't be like Nam, where we were loading off a rooftop. For goodness sake, if someone messed with us on the way out, we will damn well blow 'em away.

[woodchips]

It can't be a war if the opposing army doesn't exist. The US crushed the Iraqi army in the early days of the conflict. Those fighting the US now are those opposed to the US occupation. It gets really messy when you consider the fighting between various ethnic and religious groups. This is not a war and it cannot be resolved by military force.

[castlerider]

Thank You. Thank You. Thank you.



Man, I have been thinking, can it be, I'm the only one with a brain, or who reads and understands history?

I know that I'm not, so I've been absolutely perplexed at why these Dem leaders have chosen to have it so hard on themselves and not call this for what it is, snatch the so-called moral high ground from these neo idiots and stop letting this be called a war!!



That's absolutely right, it's not a war, it's an occupation!

America does not lose wars.



Dammit, we DIDN'T LOSE VIETNAM! We simply ended our occupation. Not looking realizing this makes everything we learned from that campaign irrelevant, and we can't let that happen again. But neocons want us to forget lessons we learned from History, because its an old outdated machine that they don't know how to do without : Leading us with fear and ignorance.



If we leave Iraq in short and quick order, it'll be absolutely much easier and faster to make it possible by realizing it hasn't been a war, as you say, since 2003.



Neocons who call it defeat need to be reprimanded for trying to control and lead with fear and ignorance; made to shut up by taking away, for good, moral high ground they think they have that doesn't really exist!!



Why hasn't any blogger posted this, Rektrax? It needs to be a damn mantra!!



It's not a war, people, WAKE UP!!! IT'S AN OCCUPATION!!!!!

[BillZBubb]

We couldn't afford the Bush war from the outset. But, matters like finance and budget, much less morals and honesty, mean nothing to the right wing Bush crowd. They'll keep pushing the folly in Iraq to the bitter end just so they don't have to admit how badly they screwed up. When the piper has to be paid, Bush and his conservative cronies will be long gone and they'll try to put the blame on the Democrats. And, surprise, surprise, they'll have useful idiots like Morondude to help push the baloney.

[Mutex]

Hey Bonddad,

There is a simple solution...the government should sell stock in this war.

The startup costs have gotten too high and we need to take this baby public!

It would be interesting to see how many of the true believers think this is a good investment. The rich and powerful don't want to send their sons and daughters to fight for Iraqi oil and American hegemony but maybe they will invest some capital.

I mean they fell for the sub prime mortgage scheme they might just be greedy (and stupid) enough to throw some money into this sinkhole.

As for American 'ethics and morals'...don't make me laugh this early in the morning. I almost coughed up my bagel!

[bogananda666]

Excellent idea about the stock. Remember, when it comes to government it's cost plus 10% and the cost includes all that can be stolen. Government guaranteed profits. It's unlikely the CORPORATE WELFARE KINGS will make the IPO available to the general public though.

[Merlin7]

In effect the U.S. government has been hijacked by a small cabal of international business tycoons who are using it to enrich themselves while draining the Treasury dry. When organized crime does this it is called "busting out a business" and is punished by many years in federal prison. When our politicians do it it's called "business as usual." And they are laughing all the way to their posh retirement estates.

[Clinton]

OK. Suppose this is correct (and it may even be worse). As Cheney would say, 'So?'. As in , so what can anyone do about it? The electorate has been marginalized to near irrelevance. It strains credibility to think that this next election will have any significant positive effect on the financial situation of the US, let alone ending the war. Are there any serious solutions to this?

[wldnswmmr]

There IS a serious solution, and it's as serious as a heart attack. Chalmers Johnson has written about it extensively in his "Nemesis" trilogy about the American Empire. We're obviously headed toward economic collapse. We were in dangerous territory at the point when Bush was elected in 2001. His 7+ years in office have pushed us to the breaking point. We should not entertain fantasies that all this dire talk is just doomsaying for the fun of it. There is no conceivable fiscal plan which can possibly handle the Medicare crisis, the Social Security shortfall, and a national debt of $9 trillion +, increasing amounts of which are held by "real people," including foreign governments (about half that $9 trillion is debt which the US can't "erase" as internal debt, as it will soon do with the Medicare and Social Security "trust funds.") The shaky standard of living we currently are experiencing will reach the expiration point when the safety nets collapse. The only thing to do at this point is to plan your individual situation without regard to the national debacle. There's no way out. We waited far too long.

[Clinton]

Agreed. Chalmers Johnson is absolutely brilliant. Fortunately a lot of people can see the writing on the wall.

[SaigonHappened]

You are exactly right, wldnswmmr. All the back and forth, childish arguing we see daily on the blogs, the talking head shows, and the campaign trail will become irrelevant as reality rolls relentlessly over this country. We HAVE waited too long, there is NO solution at this point and anyone who wants to survive had better strap in tight.

[WMG]

Wldnswmmr, what blogs, books, etc., have you read that have impacted your views and what you're doing to prepare, if u don't mind sharing some? I'm afraid I think you're right.