Archive for the ‘Cost of War’ Category

Cost of US Wars is Unknown

August 23, 2011

Congress appointed a “super-committee” that is charged with figuring out how to balance the budget, by early December, or else significant percentage cuts across the board will supposedly be triggered. Obviously, the US military budget should be cut, but by how much? It is hard to know, when much of the actual cost of fighting at least three wars in the middle-east and Central Asia is unknown, according to a Brown University study published recently.

True Cost of US Wars Unknown

Nancy A. Youssef, McClatchy Newspapers, 16 Aug 2011

When congressional cost-cutters meet later this year to decide on trimming the federal budget, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq could represent juicy targets. But how much do the wars actually cost the US taxpayer?

Nobody really knows.

… Congress has allotted $1.3 trillion for war spending through fiscal year 2011 just to the Defense Department. … In a recent speech, President Barack Obama assigned the wars a $1 trillion price tag.

But all those numbers are incomplete. Besides what Congress appropriated, the Pentagon spent an additional unknown amount from its $5.2 trillion base budget over that same period. According to a recent Brown University study, the wars and their ripple effects have cost the United States $3.7 trillion, or more than $12,000 per American.

Lawmakers remain sharply divided over the wisdom of slashing the military budget, even with the United States winding down two long conflicts, but there’s also a more fundamental problem: It’s almost impossible to pin down just what the US military spends on war.

According to Defense Department figures, by the end of April, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan … had cost an average of $9.7 billion a month, with roughly two-thirds going to Afghanistan. That … is roughly the entire annual budget for the Environmental Protection Agency.

… NASA could have launched its final shuttle mission in July, which cost $1.5 billion, six times for what the Pentagon is allotted to spend each month in those two wars.

What about Medicare Part D, … which cost a Congressional Budget Office-estimated $385 billion over 10 years? The Pentagon spends that in Iraq and Afghanistan in about 40 months.

In Afghanistan … the US military spent $1.5 billion to purchase 329.8 million gallons of fuel for vehicles, aircraft and generators from October 2010 to May 2011. That’s a not-unheard-of $4.55 per gallon, but it doesn’t include the cost of getting the fuel to combat zones and the human cost of transporting it through hostile areas, which can hike the cost to hundreds of dollars a gallon.

Just getting air-conditioning to troops in Afghanistan, including transport and maintenance, costs $20 billion per year, retired Brig. Gen. Steve Anderson told National Public Radio recently. That’s half [of what] the federal government has spent on Amtrak over 40 years.

In the early years of the wars Congress didn’t even demand a true accounting of war spending, giving the military whatever it needed. Now, at a time of fiscal woes and with the American public weary of the wars, the question has become how much the nation’s largest bureaucracy should cut.

“It used to be that asking how much the wars cost was unpatriotic. The attitude going into the war is you spend whatever you cost. Now maybe asking is more patriotic.”

Still, deep cuts to the Pentagon remain unpalatable to many lawmakers. The debt limit deal that Congress passed earlier this month calls for $350 billion in “defense and security” spending cuts through 2024, but that’s expected to be spread across several government agencies, sparing the Pentagon much of the blow.

However, if the 12-member bipartisan “super-committee” of lawmakers can’t agree on further federal budget cuts later this year, the law mandates across-the-board cuts of $1.2 trillion over 10 years, with half of that coming from the Pentagon. The prospect of such deep defense cuts is thought to provide a strong incentive for deficit hawks to compromise and spread the pain more broadly.

… Reducing troop levels doesn’t necessarily yield commensurate cost reductions, given the huge amount of infrastructure the military still maintains in each country.

In Afghanistan, the cost per service member climbed from $507,000 in fiscal year 2009 to $667,000 the following year, according to the Congressional Research Service. Fiscal year 2011 costs are expected to reach $694,000 per service member, even as the US military begins drawing down 33,000 of the 99,000 troops there.

In Iraq, even with the overall costs of the war declining and the US military scheduled to withdraw its remaining 46,000 troops by the end of this year, the cost per service member spiked from $510,000 in 2007 to $802,000 this year.

In fiscal year 2011, Congress authorized $113 billion for the war in Afghanistan and $46 billion for Iraq. The Pentagon’s 2012 budget request is lower: $107 billion for Afghanistan and $11 billion for Iraq.

Adm. Mike Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has called the national debt the biggest threat to US national security. Before leaving office last month as defense secretary, Robert Gates ordered his department to find ways to cut $400 billion from the defense budget over 12 years, under Obama’s orders.

“The ripple effects on the US economy have also been significant, including job loss and interest rate increases, and those effects have been underappreciated,” wrote a team of Brown University experts who authored a June report called “Costs of War.”

[Read Entire Article]

Related News Article: US Troops May Stay in Afghanistan Until 2024.

Related PeacePundit Posts

Lee, Jones, 93 House Members Demand Complete, Quick Iraq Withdrawal

July 29, 2011

On July 27, 93 House members led by representatives Barbara Lee and Walter Jones released a letter to President Obama calling for a complete US military withdrawal from Iraq by December 2011, as required by the US-Iraq pact of 2008.

In contrast, senior military and other administration officials have encouraged Iraq to “request” that US troops remain in Iraq indefinitely.

Lee’s letter challenges the president at a key moment: when the US debt-ceiling is being debated. Withdrawing the remaining 47,000 American troops (plus a large number of military contractors) from Iraq would save US taxpayer $50 billion annually.

The Lee-Jones Letter

July 22, 2011

The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing to urge you to hold to our nation’s Status of Forces Agreement with the government of Iraq that commits our nation to bringing all of our troops and military contractors home at the end of this calendar year.

The American people have made it clear that the war in Iraq must end. By wide and overwhelming margins, Americans approve of your plan to remove all the troops from Iraq by the end of this year.

We are deeply concerned to learn that your Administration is considering plans to keep potentially thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the end of this year. Extending our presence in Iraq is counterproductive – the Iraqi people do not support our continued occupation. Remaining in Iraq would only further strengthen the perception that we are an occupying force with no intention of leaving Iraq.

Leaving troops and military contractors in Iraq beyond the deadline is not in our nation’s security interests, it is not in our nation’s strategic interests, and it is not in our nation’s economic interests.

Mr. President, we look forward to working with you in maintaining our nation’s Status of Forces Agreement with the government of Iraq and bringing all of our troops and military contractors home at the end of this year.

Sincerely,

Barbara Lee
Member of Congress

Walter B. Jones
Member of Congress

[Read Congr. Barbara Lee's Press Release]

[See which Members of Congress co-signed the Lee-Jones letter]

Related Peace Pundit Posts

US Monthly Death Rate in Iraq Spikes

July 2, 2011

Last August 31, President Obama announced the withdrawal of “the last US combat brigade from Iraq”. That description of the withdrawal was highly misleading, since about 50,000 US Army troops stayed in Iraq, many of which are combat troops. That number does not count an even larger number of private military contractors (aka mercenaries) who also remain in Iraq.

Nonetheless, the Iraq war more-or-less faded from the news, replaced by reports from the Afghanistan war and, more recently, the US-led NATO attacks on Libya.

But the Iraq war is far from over. As was made clear by a recent Washington Post report, the Iraq war continues to cost US and Iraqi lives, not to mention vast sums of money and the US’s and Iraq’s economic health. According to the report, the US military death toll for June 2011 — fifteen troops — was the highest in two years — since before the so-called withdrawal of “combat troops”. This sad statistic brings the total US death toll in Iraq to 4466, and the total for all coalition forces to 4787 (source iCasualties.org).

The August 2010 “withdrawal of combat troops” was a lie, pure and simple. The Iraq war continues, and will continue to continue until every last US troop, regular or special forces, is out. According to the Obama administration’s stated plan, the remaining US troops are to leave Iraq by the end of 2011. However, neither US military commanders nor Iraqi government officials believe that deadline will be met.

US officials blame Iran for the recent spike in US troop deaths. They say Iranian Revolutionary Guard special forces are training Iraqi Shiite militias to be more effective in striking against coalition troops. If true, this development was entirely predictable eight years ago when the US launched the war. Iran and Iraq had been at war during the 1980s (with skirmishes continuing into the 1990s). The US then attacked and invaded Iraq twice: once in the early 1990s with Operation Desert Storm in response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, and again in 2003 ostensibly to keep Saddam Hussein from using his “weapons of mass destruction” (which didn’t exist), but actually following a neocon plan to control Iraq’s oil reserves. By attacking Iraq twice, the US weakened it to the point where Iran can now freely exercise its influence among Iraq’s now dominant Shiite population. In short, the US won the Iran/Iraq war for Iran by defeating Iraq and leaving the Shiites in charge.

[SF Chronicle, July 1 2011: US death toll in June in Iraq hits 2-year high]

Related PeacePundit Posts

NATO-Afghan Relations Sour Over Airstrikes

June 3, 2011

NATO airstrikes and nightime ground raids that killed Afghan civilians are sparking a backlash against NATO and US military forces, even though UN tallies show that most civilian deaths there are caused by those fighting NATO and the Karzai government. Afghan President Hamid Karzai even threatened to retaliate against NATO.

Three recent news reports chronicle this trend. Excerpts below:

Afghan Protest of NATO Raid Leaves 12 Dead

Ray Rivera, Sangar Rahimi, NY Times, May 19, 2011

Kabul, Afghanistan — A normally peaceful northern Afghan city erupted in violence Wednesday as thousands of protesters clashed with security forces after a NATO night raid that local officials claim killed four civilians. NATO defended the night operation and said the four people who were killed, two of them women, were armed insurgents …

At least a dozen people were killed as protesters armed with Kalashnikov rifles, axes, grenades and gasoline bombs battled with the police on the streets of Taloqan … in the northeast, then assaulted a small NATO base on the city’s outskirts…

Two German soldiers and three Afghan guards were also wounded in the attack, said Abdul Jabar Taqwa, the provincial governor. … Taqwa condemned the NATO raid that precipitated the riot but also blamed Taliban agents for stirring up the crowd of 3,000 to 4,000 people during what was intended to be a peaceful demonstration.

Night raids have been a source of tension between NATO and Afghan officials, including Karzai, who has said they frequently lead to civilian casualties and deepened popular distrust of the government and NATO forces.

[Read entire story]

NATO Denies Airstrike Killed Only Civilians

Ray Rivera, NY Times, May 30, 2011

Kabul — Afghan officials said Sunday that a NATO air strike killed 14 civilians, all of them women and children, in the southern province of Helmand. …

But … a … NATO official said … that nine civilians were killed in the strike, which was aimed at five insurgents who attacked a coalition foot patrol and killed a Marine. The insurgents continued to fire from inside a compound when NATO forces called in the strike.

“Unfortunately, the compound the insurgents purposefully occupied was later discovered to house innocent civilians,” the official, Maj. Gen. John Toolan, commander of NATO forces in the Southwest region, said in a statement. The general apologized for the civilian deaths on behalf of all coalition forces, … and said an investigation into the episode was continuing.

President Hamid Karzai … called the deaths in Helmand “shocking.”

[Read entire story]

Karzai Threatens NATO over Attacks on Civilians

Joshua Partlow,Javed Hamdard, Washington Post, June 1, 2011

Kabul — President Hamid Karzai on Tuesday issued an ultimatum to NATO forces to stop air strikes on Afghan homes and warned that if they don’t, the Afghan people would drive them out as they have occupying armies in the past. …

The immediate provocation was a coalition air strike on Saturday in southern Afghanistan’s Helmand province that killed nine civilians, including children. …

“From this moment, air strikes on the houses of people are not allowed,” Karzai said at a news conference at the presidential palace.

“Afghanistan is an ally, not an occupied country. And our treatment with NATO is from the point of view of an ally. If it turns to … an occupation, then of course the Afghan people know how to deal with that,” he said. Karzai added that “history is a witness how Afghanistan deals with occupiers,” and declared that if NATO air strikes continue, Afghanistan will take “unilateral action.” …

Karzai has regularly called for an end to civilian casualties, night raids by U.S. Special Operations forces, and all unilateral NATO operations in Afghanistan. But he has rarely spoken so directly about NATO forces being a potential enemy of the Afghan people.

Estimates from both NATO and other organizations, such as the United Nations, attribute the majority of civilian casualties to the insurgents rather than NATO forces.

[Read entire story]

Related Previous PeacePundit Posts

Taliban Defiance Undiminished by bin Laden’s Death

May 14, 2011

For those who thought the death of Osama bin Laden would help pacify the Afghan Taliban, a news report from Bloomberg news agency (excerpted below) may be disappointing.

Taliban Defiance Grows after Death of bin Laden

Eltaf Najafizada, James Rupert (Bloomberg), Friday, May 13, 2011

(05-13) 04:00 PDT Kabul — Taliban attacks and warnings of a stepped-up offensive following the death of Osama bin Laden may dampen US hopes that the al Qaeda leader’s death will encourage the militants to negotiate an end to the war in Afghanistan.

Bin Laden’s “martyrdom” will give a “new impetus” to the Taliban’s fight, the movement said May 9 in a statement on the Ansar Al-Jihad website it uses for announcements.

The declaration coincided with the group’s most ambitious attacks this year, including a two-day battle in Kandahar, the country’s second-biggest city, which killed 19 people.

US leaders have said bin Laden’s death … underscores their message to his former Taliban hosts that they should abandon violence and embrace negotiations. That’s unlikely, say analysts and former Taliban members, who point to the group’s commitment to expelling foreign forces and desire to prove that its military capability remains undiminished.

Taliban spokesmen say the movement will consider peace talks only when US-led NATO troops withdraw and Afghans are running their own country.

While the Taliban offered bin Laden shelter after his 1996 expulsion from Sudan, the 9-year-old war sparked by the Sept. 11 attacks led them gradually “to abandon al Qaeda and fight in their own land against forces they see as non-Muslim occupiers,” said Waheed Mujda, an Afghan who, with bin Laden, battled the Soviets with US support.

[Read Entire Story]

Related PeacePundit Posts

Osama bin Laden is Dead. Bring the Troops Home.

May 5, 2011

Early reports of the US raid in Pakistan that killed Osama bin Laden said that he was armed and “engaged in a firefight” with US troops, but more recent reports from the Obama administration say that he was unarmed.

It’s hard to know what was possible in the confusion of the night raid, but if bin Laden was in fact unarmed, it is too bad he was killed rather than captured.

Bringing bin Laden to justice, as President Obama said he wanted to do, would have involved putting him on trial in every country where his organization carried out terrible acts of mass murder and destruction: Indonesia, Kenya, Tanzania, Yemen, the US, and others. In Kenya and Tanzania, for example, he would have had to face hundreds of Kenyans who lost relatives or were maimed or blinded in Al Qaeda’s attack on the US embassies. In the US, he would have had to face families of those killed in the 9/11 attacks, as well as first responders. He would have been treated like the criminal he was.

But he’s dead, so let’s move on. Moving on means, among other things, ending the US-led war on Afghanistan, which was launched to punish the Afghan Taliban regime for harboring bin Laden and his cohorts and refusing to turn them over to the US. Both stated reasons for being in a war in Afghanistan are gone: 1) the Afghan Taliban are no longer harboring bin Laden and his cronies (and, it turns out, haven’t been for years), and 2) we caught bin Laden, killed him, and took possession of his body. It’s over. Time to move on.

We have about 100,000 troops in Afghanistan now, plus thousands of military security contractors (aka mercenaries). It costs about $1 million per year to keep one US soldier in Afghanistan, and that doesn’t include the cost of caring for those troops after they come home with physical and psychic trauma. The war also costs many US and Afghan lives each month. We cannot afford these terrible costs. Moving on means withdrawing the vast majority, if not all, of our troops from Afghanistan.

We don’t need 100,000 troops there.

  • We don’t need 100,000 US troops there to hunt down remaining Al Qaeda leaders. The handful that remain are probably in Pakistan — not Afghanistan — anyway. Wherever they are, our regular troops won’t find them. Bin Laden was located by CIA intelligence analysts piecing together tiny shreds of evidence over a decade, and he was killed by Special Forces troops, in this case Navy SEALs. Regular troops were not involved at all.
  • We don’t need 100,000 US troops there to keep Afghanistan from exploding into civil war. True, the west should not simply abandon Afghanistan as it did after ousting the Soviets. But peacekeeping is better done by trained peacekeepers than by trained combat soldiers. Bring in United Nations peacekeepers, as in the Yugoslavian breakup conflicts.
  • We don’t need 100,000 US troops there to fight the Taliban. They only fight us because we are there. If we leave, they will stop fighting us. Unlike Al Qaeda, they have no international terrorism agenda.

We do not need 100,000 US troops in Afghanistan.

Bring them home.

Related PeacePundit Posts

Rally/March Against the Wars, April 9 (NYC) and April 10 (SF), 2011

April 6, 2011

Express your opposition to the continued wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, at the peace rallies and marches to be held in New York City and San Francisco this coming weekend. [See financial cost of wars]

Event details:

San Francisco: Rally and March: assemble 11 am, Dolores Park; 12 noon rally; march at 1:30, [More Info]

New York City: Rally and March: 12 noon, Union Square at 14th St & Broadway; march to Foley Square at 2:30; second rally at Foley Square until 5 pm. [More Info]

Related Previous Peace Pundit Posts

Photos from San Francisco Interfaith Peace Vigil 3.19.11

March 20, 2011

March 19, 2011, on the eighth anniversary of the start of the US-led Iraq War and the day when the US, France, and Britain launched attacks on Libya, about 200 people representing many different faith-traditions assembled in a light rain at 10:30 am in San Francisco’s Civic Center to express their opposition to the wars.

The vigil was organized by Rev. Israel Alvaran, a Methodist minister and Local 2 labor leader, and endorsed by a large number of churches, synagogues, and other houses of worship throughout SF.

Program

  • Gathering Music: Rick Phillips
  • Welcome: Dolores Perez-Priem, First Unitarian Universalist Society of SF
  • Centering Prayer: Rev. Jana Drakka, the Zenkei Sangha
  • Moment of Remembrance: Natasha Kanhai, Park Presidio United Methodist Church
  • Opening Song: “We Are a Gentle, Angry People”, Rick Phillips
  • An Invitation to Peace and Justice: Biship Otis Charles, Episcopal Church, Diocese of California
  • Passing Greetings of Peace
  • Centering Poem: Emerald O’Leary, City of Refuge, United Church of Christ, SF
  • A Responsive Litany for Peace: Rev. Donna Wood, Park Presidio United Methodist Church
  • Reflections on Peace and Justice: Rev. Jeremiah Kalandae, First Unitarian Universalist Society
  • The Word in Music: Ubi caritas et amor, Dues ibi est (Where charity and love are, God is present.)
  • Prayers for Peace and Justice:
    • Imam Khaled Hamoui, Occidentalists for the vicitims of the City of Hama
    • Peter Gabel, Network for Spiritual Progressives / Tikkun
    • Rev. Norman Fong, Minister, Presbyterian Church-USA
    • Tho Thi Do, St Boniface Roman Catholic Church
  • The Challenge of Peace and Justice: Rev. Fr. Kirk Ullery, Our Lady of Lourdes Roman Catholic Church
  • Closing Song: “Let There Be Peace on Earth”
  • Closing Prayer and Blessing: Rev. Dr. Dorsey Blake, The Church for the Fellowship of All Peoples
  • Sung Response: “Dona NobisPacem” (Grant us peace)

Below are photos from the vigil. Click on photos to see them larger.

Photos from the Anti-War rally and march that was held later the same day will be posted here in a few days.

Related Previous Peace Pundit Posts

Show Your Opposition to the Wars, Sat. March 19, 2011

March 13, 2011

Saturday March 19, 2011 is the eighth anniversary of the US-led war in Iraq and the tenth of the war in Afghanistan. On that day, to express opposition to continuing these horrible wastes of human lives and resources, people in cities around the US will take to the streets and plazas to express opposition to the continuation of these wars.

Officially (excluding CIA personnel and military contractors), 4757 coalition troops have died in Iraq. Another 2363 have died in Afghanistan. [Source: Iraq Coalition Casualty Count] Officially, US involvement in combat operations has ended in Iraq, but actually at least 50,000 US troops remain there and many are still involved in combat operations.

According to a new United Nations report, over 8800 civilians have died in Afghanistan. The number of Afghan civilians killed in the war has increased over the past four years, reaching a new high of 2777 deaths in 2010, a 15 percent increase over 2009.

The number of civilians killed in the Iraq war is disputed. Estimates range from 109,000 to over a million.

The monetary cost? At the time of this posting, it stood at about $1,165,000,000,000 total; $779,088,000,000 for Iraq and $385,908,000,000 for Afghanistan. Check CostOfWar.com to see where the cost stands now.

Sick of it? Show your disagreement with the wars!

Attend one or more of the marches, rallies, interfaith vigils, and many other events being held around the US on Saturday March 19.

If the citizens of Egypt and Tunesia can effect major change in their countries by ignoring their disagreements, focusing on their common goal, and demonstrating in large numbers, so can we.

San Francisco

  • Interfaith Prayer Circle for Peace and Justice: 10:30 am, Civic Center Plaza (across from SF City Hall) [More Info]
  • Rally and March to Resist the War Machine: 12 noon, UN Plaza (7th & Market Streets), [More Info]
  • Los Angeles

  • Rally and March to Resist the War Machine: 12 noon, Hollywood & Vine, [More Info]
  • Chicago

  • Rally Against the Wars: 12 noon, Michigan & Congress, [More Info]
  • Washington, DC

  • Verteran-Led Rally and March to White House: 12 noon, Lafayette Park, [More Info]
  • Other Cities

    Related Previous Peace Pundit Posts

    Outstanding Book: War is a Lie

    January 29, 2011

    David Swanson, former Press Secretary for US presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich and author of Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union, has just published an amazing new book: War is a Lie. The book is so up-to-date that it discusses events that took place in September 2010.

    It’s a point-by-point, historically rich, well-researched and well-documented expose’ of the lies that have been used to start and sustain humanity’s wars, including some that are usually considered “good wars” (a term that Swanson considers an oxymoron). The books provides the historical context and stated vs. actual motivation for most of our wars, as well as evaluating the results of wars against the goals.

    Book Cover: War is a Lie

    Table of Contents

    1. Introduction
    2. Wars Are Not Fought Against Evil
    3. Wars Are Not Launched in Defense
    4. Wars Are Not Waged Out of Generosity
    5. Wars Are Not Unavoidable
    6. Warriors Are Not Heroes
    7. War Makers Do Not Have Noble Motives
    8. Wars Are Not Prolonged for the Good of Soldiers
    9. Wars Are Not Fought on Battlefields
    10. Wars Are Not Won, and Are Not Ended By Enlarging Them
    11. War News Does Not Come From Disinterested Observers
    12. War Does Not Bring Security and Is Not Sustainable
    13. Wars Are Not Legal
    14. Wars Cannot Be Both Planned and Avoided
    15. War Is Over If You Want It

    Some interesting excerpts from the book:

    “If WWII was a good war, why did 80 percent of the Americans who … made it into combat choose not to fire their weapons at the enemies? … There is good evidence that this was the norm in the ranks of the Germans, British, French, and so forth, and had been the norm in previous wars as well. The problem … was that about 98 percent of people are very resistant to killing other human beings. You can show them how to use a gun and tell them to go shoot it, but in the moment of combat many of them will aim for the sky, drop in the dirt, assist a buty with his weapon, or suddenly discover that an important message needs to be conveyed along the line. … They’re horrified of committing murder.” — Chapter 4

    “One need not think about … wars solely in terms of winning or losing. If the US were to elect officials and compel them to heed the public’s wishes and retire from foreign military adventures, we would all be better off. Why … must that desired outcome be called ‘losing’?” — Chapter 9

    Bottom Line: War is a Lie should be read by everyone in the peace movement, every political analyst, every student of political science, ever Congressional Representative and Senator, everyone in the Obama administration, every non-US leader… oh, the heck with it! This book should be read by everyone who can read. Seriously.

    The author’s website for the book, including opportunities for readers to help get it distributed to elected representatives, peace groups, and anti-military-recruitment youth organizations, is: http://warisalie.org.

    Related Previous PeacePundit posts


    Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.