An $800 Billion War: The Immense Cost of Invading Iraq, in Charts

What else could that money have paid for? A year of federal healthcare spending, the stimulus, or the cost of the fiscal cliff tax hikes, just to name a few things.
More

Saddam_Statue_Falls_Reuters.jpg

(Reuters)

As James Fallows recounted earlier this week, there was precious little discussion of what the financial cost of invading and occupying Iraq might ultimately be during the lead-up to war. Bush administration officials mostly treated it as a inconsequential, unknowable detail. The president's chief economic adviser was given the ax after having the temerity to suggest the price tag might reach $200 billion. Some suggested a liberated Iraq would pay for it own reconstruction with oil revenue. 

Nope. The direct cost of operations ultimately tallied about $823 billion, by the time the Congressional Research Service broke it down in March 2011 (the figures include a budget request for fiscal year 2012). The graph below, which I've borrowed and reformatted from Econbrowser's Menzie Chinn, shows how that cost escalated over time.  

Iraq_Spending_CRS.JPG 

This is probably the most conservative way to think about what we spent on the war. For instance, it doesn't account for the hundreds of billions of dollars we will likely spend on future veteran care or its contribution to future interest payments we'll be making on the debt. Rather, it's just the cost of military operations, reconstruction, diplomacy, and additional medical funding for the Veterans Administration. 

But what's $823 billion, really? Well, enough to pay for an entire year of federal Medicare and Medicaid spending as of 2011. It's more than all of the tax hikes included in the fiscal cliff deal will raise in ten years. And it's just a shade under the full-decade cost of the stimulus, according to 2012 CBO estimate. It's also more money than the $757 billion Paul Ryan's budget would save by cutting Medicaid spending. 

What_We_Spent_On_Iraq_In_Context.JPG

Here's another way to think about it: The U.S. spent $60 billion specifically on rebuilding Iraq. As this table from the Economist shows, that's more money than Washington transferred to the State of Iowa between 1990 to 2009, once you account for the taxes their citizens paid. Financially, at least, Iraq really did become the 51st state, as Fallows once suggested it would. (More after the chart.)Economist_States_Spending.png

One can try to argue that toppling Saddam was worth the cost in lives and in money. But now that we've entered the age of fiscal austerity, we need to remember for the future: there is no such thing as waging a war of occupation on the cheap. 

Jump to comments
Presented by

Jordan Weissmann is a senior associate editor at The Atlantic.

Get Today's Top Stories in Your Inbox (preview)

The Time JFK Called the Air Force to Complain About a 'Silly Bastard'

51 years ago, President John F. Kennedy made a very angry phone call.


Elsewhere on the web

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register. blog comments powered by Disqus

Video

Adventures in Legal Weed

Colorado is now well into its first year as the first state to legalize recreational marijuana. How's it going? James Hamblin visits Aspen.

Video

What Makes a Story Great?

The storytellers behind House of CardsandThis American Life reflect on the creative process.

Video

Tracing Sriracha's Origin to Thailand

Ever wonder how the wildly popular hot sauce got its name? It all started in Si Racha.

Video

Where Confiscated Wildlife Ends Up

A government facility outside of Denver houses more than a million products of the illegal wildlife trade, from tigers and bears to bald eagles.

Video

Is Wine Healthy?

James Hamblin prepares to impress his date with knowledge about the health benefits of wine.

Video

The World's Largest Balloon Festival

Nine days, more than 700 balloons, and a whole lot of hot air

Writers

Up
Down

More in Business

Just In