Cost of Iraq War Compared to Other US Wars (vanity)

07/09/07 | self (vanity)

[Sherman Logan]

 

 

Cost of US Wars Compared to Population, GDP and Federal Expenditures
War	US Population	GDP	Nominal War Cost	Real War Cost	War Cost as % of GDP	Total  Federal Expenditures	War Cost as % of Total Federal Expenditures	Total Federal Expenditures as % of GDP
War of 1812	8	1342	.09	1.2	.09
Mexican	20	1880	.07	0.7	.04
WBTS	30	2606	5.2	44.4	1.7	13.8	197.8	.53
Spanish-American	75	4943	0.4	6.3	.13	12.1	52.1	.24
WWI	103	5910	26	196.7	3.33	159.9	123.01	2.71
WWII	140	13483	288	2,092	15.52	876.8	238.6	6.51
Korea	152	12271	54	264	2.15	435.5	60.6	3.55
Vietnam	205	19614	111	346.7	1.77	944.6	36.7	4.82
Iraq	301	38232	405	405	1.06	2213.7	18.3	5.76

 

US Population is expressed in millions for the year the war ended.

GDP is expressed in year 2000 dollars for the year the war ended. Conversion rates are considerably less meaningful for years prior to 1900.

Nominal War Cost is expressed in (billion) dollars of the year the war ended.  This is not always the year war expenditure was highest, notably for WWI, when expenditures were much higher in 1919 than 1918.   It is the total cost of that war for all years, not just the year the war ended. Amounts do not include pension costs and other benefits for veterans, which over time tend to triple the cost of the war.

Real War Cost is expressed in year 2000 (billion) dollars for the year the war ended. This is not always the year war expenditure was highest, notably for WWI, when expenditures were much higher in 1919 than 1918.  It is the total cost of that war for all years, not just the year the war ended.  Conversion rates are less meaningful for years prior to 1900. Amounts do not include pension costs and other benefits for veterans, which over time tend to triple the cost of the war.  Conversion rates are considerably less meaningful for years prior to 1900.

Total Federal Expenditures is the total amount of money spent by the federal government in the year the war ended, expressed in year 2000 dollars. It is included to allow some comparison between the cost of the war and the size of the federal government in general at that time. These numbers do not include “off budget” items such as Social Security, which are an increasingly larger percentage as time goes by. Thus real Total Federal Expenditures are increasingly understated in later years, both in dollars and as a % of GDP. Conversion rates are considerably less meaningful for years prior to 1900.

War Cost as a % of Total Federal Expenditures uses year 2000 dollars for both amounts. It is included to allow some comparison between the cost of the war and the size of the federal government in general at that time. Conversion rates are considerably less meaningful for years prior to 1900.

Total Federal Expenditures as a % of GDP uses year 2000 dollars for both amounts. It is included to allow some comparison between the cost of the war and the size of the federal government in general at that time. Conversion rates are considerably less meaningful for years prior to 1900.

Notes: WBTS costs do not include Confederate War Cost or other numbers for the CSA, and certainly not the cost of the destruction of (mostly) southern property and infrastructure, mainly because I was unable to find good numbers for these amounts. Although by 1865 the CSA hardly had a GDP.  The capital lost just by the freeing of the slaves (in financial terms this constituted confiscation of capital) was probably at least $3B at the time, or perhaps $32B in year 2000 dollars. Some of this value was lost from Union states, but the vast majority was lost by (formerly) CSA states. The total financial cost of the war to the CSA was undoubtedly much higher than to the USA, and it was spread out over a much smaller population. However, I’ve been unable to quantify this cost.

I was unable to locate Total Federal Expenditures for the years the War of 1812 and Mexican Wars ended, but in each case the % applied to War Cost would be very high.  I was also unable to locate much good data on the cost of the Revolutionary War, so I left it out entirely.  Much of the US cost for the Gulf War was paid by contributions from allies, so I left this war out also.

Prior to WWII Total Federal Expenditures took a nosedive in the years immediately following each war, so the Total Federal Expenditures for the year the war ended is not representative of Total Federal Expenditures for the period in general.  Following WWII Total Federal Expenditures are not affected nearly as much by whether a war is in progress or not, they just trend upwards every year regardless.

 

 

[richardtavor]

BTW, does everyone know that this war was the first war for the Marines. In fact, they are called leathernecks because they wore leather collars to keep the Muslim pukes from cutting their heads off...

[Albion Wilde]

Very interesting. Thank you for your analysis.

[Sherman Logan]

Data was compiled from a number of sources.

US Census, several sources for cost of wars, articles on US expenditures over the years, and an inflation calculator. I could post a list of urls if that would be helpful.

I spent half a day trying to find such a chart on the Web, without success. So I gave up and compiled it myself, more or less from original sources. I had no idea what it would show.

As stated, I make no claim that I didn’t make any errors. This is just my best effort.

A very interesting fact I ran across is that there was zero inflation in the US between 1800 and 1900. In fact, a dollar was worth more in 1900 than in 1800. Deflation.

[VaRepublican]

Nice work. but obviously we need a fairness doctrine to counter your facts.

[Jeff Head]

How can that be justified?

You're alive and you are free in the face of enemies who would deny you either...or both.

[Weeedley]

Leathernecks..hmmmmm.. here’s one from the last century:

jarhead: Records from Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps cite references that state, “Jarhead is probably parallel to, or derived from, jug head.” Leatherneck magazine in 1933 cited Army soldiers as being called jarheads. However, according to limited information, the term as it applies to Marines is traced to the Navy in WW II. Sailors referred to Marines, drawing from the resemblance of the Marine dress blue uniform, with its high collar, to a Mason jar.

[The_Reader_David]

. . .which is why the “War Between the States” is probably the best nomenclature here on FR:

“The War of Northern Aggression” overlooks the fact that the CSA fired the first shots in an attempt to dislodge the Federal garrison at Fort Sumter.

“The Civil War” accepts the unitary-state abrogation of the Tenth Amendment that the Northern position entailed.

WBTS gives a nod to the correct position of the CSA on states rights, while not being so pro-Southern as to invoke the (false) accusation of being pro-slavery.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Nice analysis. The main problem the Left has with war is that it diverts funding from social programs. War against communist dictatorships and other totalitarian regimes is also an affront to their sense of preferred social order.

[1035rep]

bttt

[1035rep]

Well said.

[Sherman Logan]

I agree.

With reservations as to whether the extreme states-rights position of the seceding states was correct. This is a matter of opinion, not fact.

However, it is a matter of fact that most southerners believed they were fighting primarily for their state and its rights, which means the term has a southern tinge, which is fair enough since they started the war.

Few of the soldiers from New York believed they were fighting primarily for NY.

[Weeedley]

Hard money with circulating silver and gold and paper redeemable in kind. Now we have “FR notes” and coins that are more copper than any other content.

[Weeedley]

The South didn’t start the war, the were just serving an Eviction Notice to federal trespassers as provided in common law.

[Sherman Logan]

With the exception of the years during and immediately after the WBTS this is correct.

I wonder if anybody has determined how a gold-based currency would work today? A massive gold strike somewhere would cause high inflation, as the amount of money is a direct reflection of the amount of gold in circulation.

Despite a precious-metals based economic system, the Hellenistic period and the early modern periods has high inflation. Caused respectively by Alexander’s looting the hoards of the Persian kings, and the Spanish looting of American gold and (especially) silver hoards and mines.

In addition, transmutation of metals is probably technologically and possibly even economically feasible today or in the near future, making a system based solely on precious metals somewhat precarious.

[combat_boots]

“of being pro-slavery.”

or pro-monopoly/industry/high control or a combination thereof

[Sherman Logan]

Perhaps I should have said they started the shooting. That’s a fact.

I personally believe they started the war, but that’s an opinion.

[combat_boots]

Good work, Sherm.

[Weeedley]

You just may be mind-numbingly correct...LOL

[Sherman Logan]

Something I’ve been accused of before. :)

[Weeedley]

We shore do luv our shootin’ down here...