The Cost Of Conflict
Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz says that the war in Iraq will add up to $3 trillion, as the meter ticks on.
Before America invaded Iraq, officials in the Bush administration estimated that the war might cost tens, at most hundreds, of billions of dollars. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes of Harvard's Kennedy School lay out very different figures in their new book, "The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict." In it, they tally data on everything from troop pay to equipment to veteran's entitlements to larger social and economic costs, and examine how mismanagement, opaque accounting, and the privatization of conflict have resulted in a megabill that Americans could be paying back for the next half-century. Stiglitz recently spoke with NEWSWEEK's Rana Foroohar. Excerpts:
NEWSWEEK: How much is $3 trillion over the course of 50 years? What else could the U.S. have done with that money?
Stiglitz: You can look at it and say, "This is a small percentage of a rich economy," or you can look at things like the proposed children's health-insurance program that was recently vetoed as too expensive—that can be measured in the cost of days of fighting in Iraq. Funding for a major autism research effort is equal to hours of fighting. Bush has said there's a "giant hole" in our Social Security program, but for one sixth the cost of the war in Iraq, we could have fixed Social Security for the next 50 to 75 years.
Why are your numbers so much higher, not only than what the administration came up with, but than your own initial 2006 estimates of $1 trillion to $2 trillion?
The war has gone worse than people thought it would, and it has gone on for much longer. Things like the cost of recruitment have gone up because the war has gone so badly. There's more use of private contractors—there are security guards that get $1,000 per day, and we also pay for the insurance on these people. There are also ambiguities in accounting. For example, if the first tank in a convoy is blown up, that counts as a military loss, but if the second one crashes into the first, it's called something else, and doesn't get tallied in the defense budget. But taxpayers still foot the bill.
How expensive is the war from a historical perspective?
Iraq is now America's most expensive conflict since World War II. The cost to keep a soldier in Iraq for one year is about $400,000, versus $50,000 in inflation adjusted terms for WWII. This is due in part to the fact that the ratio of injuries to fatalities has grown from 2 to 1, to 15 to 1. It's a miracle of modern medicine. But there is a cost to that. The last of the payments of veteran's benefits from WWII has only just ended (and those payments peaked only in 1993). This war has created a huge, unfunded entitlement for veterans—they've worked for it, but it's unfunded. Already, 260,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan have been treated in VA hospitals. That's crowding out other veterans. At the same time, life-saving equipment like MRAP armored vehicles that Marines asked for in early 2005 didn't get ordered until after Rumsfeld left—I believe this was because the government was trying to keep down the most obvious costs of the war.
What are the macroeconomic costs of Iraq for the U.S.?
We looked at things like the increase in the price of oil, the increased deficit, interest on debt, the diversion of resources from other investments. Given all these things, you'd actually think the economy would be in worse shape than it is now. So, why isn't it? Our explanation is that loose monetary policy and lax financial regulation covered up the problem; $900 billion worth of mortgage equity withdrawals per year helped finance all this. But it was only a matter of time before the day of reckoning came—and now it has. We didn't pay [for the war] up front; now we're going to pay a higher price because of macroeconomic turmoil.
What will the key global economic fallout be?
Oil prices were $25 before the war. They are $100 now. That shift moves wealth away from the U.S. and towards places like, say, Abu Dhabi. So, it's no surprise that when we have financial problems in this country we have to turn to sovereign wealth funds to bail us out. That's a predictable consequence of this war.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »


Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: joemash @ 03/03/2008 7:17:56 AM
Comment: Legalize Industrial Hemp! It's that easy. But we've been brainwashed. They will spend tens of millions of dollars to try and prevent people from using it. So now we'll all go to economic hell, but we'll all be 'straight'.
Posted By: oldwolf @ 03/01/2008 7:38:51 AM
Comment: I think the administration took a gamble that they could secure a large reserve of oil supply by invading Iraq. The ROI on this would've been staggering if it were successful. Unfortunately the investment (in invading Iraq) did not pan out. An alternative investment might've been to create a "Manhattan Project" to eliminate dependence on fossil fuels. The Bush administration, of course, would view this as a foolhardy, risky approach to solving the middle-east terrorism problem since here's no precedent for such a macro-economic technique. But let's just do a little thought experiment shall we: imagine post-9/11 the government (then running very low deficits and cash rich) said we will invest in new technologies to completely eliminate our dependence on oil. And then actually started putting real funds behind it ($200 billion say over 5 years). Today the price of oil futures would be so depressed that the middle east would be begging the US to help them rebuild their economies. Our education system would be pushing math and science hard to supply the nation with the brain power to solve the energy problem (anyone remember the space race). New industries would be emerging over night. We'd be leading the world again in a direction away from fighting over finite resources which is what Iraq was all about in the first place.
Posted By: AmericanPatriot @ 03/01/2008 7:24:51 AM
Comment: As a physicist, I still am ticked off that the Superconducting Supercollider project was cancelled back in 1993, because Congress thought its $12 billion price tag was too expensive. But now we're spending $12 billion every month for a war based on lies of Saddam's WMDs and role in the 9-11 attacks. America is truly one of the world's stupidest countries, I am tempted to renounce my citizenship and go live in Europe where my ancestors came from. As an added thought, look at the idiotic coke-head alcoholic we put in the White House for the past 8 years, and we stood by while democracy was subverted by "hanging chads" when instead we could have had Al Gore as President, whose work in the past 8 years have garnered him a Nobel Prize and an Oscar award. To hell with all you Americans and your gas-guzzling SUVs and TV-addled brains and Ritalin-brained kids with their Playstations and Wii's and your asinine obsession with Paris and Britney while the rest of the world focuses on real issues.