The U.S. has spent $1.6 trillion on post-9/11 military operations, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and other counterterrorism activities, according to a new report from the Congressional Research Service.
“Based on funding enacted from the 9/11 attacks through FY2014, CRS estimates a total of $1.6 trillion has been provided to the Department of Defense, the State Department and the Department of Veterans Administration for war operations, diplomatic operations and foreign aid, and medical care for Iraq and Afghan war veterans over the past 13 years of war,” the report said. See “The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11,” December 8, 2014.
The CRS report provides detailed tabulations of funding by agency, operation and fiscal year, along with appropriation source and functional breakdown. An appendix provides a monthly listing of U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan and Iraq, among other hard-to-find data assembled by CRS.
Ideally, the record compiled in the 100-page CRS report would serve as the basis for a comprehensive assessment of U.S. military spending since 9/11: To what extent was the expenditure of $1.6 trillion in this way justified? How much of it actually achieved its intended purpose? How much could have been better spent in other ways?
There is little sign of a systematic inquiry along these lines, but the CRS report identifies various “questions that Congress may wish to raise about future war costs,” as well as legislative options that could be considered.
The findings of the CRS report were reported on December 19 by Bloomberg News.
* * *
Other noteworthy new reports from the Congressional Research Service that Congress has withheld from online public distribution include the following.
Russian Compliance with the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty: Background and Issues for Congress, December 16, 2014
Economic Crisis in Russia, CRS Insights, December 17, 2014
Overview of Selected Federal Criminal Civil Rights Statutes, December 16, 2014
Ebola: Selected Legal Issues, December 16, 2014
Cybersecurity Issues and Challenges: In Brief, December 16, 2014
The 2013 Cybersecurity Executive Order: Overview and Considerations for Congress, December 15, 2014
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015, December 17, 2014
Border Security: Immigration Enforcement Between Ports of Entry, December 18, 2014
Radio Broadcasting Chips for Smartphones: A Status Report, December 15, 2014
Mexico: Background and U.S. Relations, December 16, 2014
The Islamic State in Egypt: Implications for U.S.-Egyptian Relations, CRS Insights, December 18, 2014
This rule gives agencies significantly more authority over certain career policy roles. Whether that authority improves accountability or creates new risks depends almost entirely on how agencies interrupt and apply it.
Our environmental system was built for 1970s-era pollution control, but today it needs stable, integrated, multi-level governance that can make tradeoffs, share and use evidence, and deliver infrastructure while demonstrating that improved trust and participation are essential to future progress.
Durable and legitimate climate action requires a government capable of clearly weighting, explaining, and managing cost tradeoffs to the widest away of audiences, which in turn requires strong technocratic competency.
FAS is launching the Center for Regulatory Ingenuity (CRI) to build a new, transpartisan vision of government that works – that has the capacity to achieve ambitious goals while adeptly responding to people’s basic needs.