The Cost of America's Wars Is Far Higher Than the Pentagon Admits

The cost of America's involvement in war has been high. According to a new 2019 research, the US wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Pakistan cost taxpayers $6.4 trillion from 2001 to 2019. The report's major result is that the entire budgetary burden of the post-9/11 conflicts will continue to rise as long as the US government is committed to interest payments and financing growing veteran care costs.

The United States' decision to pull troops out of Afghanistan was met with scorn in certain places. However, most commentators have approached this disaster from a foreign policy perspective, either bemoaning the loss of American power or hailing the decision as a necessary restraint on an aggressive foreign policy. Both points of view are worth considering. However, the failures in Afghanistan and other foreign policy areas should prompt a larger discussion about the economics of war.

The cost of America's involvement in war has been high. According to a new 2019 research, the US wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Pakistan cost taxpayers $6.4 trillion from 2001 to 2019. The report's major result is that the entire budgetary burden of the post-9/11 conflicts will continue to rise as long as the US government is committed to interest payments and financing growing veteran care costs.

Further, estimates compiled by the Pentagon suggest that the military escapades of the US have cost each taxpayer $7,623. Invariably, international bankers and defense contractors benefit from wars, though in the long run, war reverberates throughout the economy. Despite the high costs of conflict, the notion that battles spur innovation is still widely held. This argument has some weight since, in the past, wartime pressures have encouraged advancements such as penicillin, electronic computers, and radar.

Warfare-induced innovations can be valuable commercially; yet, warfare diverts the attention of the brightest minds away from addressing scientific and commercial challenges and toward devising solutions targeted at killing life. According to Nathan Rosenberg, the effort to address economic difficulties during the Industrial Revolution led to the birth of innovative goods, therefore in the absence of conflict, scientists' talent is put to more productive use.

While warfare has resulted in notable inventions, we will never know the industrial innovations that were never conceptualized because engineers and scientists were busy aiding the military-industrial complex. On the basis that involvement in World War II stimulated scientific research, economists Daniel Gross and Bhaven Sampat conclude in a recent report that war-related efforts led to the emergence of technology clusters. Some might mistake this deduction as evidence for the innovation-inducing effects of warfare.

However, doing so would be premature, as there is no assurance that technologies intended for military purposes will be applicable to industry. Military technology development is not motivated by a goal to improve consumer utility or achieve scientific breakthroughs. As a result, such developments are purely accidental. Although economically successful inventions caused by combat should be appreciated, there is a chance that these breakthroughs are inferior replacements for the genuine items that would have been generated if innovators had been working to create commercial or scientific value.

Furthermore, the impact of world wars on innovation may be time-dependent. Due to institutional quality and access to a sophisticated body of scientific study, twentieth-century conflicts generated greater technologies. Similarly, because sectoral linkages were more robust, recognizing connections across industries became a sensible business strategy. Readers may contend that this thesis is vitiated by Geoffrey Packer’s audacious text The Military Revolution: Military Innovation and the Rise of the West, but the two theses complement each other.

Packer's seminal work is just one in a long line of studies attempting to explain the emergence of Western civilisation. Packer had to examine several aspects of European history and culture in order to reach his conclusion. Other regions fought fierce wars, but their conflicts did not result in significant changes in the art of war or military technology. Europeans created a project committed to improving the effectiveness of battle through technological advancements, although such organizations did not exist elsewhere. The competence and agenda of those conducting war determine the innovations caused by conflict. Always remember that gunpowder was conceived in China, but it was only in the West that its full potential was realized.

Likewise, economic analysis disputes the narrative that America’s participation in World War II laid the basis for postwar economic growth. Instead the evidence shows that America’s insertion in the war crippled productivity in the manufacturing sector. Alexander J. Field explains: “Between 1941 and 1948, total factor productivity within manufacturing declined…. Considering the effects on TFP, the labor force, and the physical capital stock, the impact of World War II on the level and trajectory of U.S. potential output following the war, was, on balance, almost certainly negative.”

Furthermore, fighting results in a reduction in consumer welfare. Taxes collected from unwitting civilians to fund military expenditures might have been invested, saved, or spent on goods to boost consumer utility. The ability of an economy to improve the utility of consumers is measured, and the war economy fails in this sense when taxes reduce utility by reducing the resources accessible to residents. Meanwhile, when the rule of invisible costs is applied to the government, it becomes clear that spending on war reduces resources available for essential areas such as healthcare and education. Politicians demonstrate that their lousy rhetoric is empty talk by squandering resources on futile wars.

However, in documenting the effects of war we should remind readers that trauma inflicted on the battleground negatively affects the well-being of combatants. After returning home, many ex-soldiers suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. Victims of post-traumatic stress disorder find it challenging to reintegrate into society and struggle to maintain social connections. Their inability to adjust to postwar life affects productivity and employability. Unfortunately, the damages sustained by some veterans preclude them from working.

Families face a difficult atmosphere as a result of the load of post-traumatic stress disorder, which is aggravated by physical problems. Since a result, the impacts of battle reverberate across society, as veterans' depression can have a negative impact on family members' well-being. Even with charity and government funding, caring for wounded veterans is expensive. As a result, precious resources are likely to be depleted. When employees leave the job market to care for relatives, this reduces the productivity of those related with veterans and restricts the supply of labor. Finally, while considering the impacts of battle, it is important to remember that afflicted veterans place additional demand on the health-care system, lowering the quality of care available to other patients in their absence.

Politicians and intellectuals may claim that wars are in our long-term interests, but the data show that, on average, their outcomes are detrimental to people' utility and well-being.

Follow us on Google News

Filed under

Recent Search