Iraq, Afghan wars will cost to $4 trillion to $6 trillion, Harvard study says

[Ichingcarpenter]

The U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will cost taxpayers $4 trillion to $6 trillion, taking into account the medical care of wounded veterans and expensive repairs to a force depleted by more than a decade of fighting, according to a new study by a Harvard researcher.

Washington increased military benefits in late 2001 as the nation went to war, seeking to quickly bolster its talent pool and expand its ranks. Those decisions and the protracted nation-building efforts launched in both countries will generate expenses for years to come, Linda J. Bilmes, a public policy professor, wrote in the report that was released Thursday.


“As a consequence of these wartime spending choices, the United States will face constraints in funding investments in personnel and diplomacy, research and development and new military initiatives,” the report says. “The legacy of decisions taken during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will dominate future federal budgets for decades to come.”

Bilmes said the United States has spent almost $2 trillion already............ more info

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/study-iraq-afghan-war-costs-to-top-4-trillion/2013/03/28/b82a5dce-97ed-11e2-814b-063623d80a60_story.html


Some corporations got extremely rich....

I can name a few

[ForgoTheConsequence]

1. Thank you Bush and Hillary!

6 trillion dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives. Anyone who voted to authorize the Iraq war should be publicly shamed for the rest of their lives.

[DesertFlower]

2. i agree. nt

[ForgoTheConsequence]

3. Well Hillary was "tricked"....

By that clever little Bush, so some suggest that she should be given a pass......

[clandestiny]

16. I don't feel any of them should get a pass. I knew Bush was lying. She gets paid a whole lot

more than I do because we count on her to be smarter and more worldly than we are. How could she be clueless to something so blatantly in her face like Bush lying us into a war so that his buddies in the defense industry could line their pockets with our hard earned money. Many of us screamed it from the rooftops. How could she not know?

[DesertFlower]

17. hillary is too smart to be tricked. no pass from me.

that being said if she is the nominee i will vote for her.

[sabrina 1]

18. If Hillary was tricked by Bush's obvious lies, when the most politically naive of us

at the time saw right through them, then what on earth is she doing contemplating seeking the presidency?

Some Dems, not nearly enough, were NOT tricked for a second. We sure don't need leaders who could be tricked by such obvious liars on something so incredibly serious as war, a matter of life and death for so many people, as we have tragically seen.

Having said, I do not believe for a minute that she was tricked. She actually supported Bush/Cheney's 'rearranging' of the ME on idealogical grounds. Which also makes her unfit for the presidency imo.

We don't need leaders who are so easily 'tricked' nor do we need leaders who war mongers for profit and ideological reasons.

I prefer leaders who get it RIGHT on matters as serious as war. No way would I support anyone who got THIS so terribly and tragically wrong.

[exboyfil]

4. Any Republican in the stable

that can run against Hillary on this point? I still remember the debate where Romney abandoned any pretense that Iraq was a good idea. George Bush must have thrown something at the television screen at that point. Jon Huntsman did not take a position. Ron Paul is out of politics. Rand Paul did not have to take a position, but has stated he would have been against it at the time. Perry is out on this point. Walker?

It definitely could be a point that is hammered on by any Democratic challenger to Clinton. Biden is tarred with this vote as well. What other Democrat?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/gop-iraq-war_n_2910618.html

[JoeyT]

5. We could always run people that could use it against the Republicans

provided it isn't one of our people that are just as guilty. It's hard to accuse your opponent of supporting a massive waste of life and money when your name is on it too.

[exboyfil]

6. That is why the two most likely

nominees - Clinton and Biden are both problematic. Anyone else realistically have a chance? Could a young Scott Walker with all of his issues look better to the swing states than Clinton? Both Biden and Clinton will have to deal with the old and tired label. So far Obama's second term has not gone very well.

Rubio has a telling quote from a 2010 debate -

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2010/10/24/126140/rubio-crist-iraq-safer/

I bet he wishes he could have that back.

Paddy Power latest odds:
Rubio 4/1
Christie 9/2
Rand Paul 8/1
Jeb Bush 8/1
Ryan 9/1

Hillary Clinton 4/6
Warren 12/1
Biden 18/1

[shaayecanaan]

7. No way Biden could run, surely...

he'd put his foot in his mouth and arse both within a week.

Warren insists she won't run. She probably shouldnt, she's worth her weight in gold where she is.

Hillary by default at this stage, you'd have to say.

Christ, what a pack of shits on the Republican side. Rubio probably is the pick of them though. I cant believe that they have Paul and Jeb Bush pegging level.

[ladjf]

9. Why did Obama feel compelled to continue the war in Afghanistan? nt

[Skittles]

14. how is it Obama is off the hook, exactly?

[ladjf]

8. These two politically driven wars will go down in history as the worst

decisions ever made by the U.S. Government. nt

[MrScorpio]

10. I can't even imagine what kind of improvements we could have made in this country /$10T nt

[woo me with science]

15. +10000

[jsr]

11. And nobody is in jail.

[Solly Mack]

12. K&R

[xchrom]

13. du rec.