Toronto Escorts

The US has spent $1.5 trillion on war since Sept 11 attacks

Charlemagne

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2017
15,451
2,484
113
The US has spent $1.5 trillion on war since Sept 11 attacks

The collective wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria have cost more than $1.5 trillion, according to a Defense Department report.

According to the report, the money goes toward training, equipment, maintenance as well as food, clothing, medical services and pay for troops.

Ahead of an announced trip to Afghanistan, Secretary of Defense James Mattis told reporters traveling with him that he was hopeful peace talks with the Taliban would signal an end to America's longest war.

Amanda Macias | @amanda_m_macias
Published 10:37 AM ET Mon, 10 Sept 2018 Updated 1:25 PM ET Tue, 11 Sept 2018
CNBC.com

KABUL, Afghanistan — The collective wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria have cost U.S. taxpayers more than $1.5 trillion since Sept. 11, 2001, according to a Defense Department report.

The current U.S. military operations, designated Operation Freedom's Sentinel in Afghanistan, Operation Inherent Resolve in Syria and Iraq, and Operation Noble Eagle for homeland security missions in the U.S. and Canada, have accounted for $185.5 billion of that sum.

Of the three current operations, Freedom Sentinel takes the lion's share of costs at $134.3 billion, followed by Noble Eagle at $27.7 billion, and Inherent Resolve at $23.5 billion. According to the report, the money goes toward training, equipment, maintenance as well as food, clothing, medical services and pay for troops.

Ahead of an announced trip to Afghanistan, Secretary of Defense James Mattis told reporters traveling with him that he was hopeful peace talks with the Taliban would signal an end to America's longest war. The fight in Afghanistan has been ongoing for the last 17 years.

"Right now, we have more indications that reconciliation is no longer just a shimmer out there, no longer just a mirage," Mattis said.

"It now has some framework, there's some open lines of communication," Mattis added.

Over the summer, a top U.S. State Department official met Taliban officials in Qatar to try to lay the ground work for broader peace talks.

The visit is Mattis' fourth time in the country since becoming Defense secretary, and it's part of a larger trip including stops in San Diego and India.

Mattis' visit to Afghanistan comes amid recent attacks.

A U.S. service member was killed and another wounded Monday in "an apparent insider attack" in eastern Afghanistan, according to a statement from the Resolute Support, the NATO-led coalition in Afghanistan. On Wednesday, 20 people were killed in twin bomb attacks in Kabul. ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack.

Currently there are approximately 14,000 Americans in Afghanistan.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/10/the-us-has-spent-1point5-trillion-on-war-since-september-11-attacks.html
 

james t kirk

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2001
23,939
3,701
113
Those numbers are bullshit.

The USA has spent way more on war than that since 911.

There was a study done at Harvard which pegged the cost for the Iraq war alone at 3 to 4 trillion.

The pentagon is very good at downplaying costs and moving bills for military costs to other departments.
 

essguy_

Active member
Nov 1, 2001
4,432
16
38
Those numbers are bullshit.

The USA has spent way more on war than that since 911.

There was a study done at Harvard which pegged the cost for the Iraq war alone at 3 to 4 trillion.

The pentagon is very good at downplaying costs and moving bills for military costs to other departments.
Agree. There is no way they have spent that little over the years. Remember too, they are equipping foreign military too, the costs for which are usually buried under more layers and not necessarily included in the cost for the US fighting. The upside is, no other country spends as much per soldier (training and equipment), so in terms of capability - hard to match.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
No point in quibbling about the dollars. The important thing is they've won all those wars. And their Nation and our world are all the better for it.

Aren't we?
 

essguy_

Active member
Nov 1, 2001
4,432
16
38
No point in quibbling about the dollars. The important thing is they've won all those wars.

Haven't they?
LOL! Yes, “Mission Accomplished”!! Arguably, their failures have not been due to military decisions though - but through political mistakes. They have an elite armed forces, which they will deploy, but when it looks like the fight is too dirty or one sided, they pull back.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
70,666
69,733
113
No point in quibbling about the dollars. The important thing is they've won all those wars. And their Nation and our world are all the better for it.

Aren't we?

Not sure if you're sarcastic..... or if the 4 million(?) dead in Iraq as a result of the US invasion and horrendously botched occupation would agree either way.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38

Not sure if you're sarcastic..... or if the 4 million(?) dead in Iraq as a result of the US invasion and horrendously botched occupation would agree either way.
Once again I'm undone by TERB's lack of a Sarcasm Font.

As far as I know, the USA is still fighting without positive results everywhere it invaded after 9/11. There never was any sign they had the foggiest notion what 'winning' any of their 'wars' — cunningly never declared as such — was supposed to look like. And that was in the years when they had Presidents capable of rational thinking.

And as the Trumpettes keep blaring; the economy's doing all the better for it.
 

essguy_

Active member
Nov 1, 2001
4,432
16
38
Once again I'm undone by TERB's lack of a Sarcasm Font.

As far as I know, the USA is still fighting without positive results everywhere it invaded after 9/11. There never was any sign they had the foggiest notion what 'winning' any of their 'wars' — cunningly never declared as such — was supposed to look like. And that was in the years when they had Presidents capable of rational thinking.

And as the Trumpettes keep blaring; the economy's doing all the better for it.
Even further back than that. Think back to Bush Sr's decision to leave Saddam in power because he was afraid Desert Storm was looking too much like a rout. That led to his son trying to complete what Dad didn't. Then GWB made the mistake of going further than his Dad by disbanding the Iraqi military leadership after Saddam was deposed ("Mission Accomplished") - when they could have taken over the country and been a controlling force and ally for the entire Muslim regions. Sure it would have cost billions, and they might be as brutal as Saddam - but better than what happened. Disbanding them led to the power vacuum and chaos that's been there ever since.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Even further back than that. Think back to Bush Sr's decision to leave Saddam in power because he was afraid Desert Storm was looking too much like a rout. That led to his son trying to complete what Dad didn't. Then GWB made the mistake of going further than his Dad by disbanding the Iraqi military leadership after Saddam was deposed ("Mission Accomplished") - when they could have taken over the country and been a controlling force and ally for the entire Muslim regions. Sure it would have cost billions, and they might be as brutal as Saddam - but better than what happened. Disbanding them led to the power vacuum and chaos that's been there ever since.
And with the Ken Burn's Doc now in repeats on PBS, we mustn't forget their first unwinnable overseas war (1812 wasn't overseas).

'Singin' 1, 2, 3, What're we fightin' for?'
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
26,215
6,488
113
Room 112
Those numbers are bullshit.

The USA has spent way more on war than that since 911.

There was a study done at Harvard which pegged the cost for the Iraq war alone at 3 to 4 trillion.

The pentagon is very good at downplaying costs and moving bills for military costs to other departments.
I've seen some estimates of $5-$5.5 trillion on Iraq and Afghanistan wars. But from a direct spending perspective the estimate is $2.1 trillion added to the US national debt.
The direct costs of the 9/11 attacks on the United States alone in the 1st year was $2 trillion. By 10 years after attack it was estimated at $3.3 trillion.
I don't think anyone can blame the US for wanting to fight a war on terror. They sustained the worst attack in the history of modern civilization. Now how they conducted those wars, including going into Iraq, certainly warrants critique.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
80,698
17,860
113
I've seen some estimates of $5-$5.5 trillion on Iraq and Afghanistan wars. But from a direct spending perspective the estimate is $2.1 trillion added to the US national debt.
The direct costs of the 9/11 attacks on the United States alone in the 1st year was $2 trillion. By 10 years after attack it was estimated at $3.3 trillion.
I don't think anyone can blame the US for wanting to fight a war on terror. They sustained the worst attack in the history of modern civilization. Now how they conducted those wars, including going into Iraq, certainly warrants critique.
Whatever.
A bunch of Saudis bought some plane tickets and the US spent $5 trillion to fix it?
More people died in Puerto Rico's hurricane.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
70,666
69,733
113
Even further back than that. Think back to Bush Sr's decision to leave Saddam in power because he was afraid Desert Storm was looking too much like a rout. That led to his son trying to complete what Dad didn't. Then GWB made the mistake of going further than his Dad by disbanding the Iraqi military leadership after Saddam was deposed ("Mission Accomplished") - when they could have taken over the country and been a controlling force and ally for the entire Muslim regions. Sure it would have cost billions, and they might be as brutal as Saddam - but better than what happened. Disbanding them led to the power vacuum and chaos that's been there ever since.

Lots of stuff written on the Iraq occupation. Material I've read suggests that the Iraqis got fed up with the Allies a few weeks after the route of Saddam when the US and UK didn't hand over right away and pull out leaving the Iraqis to get on with things. (Of course, what horrendous sectarian ethnic cleansing a sudden handover would have led to can only be imagined). The US was heavy-handed despite diplomatic good intentions...... because 20 year old high school grads in uniform with guns and their buddies tend not to be great at street level PR. Lots of semi random shooting of Iraqis at checkpoints. Escalation. "Pacification operations". Escalation. Abu Graib. Major escalation. Pacification, etc.

Disbanding the Baath Party and army led to Shiite militia armies taking over Basra and ISIS taking over other parts of the country. General shit show.
 

saxon

Well-known member
Dec 2, 2009
4,751
511
113
War is big business, just buy stock in the major military suppliers and watch the $ roll in.
 
Toronto Escorts