In FY 2003 (ending September 30, 2003), the U.S. will have spent $48 billion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as laid out by the $79 billion Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act. (1) pdf. For FY2004, Bush, as we know, requested an addition $87 billion. (2) Adding those two together produces the figure $166 billion, which a lot of people have now started to use as the cost of the war and occupation.
Here's a few takes on this: $166 B, $166 B, $166 B.
That $166 billion, over two years, breaks down into:
But I'm wondering if that figure itself is too low. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates next year's war related expenditures as $120 billion.
That figure includes $31 billion of the $79 billion package approved earlier this year, $60 billion of the $87 billion Bush just asked for and some other expenses. So the 2003-2004 total is $168 billion ($79 billion-$31 billion=$48 billion for 2003+$120 billion for 2004). But, that leaves $27 billion of the $87 billion unaccounted for putting the total cost of the war at $195 billion.
That's a staggering amount.
Think about it this way, here are the costs of each of America's other major wars, adjusted to 2002 dollars.
|Conflict||Total Direct Cost|
in $ Billions
|The Revolution (1775-1783)||$2.2|
|War of 1812 (1812-1815) ||$1.1|
|Mexican War (1846-1848) ||$1.6|
|Civil War (1861-1865)|
|Spanish American War (1898)||$9.6|
|World War I (1917-1918)||$190.6*|
|World War II (1941-1945)||$2,896.3|
|Gulf War (1990-1991)||$76.1|
Sources:(3) pdf. Adapted from(4)
* (The World War I figure is a bit screwy. All the other figures were adjusted up from their 1990 equivalents, but the WWI went down. Seems like an error.)
Put another way, $195 billion spread over two years breaks down like this:
(I also posted this at Zagg)
originally posted by zagg