The Three Trillion Dollar War
Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes
When the United States invaded Iraq in March 2003, Americans were told Iraqi oil would cover the costs of the war and rebuilding. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld scoffed at estimates of $100 billion.
Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University and Harvard University professor Linda Bilmes raised a stir in 2006 by estimating the real cost of the war to be $1 trillion. That estimate has been tripled and the title of their new book is "The Three Trillion Dollar War."
Write Stiglitz and Bilmes a question now. They will answer questions for McClatchy readers between April 1 and April 15.
Most Recently Answered QuestionsQuestions 1 - 15 of 50 (Page 1 of 3)
Q: So why was the true cost of the war so vastly underestimated? How expensive will this war get in terms of dollars if the conflict stretches out another five years?
Submitted by Jim from Rockville, MD A: It appears that it was underestimated initially because the Administration ignored the voices of those who raised the cost issue. You recall that Larry Lindsey, the National Economic Advisor at the time, said that the war might cost $200 bn (instead of the $50 billion that Runmsfeld and Wolforwitz promised), and Lindsey was fired for his opinion. In academia, Yale Professor William Nordhaus published a very detailed study in 2003 showing that the war costs could reach $2 trillion if the war went badly -- again, the Administration seemed to expect a short, quick war and paid no attention. In addition, there were pockets of incredibly poor planning - the Dept of Veterans Affairs in 2005 and 2006 was still estimating costs based on its projections from 2001 -- before the war even started. And the Pentagon -which has flunked its financial audits for the past 10 years straight and has no system of tracking expenditures -- was incapable of producing a coherent long-term estimate of depreciation of equipment, munitions, etc. (Outside experts had to do this). In our book we estimate the costs through 2017 under 2 scenarios; first a fairly rapid drawdown of troops and cutting back on the mission of those remaining; and second a more slow drawdown with a continued military mission. You can read the details in the book but essentially it costs around $1 trillion more for the second scenario.
Answered 04/09/08 14:01:08 by Linda Bilmes
Q: Why don't you show in more detail what each 12 billion dollars each month would buy? Billions. trillions of dollars, these are abstractions for the public. Talk in terms of schools built, highways fixed, healthcare provided ect. Than it will sink in and make a difference.
Submitted by K.B. from Newark, New Jersey A: go to national priorities project .org and they provide that information
Answered 04/09/08 13:54:29 by Linda Bilmes
Q: I wonder how much of the three trillion dollar amount is from the lack of accounting oversite. The Bush administration has blocked many oversite initiatives. We need a new Truman commission to hold military contractors and suppliers accountable and liable for sanctions. Professor Stiglit's book is horrific to any rational American..
Submitted by Michael Niebauer from Coalport PA A: You are right. In the private sector, the Congress almost unanimously passed the Sarbanes-Oxley law which requires detail accountability for financial reports. This followed the Enron and other acccounting scandals. But there is no comparable requirement in government. The war has been funded through a series of "emergency" supplementals, which circumvent all the normal checks and balances on spending, and avoid all the normal oversight mechanisms in government. The lack of oversight has led to profiteering, overpayments to contracts, the fact that KBR has been able to evade hundreds of millions in taxes by employing people through shell companies in the Cayman Islands -- etc.
Answered 04/09/08 13:53:14 by Linda Bilmes
Q: Does $3 trillion include only the Iraq War, or the cost of the larger War on Terror, including the cost of future wars, should we ever decide to confront those actually responsible for the attacks on 9/11 and the rise of Al Qaeda? http://www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com Thanks.
Submitted by Bill B. from Chicago, IL A: The $3 trillion refers to the cash cost of the war to date, + the long-term costs of providing medical care and disability compensation to veterans, + the cost of military reset (equipment and personnel) + interest costs if you count budgetary costs or economic and social costs if you account for war costs on an economic basis.'
When the United States invaded Iraq in March 2003, Americans were told Iraqi oil would cover the costs of the war and rebuilding. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld scoffed at estimates of $100 billion.
Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University and Harvard University professor Linda Bilmes raised a stir in 2006 by estimating the real cost of the war to be $1 trillion. That estimate has been tripled and the title of their new book is "The Three Trillion Dollar War."
Write Stiglitz and Bilmes a question now. They will answer questions for McClatchy readers between April 1 and April 15.
Most Recently Answered QuestionsQuestions 1 - 15 of 50 (Page 1 of 3)
Q: So why was the true cost of the war so vastly underestimated? How expensive will this war get in terms of dollars if the conflict stretches out another five years?
Submitted by Jim from Rockville, MD A: It appears that it was underestimated initially because the Administration ignored the voices of those who raised the cost issue. You recall that Larry Lindsey, the National Economic Advisor at the time, said that the war might cost $200 bn (instead of the $50 billion that Runmsfeld and Wolforwitz promised), and Lindsey was fired for his opinion. In academia, Yale Professor William Nordhaus published a very detailed study in 2003 showing that the war costs could reach $2 trillion if the war went badly -- again, the Administration seemed to expect a short, quick war and paid no attention. In addition, there were pockets of incredibly poor planning - the Dept of Veterans Affairs in 2005 and 2006 was still estimating costs based on its projections from 2001 -- before the war even started. And the Pentagon -which has flunked its financial audits for the past 10 years straight and has no system of tracking expenditures -- was incapable of producing a coherent long-term estimate of depreciation of equipment, munitions, etc. (Outside experts had to do this). In our book we estimate the costs through 2017 under 2 scenarios; first a fairly rapid drawdown of troops and cutting back on the mission of those remaining; and second a more slow drawdown with a continued military mission. You can read the details in the book but essentially it costs around $1 trillion more for the second scenario.
Answered 04/09/08 14:01:08 by Linda Bilmes
Q: Why don't you show in more detail what each 12 billion dollars each month would buy? Billions. trillions of dollars, these are abstractions for the public. Talk in terms of schools built, highways fixed, healthcare provided ect. Than it will sink in and make a difference.
Submitted by K.B. from Newark, New Jersey A: go to national priorities project .org and they provide that information
Answered 04/09/08 13:54:29 by Linda Bilmes
Q: I wonder how much of the three trillion dollar amount is from the lack of accounting oversite. The Bush administration has blocked many oversite initiatives. We need a new Truman commission to hold military contractors and suppliers accountable and liable for sanctions. Professor Stiglit's book is horrific to any rational American..
Submitted by Michael Niebauer from Coalport PA A: You are right. In the private sector, the Congress almost unanimously passed the Sarbanes-Oxley law which requires detail accountability for financial reports. This followed the Enron and other acccounting scandals. But there is no comparable requirement in government. The war has been funded through a series of "emergency" supplementals, which circumvent all the normal checks and balances on spending, and avoid all the normal oversight mechanisms in government. The lack of oversight has led to profiteering, overpayments to contracts, the fact that KBR has been able to evade hundreds of millions in taxes by employing people through shell companies in the Cayman Islands -- etc.
Answered 04/09/08 13:53:14 by Linda Bilmes
Q: Does $3 trillion include only the Iraq War, or the cost of the larger War on Terror, including the cost of future wars, should we ever decide to confront those actually responsible for the attacks on 9/11 and the rise of Al Qaeda? http://www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com Thanks.
Submitted by Bill B. from Chicago, IL A: The $3 trillion refers to the cash cost of the war to date, + the long-term costs of providing medical care and disability compensation to veterans, + the cost of military reset (equipment and personnel) + interest costs if you count budgetary costs or economic and social costs if you account for war costs on an economic basis.'
Answered 04/09/08 13:49:50 by Linda Bilmes'
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten