Cost of war at least $3.7 trillion and counting

NEW YORK Wed Jun 29, 2011 4:28pm EDT

1 of 5. A U.S. soldier (R) of 1st Squadron, 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment, cries during a memorial service for three fellow soldiers who were killed during clashes last March 25 and April 7, at a military camp in Baghdad April 16, 2008.

Credit: Reuters/Erik de Castro


Related Topics

NEW YORK (Reuters) - When President Barack Obama cited cost as a reason to bring troops home from Afghanistan, he referred to a $1 trillion price tag for America's wars.

Staggering as it is, that figure grossly underestimates the total cost of wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan to the U.S. Treasury and ignores more imposing costs yet to come, according to a study released on Wednesday.

The final bill will run at least $3.7 trillion and could reach as high as $4.4 trillion, according to the research project "Costs of War" by Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies. (

In the 10 years since U.S. troops went into Afghanistan to root out the al Qaeda leaders behind the September 11, 2001, attacks, spending on the conflicts totaled $2.3 trillion to $2.7 trillion.

Those numbers will continue to soar when considering often overlooked costs such as long-term obligations to wounded veterans and projected war spending from 2012 through 2020. The estimates do not include at least $1 trillion more in interest payments coming due and many billions more in expenses that cannot be counted, according to the study.

The White House says the total amount appropriated for war-related activities of the Department of Defense, intelligence and State Department since 2001 is about $1.3 trillion, and that would rise to nearly $1.4 trillion in 2012.

Researchers with the Watson Institute say that type of accounting is common but too narrow to measure the real costs.

In human terms, 224,000 to 258,000 people have died directly from warfare, including 125,000 civilians in Iraq. Many more have died indirectly, from the loss of clean drinking water, healthcare, and nutrition. An additional 365,000 have been wounded and 7.8 million people -- equal to the combined population of Connecticut and Kentucky -- have been displaced.

"Costs of War" brought together more than 20 academics to uncover the expense of war in lives and dollars, a daunting task given the inconsistent recording of lives lost and what the report called opaque and sloppy accounting by the U.S. Congress and the Pentagon.

The report underlines the extent to which war will continue to stretch the U.S. federal budget, which is already on an unsustainable course due to an aging American population and skyrocketing healthcare costs.

It also raises the question of what the United States gained from its multitrillion-dollar investment.

"I hope that when we look back, whenever this ends, something very good has come out of it," Senator Bob Corker, a Republican from Tennessee, told Reuters in Washington.


In one sense, the report measures the cost of 9/11, the American shorthand for the events of September 11, 2001. Nineteen hijackers plus other al Qaeda plotters spent an estimated $400,000 to $500,000 on the plane attacks that killed 2,995 people and caused $50 billion to $100 billion in economic damages.

What followed were three wars in which $50 billion amounts to a rounding error. For every person killed on September 11, another 73 have been killed since.

Was it worth it? That is a question many people want answered, said Catherine Lutz, head of the anthropology department at Brown and co-director of the study.

"We decided we needed to do this kind of rigorous assessment of what it cost to make those choices to go to war," she said. "Politicians, we assumed, were not going to do that kind of assessment."

The report arrives as Congress debates how to cut a U.S. deficit projected at $1.4 trillion this year, roughly a 10th of which can be attributed to direct war spending.

What did the United States gain for its trillions?

Strategically, the results for the United States are mixed. Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are dead, but Iraq and Afghanistan are far from stable democracies. Iran has gained influence in the Gulf and the Taliban, though ousted from government, remain a viable military force in Afghanistan.

"The United States has been extremely successful in protecting the homeland," said George Friedman, founder of STRATFOR, a U.S.-based intelligence company.

"Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was capable of mounting very sophisticated, complex, operations on an intercontinental basis. That organization with that capability has not only been substantially reduced, it seems to have been shattered," Friedman said.

Economically, the results are also mixed. War spending may be adding half a percentage point a year to growth in the gross domestic product but that has been more than offset by the negative effects of deficit spending, the report concludes.

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see
Comments (86)
OrSpeeder wrote:
To US citizens:

It is worth 3 trillion dollars to attract terrorists?

All terrorists attack ever done against the US, the terrorist claimed it was because the current war-like policy, both foreign (for example 9/11) and non-foreign (Oklahoma bombing cited Waco massacre for example).

It is REALLY worth it? Fight so much?

You know, it is HARD to avoid hating US and maybe its citizens, I am from Brazil, and even here we have problems with US policy (US reactivated fourth fleet after Brazil president announced oficially to have found more oil, and there are incidents of Brazillian army finding Blackwater soldiers in Amazon rainforest).

The more you spend in war, the more war voluntarily also comes to you. The day US announced a new base in a single country of South America, all other countries became upset and sent diplomatic messages complaining and asking shutdown of the just opened base, it is very clear that for opening a single base, US is risking to get more and more millions of soldiers sent its way.

So US citizens: Why you are still paying war taxes? Why you are financing a warmongering government? It is worth the risk? The 3 trillions are bringing something good to you? To me, the 3 trillions only brought about 100 missing friends and family of my friends and family (I am too young to personally know the missing ones, they disappeared during cold war), and some friends hurt in a battle in our streets when Bush came here (people tried to kill Bush, cops had to protect him), and many people hating US citizens blindingly.

For every terrorist that you kill, I know that 3 people here get convinced that being a terrorist is not so bad idea, and that one day they will kill a US citizen if they see one.

So, these 3 trillions that came out of your pockets, are worth it?

Jun 29, 2011 8:08am EDT  --  Report as abuse
cautious123 wrote:
Many of those “terrorists” are resistance fighters. After all, the US invaded their country–what would anyone expect them to do but resist? It’s only due to US arrogance and stupidity that Americans are surprised when people throughout the world object to our “democratic” and “humanitarian” aid. Stay home America!

Jun 29, 2011 8:31am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Invictuss wrote:
Right but the number of deaths is way too hight only in the massacres of Falijah the deaths are more than 100 000 total 500 000+ only in Iraq!!!

Jun 29, 2011 8:39am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.