6/16/2008

New Analysis piece up at Fox News: Is It Really a '$3 Trillion War'?

The new piece is pretty good. I spent a large amount of time doing the interviews for it. You can read the whole piece here:

What is the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? To many, the answer, at least from 2001 through 2007, is $473 billion – about a quarter of total defense expenditures over those years. It has averaged less than one percent of GDP.

$473 billion is probably an underestimate simply because the fighting has already lasted past 2007 and some wounded veterans will require long-term care. But how much more is it?

In a new book, The Three Trillion Dollar War, Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes argue that this emphasis on what the government has already spent dramatically understates the true cost of the war. At roughly six times the defense department’s numbers, their $3 trillion estimate has generated much news coverage and controversy. . . .


I found a related piece by Amity Shlaes here.

Labels: ,

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a perfect piece for Fox. As someone said, "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers." How much did this naked act (naked to those not beholden to Lord Bush/neocon propaganda, and will work to find the truth not being told in the bought media) of aggression cost? Too much. Iraq's government will be a puppet of the interest's in Washington, and this country will be no safer for it and morally in the wrong. It's simply an act of breaking and entering writ large, and the various warring groups of militias are justified in killing our marines who get in the way. Many thousands of Iraquis are now refugees and their infrastructure is in shambles. Assuming we don't subscribe to the broken window fallacy, what is the opportunity cost for Iraq? Who knows? Who cares? It's too much.

6/16/2008 5:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Liberals point to the fact that the Bush administration lied about the war by focusing and catastrophizing about the evidence tending to prove that Saddam was an unacceptable threat while ignoring or downplaying evidence that did not support such conclusions.

These same liberals, however, want a president who focuses and catastrophizes about the evidence tending to prove that global warming is an unacceptable threat while ignoring or downplaying evidence that does not support such conclusions.

In the latter context, they call it responsible leadership.

David Del Buono

6/17/2008 10:05 AM  
Anonymous kpriessman@yahoo.com said...

Dear Sir:

While there may be some question as to the amount required to help wounded and disabled veterans, I would ask if you have considered the fact that the DOD and the DVA have done everything possible to deny OIF/OEF, Gulf War I, and Vietnam veterans’ disability payments and pensions, health care, etc.?

I wonder if you have listened to the testimony of DOD officials testifying that only 1% of troops have PTSD when they make them back sign documents saying the wounded troop had a prior condition, or will not diagnose it in-service, or will not release confirming evidence to the DVA when the DVA denies a service connection for a vet whose head was half blown off?

Do you know about the 18/day vet suicides from OIF/OEF vets, or that there are 17/day other vets dying or suiciding? What is their worth?

There are hundreds of thousands of vets being denied every day. I really don't care what the costs are when I know that thousands and thousands of urns of the remains of dead vets are found in basements of mortuaries because the BVA wouldn't pay for their burials.

Isn't it telling that the administration wants six years in service (or basically 4 tours in Afghanistan or Iraq) to get college money? How many thousands of service people will be lucky enough to survive 4 tours unscathed to be able to collect on that promise? Not many I think.

Tell me sir, what is service to your country worth? To this and past administrations, the answer is nothing!!

No wonder you think the estimates are high. Based on the atrocities that this government perpetrated on service people over the last 75 years such as SHAD Project 112, worldwide use of herbicides, carcinogens, and other toxins for which the IOM and DVA use to make and perpetuate faulty and biased scientific conclusions and cite these studies to deny benefits!

Are you aware the Ranch Hand Study conclusions were found to be wrong by the person responsible for them, and the DOD, the DVA, and the IOM refuse to acknowledge it?

Tell them to open the National Archives, or the U.S. Army Center of Military History Historical Resources Branch, the CIA, the Department of Agriculture, or even the sequestered testimony of experts to Congress so that YOU CAN SEE THE TRUTH!!

Are you aware that a Fort Dietrich scientist wrote a report that says that herbicides were used on every Army and Air Force base in the United States and other areas of the world?

Otherwise don't criticize someone's numbers, because if you know the truth and still make these estimates, you are part of the problem.

Kurt Priessman, MSgt, USAF (Ret)
B.A., M.B.A., C.P.M.
Vet Advocate/Researcher

6/18/2008 1:01 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home