4 ms·

Defense Department: The War on Terror Has Cost $250M a Day for 16 Years

44 points by Deinos 9y ago

moonbug22 9y ago
Sounds like a win for the other team.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
Clubber 9y ago
The war on the constitution is a better moniker.
- colejohnson66 9y ago
  Nowhere in the Constitution is there listed a right to use drugs. [EDIT] maybe I need to read better
  - vanattab 9y ago
    Where did drugs come from? I know most of use don't bother to read the actual article but maybe we should at least read the whole title.
    - colejohnson66 9y ago
      I read the title as War on Drugs. Then, like I normally do, I read the comments before the article, and posted that comment before reading.
  - Clubber 9y ago
    >Nowhere in the Constitution is there listed a right to use drugs. Even though drugs weren't mentioned, I believe this deserves a rebuttal. The constitution isn't a list of right we have. The constitution is a list of powers the federal government has. A more accurate point would be that the government isn't explicitly granted the power to regulate drugs in the constitution (which it is not). Prohibition required a constitutional amendment (18th) and was repealed with another constitutional amendment (21st). 18th: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_Stat... 21st: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Amendment_to_the_... This is why the first marijuana prohibition was in essence a tax act, because the federal government has the right to tax. They came up with a scheme to make the possession of marijuana require a tax and they would never issue tax stamps for it, effectively prohibiting it. Power grabbers are sneaky little bastards. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/etc/cron.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/etc/cron.... Most of the extra-constitutional power the federal government has today was assumed through regulation of inter-state trade (Commerce Clause), which wasn't what it was intended for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
touchofevil 9y ago
It seems wrong to categorize the war in Iraq as part of The War on Terror(ism), since Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11. The best explanation I ever found as to why the US went to war in Iraq was in the article below. It basically says that the Neoconservative faction of the right wanted to bring democracy to the middle east long before 9/11, but 9/11 was their opportunity to actually do it. Here's an excerpt: "Neoconservatism, which had been around for decades, mixed humanitarian impulses with an almost messianic faith in the transformative virtue of American military force, as well as a deep fear of an outside world seen as threatening and morally compromised. This ideology stated that authoritarian states were inherently destabilizing and dangerous; that it was both a moral good and a strategic necessity for America to replace those dictatorships with democracy — and to dominate the world as the unquestioned moral and military leader. Neoconservatism's proponents, for strategic as well as political reasons, would develop an obsession with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. That obsession would, by the end of the decade, congeal into a policy, explicitly stated: regime change. Their case was always grandly ideological, rooted in highly abstract and untested theories about the nature of the world and America's rightful place in it. Their beliefs were so deeply held that when 9/11 shook the foundations of American foreign policy, they were able to see only validation of their worldview, including their belief in the urgent need to bring democracy to Iraq. It was this ideological conviction, more than any piece of intelligence or lie told about it, that primarily led America into Iraq. Weapons of mass destruction were the stated justification, but they were never the real reason, nor was bad intelligence." https://www.vox.com/2016/2/16/11022104/iraq-war-neoconservatives https://www.vox.com/2016/2/16/11022104/iraq-war-neoconservat...
- m_mueller 9y ago
  Well, if it wasn't their actual motive, but it's how it was sold to the American tax payer, isn't it fair to then also present the bill under that category?
- 3131s 9y ago
  > It seems wrong to categorize the war in Iraq as part of The War on Terror(ism), since Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11. If that's the criterion then none of the current US military engagements are part of the "war on terror". That Vox explanation is also BS (as is everything else from Vox). The US has absolutely no issue with propping up authoritarian states, even Islamic fundamentalist ones like Saudi Arabia. The neocons are sales reps for the weapons industry, nothing more, and their members span both US political parties.
harry8 9y ago
Includes the cost of paying and feeding troops. Presumably you have to pay and feed them if you aren't at war and they're playing cards and doing drills in established US bases and hopefully acting as a deterrent to war? I'd like to see the actual marginal cost of the war on terror that excludes money that would have been spent on defence anyway (spent anyway rightly or wrongly, this isn't judgement about whether that spending should have gone up, down or flat). BTW the war against Iraq absolutely was "War on Terror" It was sold as such with "Weapons of Mass Destruction" That justification being entirely false and knowingly to those who made it is beside the point, without the War on Terror existence and used as a justification it is reasonable to assume the Iraq invasion doesn't happen.
- h0l0cube 9y ago
  The wiki page for the US Defence Budget has graphs[0]. One shows the per-capita expenditure appearing to trend downwards over the very long term[1] but still showing an obvious bump for the gulf war and the 'War on Terror', another highlighting a doubling of spending since the after the Gulf War in absolute terms[2] and a less pronounced jump when adjusted per capita[3] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_... [1] https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1792_2017USp_18s2li011lcn_30f_Recent_Defense_Spending https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1792_201... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:InflationAdjustedDefenseSpending.PNG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:InflationAdjustedDefenseS... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PerCapitaInflationAdjustedDefenseSpending.PNG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PerCapitaInflationAdjuste...
- astura 9y ago
  You pay them more if they are deployed (hazard pay, family separation allowance) plus you pay more in medical care when people are getting blown up with IEDs not to mention death benefits to families.
yuhong 9y ago
It was defense that was part of why US went off the gold standard.

44 points by Deinos 9y ago

moonbug22 9y ago

Sounds like a win for the other team.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

Clubber 9y ago

The war on the constitution is a better moniker.

colejohnson66 9y ago
Nowhere in the Constitution is there listed a right to use drugs. [EDIT] maybe I need to read better
- vanattab 9y ago
  Where did drugs come from? I know most of use don't bother to read the actual article but maybe we should at least read the whole title.
  - colejohnson66 9y ago
    I read the title as War on Drugs. Then, like I normally do, I read the comments before the article, and posted that comment before reading.
- Clubber 9y ago
  >Nowhere in the Constitution is there listed a right to use drugs. Even though drugs weren't mentioned, I believe this deserves a rebuttal. The constitution isn't a list of right we have. The constitution is a list of powers the federal government has. A more accurate point would be that the government isn't explicitly granted the power to regulate drugs in the constitution (which it is not). Prohibition required a constitutional amendment (18th) and was repealed with another constitutional amendment (21st). 18th: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_Stat... 21st: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Amendment_to_the_... This is why the first marijuana prohibition was in essence a tax act, because the federal government has the right to tax. They came up with a scheme to make the possession of marijuana require a tax and they would never issue tax stamps for it, effectively prohibiting it. Power grabbers are sneaky little bastards. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/etc/cron.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/etc/cron.... Most of the extra-constitutional power the federal government has today was assumed through regulation of inter-state trade (Commerce Clause), which wasn't what it was intended for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

touchofevil 9y ago

It seems wrong to categorize the war in Iraq as part of The War on Terror(ism), since Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11. The best explanation I ever found as to why the US went to war in Iraq was in the article below. It basically says that the Neoconservative faction of the right wanted to bring democracy to the middle east long before 9/11, but 9/11 was their opportunity to actually do it. Here's an excerpt: "Neoconservatism, which had been around for decades, mixed humanitarian impulses with an almost messianic faith in the transformative virtue of American military force, as well as a deep fear of an outside world seen as threatening and morally compromised. This ideology stated that authoritarian states were inherently destabilizing and dangerous; that it was both a moral good and a strategic necessity for America to replace those dictatorships with democracy — and to dominate the world as the unquestioned moral and military leader. Neoconservatism's proponents, for strategic as well as political reasons, would develop an obsession with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. That obsession would, by the end of the decade, congeal into a policy, explicitly stated: regime change. Their case was always grandly ideological, rooted in highly abstract and untested theories about the nature of the world and America's rightful place in it. Their beliefs were so deeply held that when 9/11 shook the foundations of American foreign policy, they were able to see only validation of their worldview, including their belief in the urgent need to bring democracy to Iraq. It was this ideological conviction, more than any piece of intelligence or lie told about it, that primarily led America into Iraq. Weapons of mass destruction were the stated justification, but they were never the real reason, nor was bad intelligence." https://www.vox.com/2016/2/16/11022104/iraq-war-neoconservatives https://www.vox.com/2016/2/16/11022104/iraq-war-neoconservat...

m_mueller 9y ago
Well, if it wasn't their actual motive, but it's how it was sold to the American tax payer, isn't it fair to then also present the bill under that category?
3131s 9y ago
> It seems wrong to categorize the war in Iraq as part of The War on Terror(ism), since Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11. If that's the criterion then none of the current US military engagements are part of the "war on terror". That Vox explanation is also BS (as is everything else from Vox). The US has absolutely no issue with propping up authoritarian states, even Islamic fundamentalist ones like Saudi Arabia. The neocons are sales reps for the weapons industry, nothing more, and their members span both US political parties.

harry8 9y ago

Includes the cost of paying and feeding troops. Presumably you have to pay and feed them if you aren't at war and they're playing cards and doing drills in established US bases and hopefully acting as a deterrent to war? I'd like to see the actual marginal cost of the war on terror that excludes money that would have been spent on defence anyway (spent anyway rightly or wrongly, this isn't judgement about whether that spending should have gone up, down or flat). BTW the war against Iraq absolutely was "War on Terror" It was sold as such with "Weapons of Mass Destruction" That justification being entirely false and knowingly to those who made it is beside the point, without the War on Terror existence and used as a justification it is reasonable to assume the Iraq invasion doesn't happen.

h0l0cube 9y ago
The wiki page for the US Defence Budget has graphs[0]. One shows the per-capita expenditure appearing to trend downwards over the very long term[1] but still showing an obvious bump for the gulf war and the 'War on Terror', another highlighting a doubling of spending since the after the Gulf War in absolute terms[2] and a less pronounced jump when adjusted per capita[3] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_... [1] https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1792_2017USp_18s2li011lcn_30f_Recent_Defense_Spending https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1792_201... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:InflationAdjustedDefenseSpending.PNG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:InflationAdjustedDefenseS... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PerCapitaInflationAdjustedDefenseSpending.PNG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PerCapitaInflationAdjuste...
astura 9y ago
You pay them more if they are deployed (hazard pay, family separation allowance) plus you pay more in medical care when people are getting blown up with IEDs not to mention death benefits to families.

yuhong 9y ago

It was defense that was part of why US went off the gold standard.