The Congressional Research Service, a non-partisan group, released a study recently detailing the costs of all major US wars in 2008 dollars. Surprisingly, Iraq isn’t first. Or second. It comes in third at $648 billion behind World War II and the Vietnam War. In fact, we’ve still got $3466 billion to go in Iraq to catch up to the cost of WWII! At the current rate, it’ll take another 4,813 10,152 days (almost 28 years) in Iraq to even match the costs of WWII.
I’m not saying it’s totally awesome how much we’re spending in Iraq, but studies like this do help put it into perspective. When the average person hears, “We’re spending over $720 $341.4 million a day in Iraq!” we’re shocked, but that’s because most of us think $500 is a lot. (And for a person, it is, but not for a government the size of the United States.) So $720 $341.4 sounds huge. This study really helps put war costs into perspective.
In terms of Gross Domestic Product, the Iraqi war is clearly not breaking us. It comes in at a quaint 1%, whereas WWII weighed in at 35.8%. In fact, there were only two major wars the US has been involved in that consumed less of a percentage of our GDP: the Persian Gulf War and the War in Afghanistan, both at 0.3% GDP.
Take a look, it’s interactive!
UPDATE: According to the National Priorities Project, the daily cost of the Iraqi war is $341.4 million, not $720 million. Heh, I guess that’s what quickly Googling something will get you.
Loading ...
This amount doesn’t surprise me. You’ve done good research. I knew we spent much more in Vietnam because I lived through that time, but I wonder about the lives lost: the Civil War still tops them all I’m sure, but what about the cost of lives lost in these wars? Any research on that? Just interested to know how the casualty numbers stack up against the money costs.
Kev-o,
Interesting numbers. I’m surprised you even put the numbers in perspective given your libertarian sensibilities. Aren’t geopolitics too complex in this day and age to be a true libertarian?
You bring up a good point. Iraq is a bargain basement deal of a war. But isn’t any war significantly more expensive than no war at all?
@Debbie: I haven’t found any numbers on the comparison of lives lost, but I’m looking into it.
@Dave: I certainly do have libertarian sensibilities, but I think a strict libertarian goes to far in many respects. The “no war at all” stance goes to far, as it is built on the misconception that if we leave other countries alone, they will leave us alone. This may prove true for a smaller, less powerful country, but both distant and recent history show us countries bent on damaging the United States if only because of her influence.
@Nathan: Obviously “no war” is a bigger savings in terms of dollars than “war”. My point here was merely to do a quick observation over one of the considerations of a just war according to the Just War Theory. The arguments against the Iraq War that cite cost seem to be claiming that it is not proportional, cost to benefit. In terms of proportionality, my argument is that the Iraq War passes the test. However, I would argue against the Iraq War is unjust if only because the United States superseded the authority of the United Nations and did not have the approval of the international community. As much as that hurts my libertarian sensibilities (i.e. the desire to claim United States sovereignty) to say such a thing, I do think it incumbent upon the United States to meet the requirements of a just war, and marching ahead without an international concicense does violate those terms.