PDA

View Full Version : Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion: study



DiabloViejo
03-14-2013, 04:43 PM
Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion: study

By Daniel Trotta
NEW YORK | Thu Mar 14, 2013 12:53pm EDT
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/us-iraq-war-anniversary-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314


http://s1.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20130314&t=2&i=712718618&w=&fh=&fw=&ll=700&pl=300&r=CBRE92D1AXA00

(Reuters) - The U.S. war in Iraq (http://www.reuters.com/places/iraq?lc=int_mb_1001) has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.

The war has killed at least 134,000 Iraqi civilians and may have contributed to the deaths of as many as four times that number, according to the Costs of War Project by the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University.

When security forces, insurgents, journalists and humanitarian workers were included, the war's death toll rose to an estimated 176,000 to 189,000, the study said.

The report, the work of about 30 academics and experts, was published in advance of the 10th anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003.

It was also an update of a 2011 report the Watson Institute produced ahead of the 10th anniversary of the September 11 attacks that assessed the cost in dollars and lives from the resulting wars in Afghanistan (http://www.reuters.com/places/afghanistan),Pakistan (http://www.reuters.com/places/pakistan?lc=int_mb_1001) and Iraq.

The 2011 study said the combined cost of the wars was at least $3.7 trillion, based on actual expenditures from the U.S. Treasury and future commitments, such as the medical and disability claims of U.S. war veterans.
That estimate climbed to nearly $4 trillion in the update.

The estimated death toll from the three wars, previously at 224,000 to 258,000, increased to a range of 272,000 to 329,000 two years later.

Excluded were indirect deaths caused by the mass exodus of doctors and a devastated infrastructure, for example, while the costs left out trillions of dollars in interest the United States could pay over the next 40 years.
The interest on expenses for the Iraq war could amount to about $4 trillion during that period, the report said.

The report also examined the burden on U.S. veterans and their families, showing a deep social cost as well as an increase in spending on veterans. The 2011 study found U.S. medical and disability claims for veterans after a decade of war totaled $33 billion. Two years later, that number had risen to $134.7 billion.

FEW GAINS

The report concluded the United States gained little from the war while Iraq was traumatized by it. The war reinvigorated radical Islamist militants in the region, set back women's rights, and weakened an already precarious healthcare system, the report said. Meanwhile, the $212 billion reconstruction effort was largely a failure with most of that money spent on security or lost to waste and fraud, it said.

cushioncrawler
03-14-2013, 05:06 PM
I remember that one of Bush's team sayd early on that the iraq war could cost $200 billion (i think) -- and cheney and Co sacked him.
I might find the details.
mac.

Sid_Vicious
03-14-2013, 07:41 PM
Thank you George FN Bush! What a greedy, stupid bafoon who this country voted in for 2 terms, AND he is still on our taxpayers dime for his security. He should be guarded in prison at a minimum. martin

Soflasnapper
03-15-2013, 01:00 PM
Thank you George FN Bush! What a greedy, stupid bafoon who this country voted in for 2 terms, AND he is still on our taxpayers dime for his security. He should be guarded in prison at a minimum. martin

As with Reagan as well, this country will always be in debt to George W.

People are so innumerate and fact-challenged so as to fail to recognize the hidden costs of these wars (W kept them off the budget books, leading to a false record of wrongly far-lower-than-reality supposed annual budget deficits), or how much they affected the deficit numbers once they were (properly) put back onto the official budget.

DiabloViejo
03-15-2013, 10:46 PM
Six trillion here, seven trillion there, and pretty soon it starts to add up to some real money.:hopelessness:

Sid_Vicious
03-16-2013, 10:43 PM
Six trillion here, seven trillion there, and pretty soon it starts to add up to some real money.:hopelessness:

And then the rightie flakes wanna push to diminish entitlements, which are only in the billions, AND have been funded by those who should expect them! Thing is that a$$hole war mongers Bush, stole from those funds for his greedy buds. All the hell that the repubs these days are wanting to do is give Obama a black eye(pardon the pun) so their party can have some slim chance at getting in the game again, damned the American people. It isn't rocket science. It is all about their money backers. Otherwise, the top 1% wouldn't be sheltered, against popular, citizen opinion. It sucks, and it ain't gonna be resloved with this piss poor system we have. It is lose-lose, and maybe the best outcome is no progress in government, like it was in Clinton's last term. You do remember how that turned out before the chimp screwed it all up. sid

DiabloViejo
03-17-2013, 12:43 AM
And then the rightie flakes wanna push to diminish entitlements, which are only in the billions, AND have been funded by those who should expect them! Thing is that a$$hole war mongers Bush, stole from those funds for his greedy buds. All the hell that the repubs these days are wanting to do is give Obama a black eye(pardon the pun) so their party can have some slim chance at getting in the game again, damned the American people. It isn't rocket science. It is all about their money backers. Otherwise, the top 1% wouldn't be sheltered, against popular, citizen opinion. It sucks, and it ain't gonna be resloved with this piss poor system we have. It is lose-lose, and maybe the best outcome is no progress in government, like it was in Clinton's last term. You do remember how that turned out before the chimp screwed it all up. sid

I agree with practically all of what you're saying, except for the "maybe the best outcome is no progress in government" part. I would argue for a more civil and coherent government, one that places the people above greed...that is the type of progress in government that I can get behind.

Gayle in MD
03-18-2013, 12:18 PM
I'm with you on that, friend.

Also,
"Would people please stop referring to Ryan as a "conservative". He voted with Bush 95% of the time for the deficits that he now claims to be against. He voted for both of Bush's stimulus programs that created ZERO jobs. He didn't vote for Obama's stimulus bill that created 2 million jobs. He voted for the Bush tax cuts that added 1.812 Trillion to the deficit just when Bush was in office. He voted for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that have added trillions to the deficit.
He voted for the 7 Trillion unfunded Medicare Part D program under Bush, but wants to repeal ObamaCARES that will reduce the deficit by 109 Billion. Ryan is no "conservative". He just wants to take from the poor, elderly and disabled in this country and give more tax breaks to the richest among us who don't need them and in many cases say they don't want them. If these Republicans had been "conservatives" when Bush was in the WH and actually paid for bills as they were passed, we wouldn't have the deficit that we have today. But as Orrin Hatch said "it was common practice" not to pay for bills when Republicans ran Washington."