$1,000,000,000,000 for Iraq War

Drew Dungan
The Congressional Budget Office presented a new estimate of the cost of war in Iraq and Afghanistan that is projected to be above $1 trillion.

"Estimated Costs of U.S. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and of Other Activities Related to the War on Terrorism," was presented before the United States House of Representatives Committee on Budget on July 31, 2007. It contained troubling figures for the country, showing that the overall costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will top $1 trillion dollars by the time of the end of operations. The report focused on the appropriations and obligations to date, the potential costs of the recent increase in the number of troops in the Iraq area, and the projected long-term costs of the war on terrorism under several different scenarios.

Since September 2001, Congress has appropriated $602 billion for military operations and other activities related to Iraq, Afghanistan and the war on terrorism. In addition, an estimated $2 billion has been spent by Veterans'Affairs for war-related benefits. The funds averaged about $93 billion a year from 2003 through 2005, have risen to $120 billion in 2006 and $170 billion in 2007. It should be noted that Afghanistan was not invaded until late 2001 and Iraq was not invaded nor occupied until 2003, thereby making the earlier years averages lower.

President Bush's troop surge plan estimates that an additional 30,000 to 40,000 personnel from the four military services have been deployed to the Iraq War. According the the Congressional Budget Office, those additional troops will cost about $10 billion, $22 billion, or $40 billion, respectively, depending on whether that increase is sustained for four months, 12 months, or 24 months.

The Congressional Budget Office offered two scenarios for projections based on the possible timelines for withdrawal from the Iraq area. In their first scenario, the number of personnel deployed on the ground would be reduced from the 2007 average of about 210,000 to 30,000 by the beginning of 2010 and then remain at that level through 2017. They estimate that the cost to U.S. taxpayers under this scenario would range from $481 billion to $603 billion over the 2008-2017 period, depending on how long the current personnel level in Iraq is sustained. Adding even the low estimate to the to-date estimate spent on the wars of $602 will total over $1 trillion.

In their second scenario, the number of personnel deployed to Iraq and other locations associated with the war on terrorism would decline more gradually, from an average of 210,000 in 2007 to 75,000 by the start of 2013 and then remain at that level through 2017. CBO estimates that total costs to the government under this scenario would range from $924 billion to $1,010 billion over the 2008-2017 period, again depending on how long the current personnel level in Iraq is sustained. Adding the lowest estimate here to the to-date estimate will total over $1.5 trillion.

When questioned before Congress on the lead-up to the war in Iraq, senior Bush Administration official Paul Wolfowitz argued that the war would cost merely billions, and that oil revenues would pay for the war in total, with little to no cost to U.S. taxpayers.

Upon the release of the Congressional Budget Offices' estimates on the cost of war, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow defended the estimate citing September 11th costs.

The Congressional Budget Office is a nonpartisan office that deals with budget estimates for bills and acts of Congress and the United States Government.

Published by Drew Dungan

I am a lifelong resident of the Southwest. Much of my life has been focused on education.  View profile

5 Comments

Post a Comment
  • Jody Morse9/4/2007

    Great reporting, but crazy amount of money!

  • Robbie B8/31/2007

    very good reporting...great artcle!

  • M.S.Medina8/16/2007

    What an insane amount of money to spend in a place far away on a war when the money could be used in so many other constructive ways.

  • Jim Clayton8/7/2007

    It must also be remembered, the Iraq War notwithstanding, al-Qaeda's entire goal was/is to cripple the US economy. That is their stated strategy. They cannot invade us or defeat us militarily. However they can keep hitting us causing our economy to suffer, which is their preferred method of achieving victory. So, that being the case, isn't our spending money to keep al-Qaeda at bay cheaper than waiting for them to attack again? In strictly monetary terms present US strategy is the far cheaper alternative. Not justifying the war on that basis - merely pointing out the facts.

  • Jim Clayton8/7/2007

    While I would not argue or take issue with any of the facts and events you've presented, like it or not, Tony Snow did bring up an interesting point. Namely, do you have any idea of the dollar cost in lost stock values, the subsequent recession following 9/11, and the various other costs incurred from that day - Insurance claims, lost jobs (2 million of them), lost income, lost income tax, etc. I do not know the figures, but be assured, including the stock losses, it was TRILLIONS of dollars. TRILLIONS!!!!!!

Displaying Comments

To comment, please sign in to your Yahoo! account, or sign up for a new account.