They should adjust 1944 for inflation and then get back to us.
Well, we spent 50% of annual GNP every year for four years. We have spent about 5% of annual GDP every year for about 6 years. Not to mention the body count during WWII was 400,000 over 4 years vs just over 4,000 dead over 6 years for the War on Terror.
EXCELLENT POINT!!!
When you compare the current situation to the way we were fighting millions of enemies on two fronts, today's expenditures become even more outrageous! If it was less than $5 trillion for WWII (heck, estimates go as low as $1.6 trillion, corrected for inflation), and Robert A. Sunshine's estimates are correct for the current deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, we will have spent about a third or more in Iraq/Afghanistan as we spent to send millions of Americans to defeat our advanced and numerous enemies in WWII.
I'm not complaining about the upgrades to equipment and giving our troops good pay and benefits and gear, but I'm suggesting that we have thrown away a lot of money to corruption, etc. Plus, it should be noted that Afghanistan isn't the drain -- Iraq is.
The costs to military families has been huge. The cost to our military recruitment has been dramatic. The costs per capita have been quite substantial.
Each American family probably would rather have $130/month than have us in Iraq (again, Afghanistan is minor compared to Iraq). Ask an average American if he'd rather have us in Iraq or get a check for $10,000 for his family, and I think most would choose the latter.
Of course, neoconsocialists who like the big-government approach would rather the Feds spend our money, but I, personally (as a conservative), think that it would have been better for the government to take $10,000 less per family. $1 trillion is a bit greater than the $50-$200 billion price tag we were told at the outset, and I think that the American people have every right to question the Administration's handling of the matter.
By that standard, we should have already concluded the Iraq War since it has been 4 years already.
And how much of that is personnel costs, fuel and supplies, and replacement of expendable material that would occur in peace time as well?
To put things in historical perspective, in 1944, U.S. defense spending was 36.0% of GDP.
The American Economy during World War II
The U.S. GDP for 2006 was $13.13 Trillion.
As a percentage of current U.S. GDP, the $180 billion (in 2006 dollars) per year cost of the Iraq War is just slightly over 1.3% of current U.S. GDP.
What are the strategic stakes involved in Iraq?
Nothing less than giving up military control of 70% of the World's know oil reserves to Islamist fanatics that are actively pursuing nuclear weapons.
Buck for buck, considering the strategic stakes involved, the cost of the Iraq War is a bargain.
America is equivalent to a family with $100,000 of post tax money per year to spend that is being asked to spend $1,300 per year to have oil remain available to themselves and the rest on their Western community neighbors.
If America believes that is a bad economic investment, America has reached the point where it is simply too dumb to survive in the Real World.