Mobile  |  About us  |  Photos  |  Videos  |  Subscriptions  |  RSS Feeds  |  Today's Paper  |  Classifieds  |  Contact Us
The Daily Star
MONDAY, 21 APR 2014
03:09 PM Beirut time
21 °C
Blom Index
Follow this story Print RSS Feed ePaper share this
Whenever the United States goes to war, the costs just keep rising
A+ A-

The United States in August and September began considering in earnest whether or not to become militarily involved in Syria. There are many contentious questions about that decision, but one fact is undeniable: It would have been expensive.In a 2010 paper, Stephen Daggett of the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service estimated the costs of all major U.S. wars expressed in contemporary dollars, from the American Revolution through the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. With the caveat that comparing war costs over a 230-year period is “inherently problematic” because the definition of war has varied and official numbers have included and measured different things over time, and also “because of the difficulties in comparing prices from one vastly different era to another,” Daggett nonetheless concludes the trend is clear: Wars aren’t cheap.

According to his estimates, the American Revolution cost $2.4 billion (all numbers are in FY2011 dollars), World War I cost $334 billion, World War II cost $4.1 trillion and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined have cost around $1.1 trillion and growing.

The price tag on the proposed intervention in Syria is unclear. According to a Congressional Research Service report published in September, “the cost of any military intervention could range widely depending on the type and length of U.S. military actions, the participation of U.S. allies, and Syrian and Syrian-allied responses.” Estimates range from $500 million initially to train, advise and assist opposition forces in a safe area outside Syria, to as much as $12 billion dollars a year to use military force to establish either a no-fly zone that would prevent the regime from using its aircraft or a buffer zone to protect border areas.

If history is any guide, we can expect that direct military spending will be grossly underestimated. Take the 2003 war in Iraq. Mitch Daniels, then the director of the Office of Management and Budget, predicted that the war in Iraq would cost $50 to $60 billion, including the costs of reconstruction and cleanup. President George W. Bush’s economic adviser Larry Lindsey was canned for suggesting that it could cost as much as $100 billion. But as of 2013, the Cost of War Project has estimated that Department of Defense appropriations for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined had already reached $1.4 trillion. On top of DOD appropriations, the total costs of the Iraq war alone, including related expenses through 2013, is about $1.7 trillion. This number increases to $2.1 trillion when you add substantial costs for veterans through 2053.

There are several reasons for the discrepancy between government projections and actual costs of war. The first one is mission creep. The U.S. tends to intervene more deeply than originally planned, from Vietnam to Afghanistan.

Second, pro-war interests have an incentive to make the war appear to be as cheap – and therefore attractive – as possible. Secretary of State John Kerry claimed during a Sept. 4 hearing on President Barack Obama’s request for an authorization for use of military force in Syria that unnamed “Arab countries” had offered to pay for the administration’s proposed war in Syria. Something similar happened in March 2003 when the Bush administration announced the war in Iraq would be paid for by future oil revenues there.

But no matter how large the direct price tag for war, that’s only a down payment on what military interventions usually end up costing taxpayers. Queens College economics professor Ryan D. Edwards looked at the costs of 10 major U.S. wars in a 2010 National Bureau of Economic Research paper and found that the costs of death and disability compensation, health care and survivors’ benefits to veterans and their dependents “represent between one-third and one-half of the total present value of all war costs.”

Even for short and seemingly cheap engagements, such as the 2011 Libya intervention, the unfunded liability of future veterans’ benefits will have lasting implications for fiscal policy beyond the short-term impact on the budget and economy. That was certainly the case for both the Spanish-American War and the first Gulf War in 1991.

Any Syria-war costs would also be higher than originally announced because lawmakers will abuse the “emergency” spending process. During the two-front war in Iraq and Afghanistan, this backdoor budgeting scheme allowed Bush and his Republican Congress to not only conceal the true costs to taxpayers but also to avoid painful budget choices while funneling billions of dollars in unvetted goodies to favored military contractors. The result was more defense and nondefense spending. Lawmakers from both parties have refused to close this emergency loophole, even though Obama has so far kept his promise to fund the war out of regular appropriations.

There’s another factor that could trigger higher-than-projected costs if the U.S. were ever to decide to intervene in Syria. As soon as news of a potential U.S. strike hit the media cycle last September, hawks and pro-defense spending interests started making the case that it would require boosting defense spending or putting an end to the cuts implemented on March 1 of this year though sequestration.

During a Sept. 8 interview on CNN’s State of the Union program, for instance, Representative Howard P. “Buck” McKeon, a California Republican and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, warned that many Republicans would only support the president’s intervention if it was coupled with repeal of the modest defense cuts.

The cost implications of undoing hard-fought sequestration could be large. Democrats wouldn’t agree to re-boosting defense spending without undoing the rest of the sequestration cuts as well. If that happens, as with emergency supplementals, both defense and nondefense spending will grow much faster than projected.

For all these reasons, Americans should demand that lawmakers do a much better job at projecting all the costs of an intervention in Syria, if that were ever to come about. Then, they need to demand a credible plan for how it will be paid. Under no circumstances should war ever again simply be added to the nation’s credit card.

Veronique de Rugy is a columnist at Reason magazine and an economist at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. This commentary first appeared at Reason and is published in collaboration with Featurewell (

A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Daily Star on December 16, 2013, on page 7.
Home Commentary
war / expenditures / spending / United States of America

Your feedback is important to us!

We invite all our readers to share with us their views and comments about this article.

Disclaimer: Comments submitted by third parties on this site are the sole responsibility of the individual(s) whose content is submitted. The Daily Star accepts no responsibility for the content of comment(s), including, without limitation, any error, omission or inaccuracy therein. Please note that your email address will NOT appear on the site.

comments powered by Disqus

Baabda 2014
Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Linked In Follow us on Google+ Subscribe to our Live Feed
Pictures of the day
A selection of images from around the world- Monday April 21, 2014
View all view all
Rami G. Khouri
Rami G. Khouri
Why Israeli-Palestinian talks fail
Michael Young
Michael Young
Why confuse gibberish with knowledge?
David Ignatius
David Ignatius
Echoes of 1914 characterize the Ukraine crisis
View all view all
Click to View Articles
Privacy Policy | Anti-Spamming Policy | Disclaimer | Copyright Notice
© 2014 The Daily Star - All Rights Reserved - Designed and Developed By IDS