War Dollars Could Fill Deficit Gaps of All State Budgets
by Willliam Hartung
Congress, the media, and the public are rightly asking whether America should be spending $1 billion or more on the intervention in Libya at a time of fiscal austerity. One member of Congress has even proposed that the mission be offset dollar for dollar by cuts in domestic programs (leaving the Pentagon and related security programs off limits).


"The tax dollars being spent on Afghanistan are enough to offset the $100 billion per year that House Republicans are seeking to cut from next year's budget, or enough to fill the projected budget gaps of the 44 states that expect to run deficits in 2012. In other words, if the Afghan war ended and the funds allocated for it were returned to the states, no state in America would run a deficit next year. " While this newfound attention to the costs of U.S. global military operations is welcome, focusing on Libya alone misses the mark. The $1 billion in projected spending on Libya is just one tenth of one percent of the over $1 trillion the United States has spent so far on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Looked at another way, the likely costs of the Libyan mission are the equivalent of less than four days of spending on the war in Afghanistan.

And that's the point. Those genuinely concerned about war costs need to go where the money is -- Afghanistan. The Pentagon has asked for $113 billion to fight the war there for this year, roughly two and one-half times what has been requested to support the United States' dwindling commitment in Iraq. That gap will only increase as troop numbers in Iraq continue to fall. To put this in some perspective, the entire Gross Domestic Product of Afghanistan is about $29 billion per year, which means that annual U.S. expenditures on the war are nearly four times the value of the entire Afghan economy. That number would obviously change if the drug economy were taken into account, but it is stunning nonetheless.

The tax dollars being spent on Afghanistan are enough to offset the $100 billion per year that House Republicans are seeking to cut from next year's budget, or enough to fill the projected budget gaps of the 44 states that expect to run deficits in 2012. In other words, if the Afghan war ended and the funds allocated for it were returned to the states, no state in America would run a deficit next year. This would save millions of jobs of teachers, police, firefighters and other public employees while holding the line on basic services like Medicaid and income support for families in poverty. This would in turn be good for the economy as a whole. Military spending creates fewer jobs than virtually any other form of expenditure, from education to housing to transportation. So shifting funds away from war spending will result in a net increase in jobs nationwide.

Human Costs

But the dollar costs of the war in Afghanistan are not the only - or even the most important - consequences of the war. More than 1,500 U.S. soldiers have died since the start of the war, with nearly one-third of those deaths - 499 - occurring in 2010 alone. Nearly 10,000 U.S. troops have been wounded, with more than half of that total occurring in 2010. The figures on wounded military personnel don't take full account of traumatic brain injuries, which have been sustained by roughly one in five veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. These injuries cover everything from mild concussions to seriously debilitating conditions requiring full-time care.

The rapid increase in deaths and injuries to U.S. military personnel caused by the Afghan war is primarily attributable to two factors: 1) the sharp increase in troops deployed, from 45,000 in May 2009 to 98,000 currently; and 2) the increase in incursions into Taliban-controlled areas where soldiers are more vulnerable to ambush and roadside bombs or improvised explosive devices (IEDs).

As tragic as the figures for U.S. casualties are, they lag behind the deaths suffered by Afghan civilians as a result of the war. The United Nations estimates that over 2,700 Afghan civilians were killed in 2010 alone, for a total of six or seven every day. Over two-thirds of these deaths are as a result of actions by the Taliban, with 440 the result of action by U.S.-led coalition forces. To put that in perspective, nearly as many civilians died as a result of coalition actions in 2010 as did U.S. military personnel involved in combat.

Finally, there is the issue of suicides by U.S. troops involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have more than doubled since 2001, with 817 occurring during the first eight years of the war. In some months more U.S. military personnel have died from suicides than have died on the battlefield. While not all of these suicides are necessarily directly attributable to the wars, it is fair to assume that the bulk of them are, with one factor being multiple deployments within short time periods. These deployments mean that soldiers suffer longer exposures to the horrors of war, and put more strain on their families. Again, these must be major factors in the rise in suicides, although not the only ones.

The Bottom Line

Although there are occasional reports on the economic and human costs of the Afghan war in major media outlets, they are not done on the kind of consistent and comprehensive basis that would drive home the costs to the average citizen. Public opinion is already turning against the war. If people knew its true costs the scale of the opposition would grow dramatically.

William D. Hartung is the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy and the author of Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex (Nation Books, 2011).

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/04/06-7

I have been saying this for years! Does anyone in our Government own a World History book, no one has won a war in Afghanistan in over 1000 years. The Soviet Union fought the Taliban there for 9 years until it bankrupt the country. We've been there for 10 years now and look at our economy.

they are not trying to win a war in afganistan, they are trying to protect their interests there... copper, lithium, gold, oil, and maybe a few others i don't know about...

I can't find proof of something.Randi Rhodes is saying that one of the bigreasons the deficit has grown so much recently is that the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, having been completely off the budget, was put on-budget by President Obama. Something he had promised to do. Can this be verified? Randi has said things in the past that made me say, "Uh-oh. Randi really screwed up this time", only to find out months later that she was absolutely right. She is somebody who really does her homework.

First: Who's interest, Big Business?
Second: What good does it do to protect "their" interests, by destroying the economy?

It is time for OUR Government to start working for US!

i agree... but what are we going to do?

did you check it at factcheck or snopes?


this is interesting...

http://factcheck.org/2011/02/budget-spin/

It protects "their" interests in that the risks are born by taxpayers (tax cattle) and benefits are reaped by Big Businesses with ties to government. (especially "defense" contractors)

Elect me President, I have more common sense than most of the Politicians. Common sense should tell all the politicians and big business execs, it doesn't matter how much money you have, if that money is worthless! We are dealing with a staggering deficit and we are still spending Billions fighting in countries that don't want us there. My ancestors fought in the Revolution so that they could live their lives with the freedom to follow their religious beliefs and not have to pay taxes to a distant Aristocratic government. It makes me sick to work my tail off, so my tax money to be spent trying to change cultures that have existed for thousands of years, while the Corporate "Aristocracy" profits.

America is in debt and we are still spending Billions in other countries instead of taking care of our own. Enough!!

cool..are you going to replace the congress and senate too?

No but we'll eliminate Lobbying, and salaries and work hours for all Elected officials will be based on the average of the constituents they represent. That should pretty much eliminate Politicians from seeking election for personal gain, after all they are elected to represent their constituents.

maybe put a term limit on the senate too

Term limits wont be necessary, who's going to stick around long if there is nothing in it for them?

none of the libs cared to comment on this?...

i wonder why...

I checked it and found just about both sides have stretched the truth.

The point of the thread though is that if umerika wasnt involved in all these damn wars we would be near as broke.

So what are our priorotyies? fight wars untill we dont have a nation or way of life worth defending?

I just now read it, Mo. Gimme a break! I know it doesn't appear so, but I do other things beside sitting at the computer waiting for Mingle responses.

That was a great article! Tough on both sides. Do you guys have any idea how many attitudes we have in common?

Tantulum, magnisium, molendimium, several rare earths...

Afganistan is primarily one of the few places on earth that has not been exploited by industry...

to any great degree.

you would have a most terrible accident...

We would be left mouning the loss of your greatness.

Do you seriously think the 'entrenched' powers would allow you to accomplish all of this?

Turns out to be true. They now account for about $100 billion a year in the budget.

it's not true.. obama is an idiot, and a liar...