Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Doing something about tree thieves in KY
My home state's looking to make sawing down someone else's trees a felony, punishable by one to five years in prison. I guess it's turning into a big problem in some areas.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Description of water torture...
...or as we call it today - waterboarding. Here's the link. And here's an excerpt:
So here's my take on the current waterboarding/torture issue. I start from this description and others I've read to conclude that waterboarding is torture. I have a hard time believing any intellectually honest person can come to any other conclusion. I believe that the attorneys from the Bush Administration that have tried to justify waterboarding as legal under U.S. or international law are engaged in truly dishonest lawyering.
It also seems to me that the folx - attorneys and others - that try and argue that waterboarding is legal conflate the idea of whether it is torture with whether it might be, even though torturous, under some circumstances acceptable, defensible or appropriate. I would put myself in the camp that would say there is no situation where torturing a suspect is appropriate or will evenget you what you're looking for. But I can at least understand that someone might have a legitimate belief that torture might be necessary sometimes, albeit very rarely.
I think it was the Attorney General who most recently gave a perfect example of what I'm talking about. He seemed to indicate that waterboarding could be considered torture, but might also not be torture depending on how exigent the need for getting information out of the suspect might be. This kind of rationale is what I mean when I say that pro-waterboarding folx conflate the issue of whether it's torture with whether it might still be used under some circumstances.
I remember that the blindfold was heavy and completely covered my face. As the two men held me down, one on each side, someone began pouring water onto the blindfold, and suddenly I was drowning. The water streamed into my nose and then into my mouth when I gasped for breath. I couldn't stop it. All I could breathe was water, and it was terrifying. I think I began to lose consciousness. I felt my lungs begin to fill with burning liquid.
Pulling out my fingernails or even cutting off a finger would have been preferable. At least if someone had attacked my hands, I would have had to simply tolerate pain. But drowning is another matter.
So here's my take on the current waterboarding/torture issue. I start from this description and others I've read to conclude that waterboarding is torture. I have a hard time believing any intellectually honest person can come to any other conclusion. I believe that the attorneys from the Bush Administration that have tried to justify waterboarding as legal under U.S. or international law are engaged in truly dishonest lawyering.
It also seems to me that the folx - attorneys and others - that try and argue that waterboarding is legal conflate the idea of whether it is torture with whether it might be, even though torturous, under some circumstances acceptable, defensible or appropriate. I would put myself in the camp that would say there is no situation where torturing a suspect is appropriate or will evenget you what you're looking for. But I can at least understand that someone might have a legitimate belief that torture might be necessary sometimes, albeit very rarely.
I think it was the Attorney General who most recently gave a perfect example of what I'm talking about. He seemed to indicate that waterboarding could be considered torture, but might also not be torture depending on how exigent the need for getting information out of the suspect might be. This kind of rationale is what I mean when I say that pro-waterboarding folx conflate the issue of whether it's torture with whether it might still be used under some circumstances.
Sentencing Reforms
As I make my way through the blogosphere and try to whittle down the numerous areas and topics that I keep track of on a regular basis, one of the main lawyer areas I find myself drawn to is sentencing reform in our criminal justice system. So, as I educate myself on what's going on in the area and to throw it out to the universe for general consumption (and higher google search rating), here are some articles on the topic I've found that touch on the things I care about.
Why tight budget times will speed path to technocorrections and It's the prison economy, stupid- from the excellent Sentencing Law and Policy Blog
A couple of local articles from MI and PA
A story about PA and efforts to reform its criminal justice system
Granholm expected to suggest prison spending cuts in new budget
U.S. among harshest for sentencing children
and of course an old stand-by anti-death penalty article
Why tight budget times will speed path to technocorrections and It's the prison economy, stupid- from the excellent Sentencing Law and Policy Blog
A couple of local articles from MI and PA
A story about PA and efforts to reform its criminal justice system
Granholm expected to suggest prison spending cuts in new budget
U.S. among harshest for sentencing children
and of course an old stand-by anti-death penalty article
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Army tells VA to stop helping disabled soldiers with disability paperwork?
Essence of the story:
There was ameeting last March between an Army team from Washington and VA officials at Fort Drum Army base in upstate New York. At that meeting, Army representatives told the VA not to review the narrative summaries of soldiers' injuries, and the VA complied with the Army's request.
NPR did a story about the issuestory aired and the Army Surgeon General Eric B. Schoomaker denied that the Army that told the VA to stop this help.
Since that denial NPR obtained a four-page VA document that contradicts the surgeon general's statement. The document says Col. Becky Baker of the Army Surgeon General's office told the VA to discontinue counseling soldiers on the appropriateness of Defense Department ratings because "there exists a conflict of interest."
There was ameeting last March between an Army team from Washington and VA officials at Fort Drum Army base in upstate New York. At that meeting, Army representatives told the VA not to review the narrative summaries of soldiers' injuries, and the VA complied with the Army's request.
NPR did a story about the issuestory aired and the Army Surgeon General Eric B. Schoomaker denied that the Army that told the VA to stop this help.
Since that denial NPR obtained a four-page VA document that contradicts the surgeon general's statement. The document says Col. Becky Baker of the Army Surgeon General's office told the VA to discontinue counseling soldiers on the appropriateness of Defense Department ratings because "there exists a conflict of interest."
President touts benefits for troops in SOTU address - doesn't include funding for the benefit in his proposed budget
A Washington Post story has the scoop on how Bush could try and score political points in his State of the Union address by advocating "supporting the troops" in his State of the Union address, but then not putting funding for those same benefits in his proposed budget, which was submitted just a week later.
Do I really need to comment on how this is typical for this administration's version of "support" for the troops?
Do I really need to comment on how this is typical for this administration's version of "support" for the troops?
The Surge has failed
I agree with Sen Levin, who said "that the U.S. troop buildup in Iraq has failed because it hasn't achieved its primary goal of sparking political reconciliation among that country's rival sectarian groups."
The whole point of the surge was to provide "breathing room" for the political process to work. That hasn't worked.
And the point about the violence being down misses the point for me. When I was in the desert, from September to January, I saw the daily (classified) e-mails that summarized the attacks, KIAs (killed in action), WIAs (wounded in action), NBD (non-battle deaths), NBIs (non-battle injuries) for U.S. Forces in Iraq. Those e-mails also gave the numbers of Coalition Forces deaths and injuries, Iraqi Forces deaths and injuries and detainees. As has been reported in the media, I'm sure that the number of KIAs for US forces was down in that period as compared to the previous year. But, even those 1s and 2s were quite sobering to read every day. It was also striking the number of WIAs, NBDs and NBIs that came through, which numbers just don't get reported in the media (not to mention the sheer number of deaths all of the numbers in those daily e-mails represented among all the forces).
Overall, I was struck by the difference between what I read in the media about how the violence was down and, therefore, the surge was working versus what I read on the internal military reports of deaths and injuries. Bottom line for me - when I consider the stress on the forces (as covered in a previous post) and the numbers of deaths and injuries I saw - the surge was a failure.
The whole point of the surge was to provide "breathing room" for the political process to work. That hasn't worked.
And the point about the violence being down misses the point for me. When I was in the desert, from September to January, I saw the daily (classified) e-mails that summarized the attacks, KIAs (killed in action), WIAs (wounded in action), NBD (non-battle deaths), NBIs (non-battle injuries) for U.S. Forces in Iraq. Those e-mails also gave the numbers of Coalition Forces deaths and injuries, Iraqi Forces deaths and injuries and detainees. As has been reported in the media, I'm sure that the number of KIAs for US forces was down in that period as compared to the previous year. But, even those 1s and 2s were quite sobering to read every day. It was also striking the number of WIAs, NBDs and NBIs that came through, which numbers just don't get reported in the media (not to mention the sheer number of deaths all of the numbers in those daily e-mails represented among all the forces).
Overall, I was struck by the difference between what I read in the media about how the violence was down and, therefore, the surge was working versus what I read on the internal military reports of deaths and injuries. Bottom line for me - when I consider the stress on the forces (as covered in a previous post) and the numbers of deaths and injuries I saw - the surge was a failure.
Stress on the Forces from the war
A couple of articles showing how the war is affecting the ability of the forces to stay ready to react to other crises around the world.
A classified Pentagon assessment concludes that long battlefield tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with persistent terrorist activity and other threats, have prevented the U.S. military from improving its ability to respond to any new crisis, The Associated Press has learned.
Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says U.S. forces are "significantly stressed" by fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. "The pace of ongoing operations has prevented our forces from fully training for the full spectrum of operations and impacts our ability to be ready to counter future threats."
A classified Pentagon assessment concludes that long battlefield tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with persistent terrorist activity and other threats, have prevented the U.S. military from improving its ability to respond to any new crisis, The Associated Press has learned.
Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says U.S. forces are "significantly stressed" by fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. "The pace of ongoing operations has prevented our forces from fully training for the full spectrum of operations and impacts our ability to be ready to counter future threats."
Friday, February 8, 2008
The Bush Economic Record
I liked how Carpetbagger broke down the Bush Economic Record, as compared to the President's pronouncement at the CPAC Conference.
Here's an example:
* “[I]increased revenues from that growth have put us on track to a balance our budget by 2012.” First, we’re nowhere near “on track” to balance the budget by 2012; Bush’s own OMB projects deficits of over $400 billion in each of the next two years. Second, the increased-revenue argument sounds an awful lot like the ridiculous “tax fairy” nonsense Republicans are so fond of.
Here's an example:
* “[I]increased revenues from that growth have put us on track to a balance our budget by 2012.” First, we’re nowhere near “on track” to balance the budget by 2012; Bush’s own OMB projects deficits of over $400 billion in each of the next two years. Second, the increased-revenue argument sounds an awful lot like the ridiculous “tax fairy” nonsense Republicans are so fond of.
AF Academy hosts alleged former terrorists
Nice intersection of two of my favorite topics - the overabundance of religion in the military and the religious right's demonization of Islam. The 3 gents are now born again Christians who claim they were previously muslim terrorists.
Critics of the presentation include the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. This group, which is "suing the federal government to combat what it calls creeping evangelism in the armed forces, said it was typical of the Air Force Academy to invite born-again Christians to address cadets on terrorism rather than experts who could teach students about the Middle East."
Another critic quoted in the article, Douglas Howard, a professor at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Mich., who teaches the history of the modern Middle East, says he heard one of the men speak last November at his college and reported, “It was just an old time gospel hour — ‘Jesus can change your life, he changed mine,’...mixed in with ‘Watch out America, wake up America, the danger of Islam is here.’ ”
Critics of the presentation include the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. This group, which is "suing the federal government to combat what it calls creeping evangelism in the armed forces, said it was typical of the Air Force Academy to invite born-again Christians to address cadets on terrorism rather than experts who could teach students about the Middle East."
Another critic quoted in the article, Douglas Howard, a professor at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Mich., who teaches the history of the modern Middle East, says he heard one of the men speak last November at his college and reported, “It was just an old time gospel hour — ‘Jesus can change your life, he changed mine,’...mixed in with ‘Watch out America, wake up America, the danger of Islam is here.’ ”
U.S. Military loses Hamdan's records
Here's the link. And I should probably "conveniently" to that title. It's not usually the military behind these sorts of dirty tricks - or at least not JAGs. But I'm not optimistic that there's a simple or innocent explanation behind this. Any legal office involved in the equivalent of a court-martial that's been going on for 6 years (as Hamdan has) would have tracked down all records by now.
Still, the defense counsel does admit that, "All known records have been produced with the exception of the 2002 Gitmo records." So maybe it's more innocent that it looks at first glance.
Here's an interesting couple of lines from the article. The Justice Department is relying, for one of the charges against Hamdan, in part on the precedent of "an 1865 legal opinion from the U.S. Civil War era that authorized summary execution for 'banditti, jayhawkers' and others who join marauding bands." In response to that citation, "Hamdan's civilian lawyer, Joseph McMillan, said the law has since evolved and marauders may no longer be 'hunted down like wolves' and summarily executed." Unfortunately, I think the current occupants of the Justice Department tend to disagree with Mr. McMillan.
Still, the defense counsel does admit that, "All known records have been produced with the exception of the 2002 Gitmo records." So maybe it's more innocent that it looks at first glance.
Here's an interesting couple of lines from the article. The Justice Department is relying, for one of the charges against Hamdan, in part on the precedent of "an 1865 legal opinion from the U.S. Civil War era that authorized summary execution for 'banditti, jayhawkers' and others who join marauding bands." In response to that citation, "Hamdan's civilian lawyer, Joseph McMillan, said the law has since evolved and marauders may no longer be 'hunted down like wolves' and summarily executed." Unfortunately, I think the current occupants of the Justice Department tend to disagree with Mr. McMillan.
Don't say I never link to NRO
Here's the quote I like..."Forget the gaseous platitudes: in Dem terms, their choice on Super Duper Tuesday was deciding which candidate was Super Duper and which was merely Super. Over on the GOP side, it was a choice between Weak & Divisive or Weaker & Unacceptable. Doesn't bode well for November. "
Americans say leaving Iraq would help economy
Count me among the 48% of Americans who say a pullout [from Iraq] would help fix the country's economic problems "a great deal." An additional 20 percent say it would help at least somewhat.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Al-Qaida leader killed in Pakistan
http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap_stories/i/1107/01-31-2008/20080131132047_044.html
Looks like this guy was a big deal in Afghanistan. He was taken out by "a missile hit [on] a compound about 2.5 miles outside Mir Ali in North Waziristan late Monday or early Tuesday."
U.S.-led coalition and NATO-led force in Afghanistan have not confirmed al-Libi's death or who was behind it.
Since he was taken out by a missile - not really much question who was behind it, though.
Looks like this guy was a big deal in Afghanistan. He was taken out by "a missile hit [on] a compound about 2.5 miles outside Mir Ali in North Waziristan late Monday or early Tuesday."
U.S.-led coalition and NATO-led force in Afghanistan have not confirmed al-Libi's death or who was behind it.
Since he was taken out by a missile - not really much question who was behind it, though.
Musa Qala
Secretary Gates talks about the Taliban being routed from Afghanistan. Musa Qala is the area of Afghanistan that U.S. and Afghanistan forces concentrated on in the fall before the winter weather got too bad for sustained operations. I know from my vantage point at the Combined Air Operations Center at Al-Udeid that there was a heck of lot going on in Musa Qala. But I also know that Musa Qala is located in the south western part of the country, so it seems pretty unlikely that the operations there routed the Taliban from Afghanistan. From a purely geographic stand-point, it seems more likely that any Taliban that survived the operations in Musa Qala were more likely scattered within Afghanistan, rather than sent off to Pakistan or Iran.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/06/gates-taliban-no-longer-occupies-territory-in-afghanistan/
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/06/gates-taliban-no-longer-occupies-territory-in-afghanistan/
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Presidential Veto promised for PAA without telco immunity
The story on what the administration is doing with the Protect America Act now (just as they did in August) is long and involved. And the reason for this post is the President's recent threat to veto any bill that does not include immunity for the telecoms from lawsuits that are currently pending in the courts. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/02/veto_threat_for_proposed_spy_l.php
But I wanted to highlight the point made by Senator Kennedy at one of the previous veto threats made by the president (back in December 2007). He said:
"The President has said that American lives will be sacrificed if Congress does not change FISA. But he has also said that he will veto any FISA bill that does not grant retro-active immunity. No immunity, no FISA bill. So if we take the President at his word, he's willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies."
But I wanted to highlight the point made by Senator Kennedy at one of the previous veto threats made by the president (back in December 2007). He said:
"The President has said that American lives will be sacrificed if Congress does not change FISA. But he has also said that he will veto any FISA bill that does not grant retro-active immunity. No immunity, no FISA bill. So if we take the President at his word, he's willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies."
US acknowledges using waterboarding
So previously, John Negroponte had acknowledged that the U.S. used waterboarding when he said in an interview that the technique "has not been used in years." http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/01/negroponte_confirms_use_of_wat.php
And now CIA Director Michael Hayden has stated that waterboarding has been used only 3 times - on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/cia_director_confirms_details.php
When the word of use of waterboarding began to seep into the news, the administration continued its mantra of saying it does not comment on specific interrogation techniques and also said that the U.S. DOES NOT torture. When Dana Perino was specifically asked, does that mean that the administration considers waterboarding to be legal, the answer was, again, that they don't comment on specific interrogation techniques. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/we_dont_discuss_interrogation.php
But now that a member of the administration (actually 2) have admitted that we used the technique, I wonder if Dana Perino's tune will change? I suspect not.
But here's the problem. I'm trying to find a link to the story, but I recall something from the fall where I think CIA Director Michael Hayden was giving testimony to Congress and he was asked would the U.S. consider waterboarding to be torture if it was done to U.S. citizens or military members and he couldn't answer. But one of the main reasons behind JAG Corps opposition to the use of waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques" which many people would consider torture is the fact that the U.S. can no longer assume that other countries or entities will follow the Law and Rules on torture and treatment of prisoners. And how can the U.S. criticize, with any degree of credibility, any other country in the world that figures the use of waterboarding or any other interrogation technique is essential to ITS national security. Can you imagine the Iranians taking some wayward sailors prisoner and figuring they could waterboard them because they might have information on a pending U.S. strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. So should the U.S. expect any other country in the world to rally to our side in such a situation? Or do you think that many countries - even allies of ours - might actually say something along the lines of, you reap what you sow?
And now CIA Director Michael Hayden has stated that waterboarding has been used only 3 times - on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/cia_director_confirms_details.php
When the word of use of waterboarding began to seep into the news, the administration continued its mantra of saying it does not comment on specific interrogation techniques and also said that the U.S. DOES NOT torture. When Dana Perino was specifically asked, does that mean that the administration considers waterboarding to be legal, the answer was, again, that they don't comment on specific interrogation techniques. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/we_dont_discuss_interrogation.php
But now that a member of the administration (actually 2) have admitted that we used the technique, I wonder if Dana Perino's tune will change? I suspect not.
But here's the problem. I'm trying to find a link to the story, but I recall something from the fall where I think CIA Director Michael Hayden was giving testimony to Congress and he was asked would the U.S. consider waterboarding to be torture if it was done to U.S. citizens or military members and he couldn't answer. But one of the main reasons behind JAG Corps opposition to the use of waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques" which many people would consider torture is the fact that the U.S. can no longer assume that other countries or entities will follow the Law and Rules on torture and treatment of prisoners. And how can the U.S. criticize, with any degree of credibility, any other country in the world that figures the use of waterboarding or any other interrogation technique is essential to ITS national security. Can you imagine the Iranians taking some wayward sailors prisoner and figuring they could waterboard them because they might have information on a pending U.S. strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. So should the U.S. expect any other country in the world to rally to our side in such a situation? Or do you think that many countries - even allies of ours - might actually say something along the lines of, you reap what you sow?
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Troops support anti-war candidates
My own anecdotal experience backs this up. I've had discussions with officers and enlisted in the AF and other services on the subject and I've seen that we're hardly the monolithic "gung ho" group that Limbaugh would have you believe. Most people are in the military because of the opportunity to serve or because it can be a fine and fulfilling career choice. But those people are not in the military BECAUSE they agree with the current administration's policies. Maybe they also agree with the policies, but that's not why they're serving. And it shouldn't be a surprise that many people in the military support anti-war candidates. Yes, the military tends to be more conservative than the country, but that also means that military members are very likely to be family-oriented. This war has meant more and more separation for military families. Ending the war means less deployments, means less separation from loved ones.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/05/military-donations/
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/05/military-donations/
Defense Spending in the FY 2009 budget - UPDATED
So for the last several years, the Bush administration has issued its proposed budget for the coming fiscal year, the defense spending in which was consistently under-estimated, resulting in requests for supplemental funding once or even twice a year. Part of the criticism of this is that a budget is supposed to be an estimate of all foreseeable expenses for the year, which should be balanced against the country's income. Underreporting entirely foreseeable expenses makes a mockery of a budget process and prevented the Congress from adjusting other spending (or income through necessary tax increases?). This feeds into one of my biggest criticisms of the war - the fact that we're financing it with future income - in essence putting it on a credit card. If the Republicans wanted their war, they should have been paying for it all along. Of course, their answer to that is to somehow cut discretionary spending (even though there's not enough of that to make even a dent in the defense spending). Or even better let's just privatize Social Security and get rid of Medicare to pay for the war.
Anyway - now, we've got a new budget which is making headlines for the fact that the total amount is in excess of 3 trillion dollars. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/05/pay-it-forward/ I haven't seen it anywhere, but I'd be interested to see some analysis of whether the defense spending includes money for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, unlike in years past. My guess is that it doesn't. FY 2009 only includes 3 months and 20 or so days under the current president, so I'm betting the amount "budgeted" only includes big ticket items. No reason for the Republicans to become responsible in their last year in office.
But it's a decent question to ask, because even with healthy Democratic majorities in Congress and a President Obama or Clinton, the earliest troops are going to start coming out will be March-ish 2009. That's 6 months of the next FY.
UPDATE**Here's some analysis on the topic. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/04/war-budget-fy09/ Guess I should have waited and I would have come across it eventually. And it looks like the estimate of funds for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan only includes the first quarter of FY 2009. So the point about Republicans being responsible stewards of the country's money has been answered in the negative.
Anyway - now, we've got a new budget which is making headlines for the fact that the total amount is in excess of 3 trillion dollars. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/05/pay-it-forward/ I haven't seen it anywhere, but I'd be interested to see some analysis of whether the defense spending includes money for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, unlike in years past. My guess is that it doesn't. FY 2009 only includes 3 months and 20 or so days under the current president, so I'm betting the amount "budgeted" only includes big ticket items. No reason for the Republicans to become responsible in their last year in office.
But it's a decent question to ask, because even with healthy Democratic majorities in Congress and a President Obama or Clinton, the earliest troops are going to start coming out will be March-ish 2009. That's 6 months of the next FY.
UPDATE**Here's some analysis on the topic. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/04/war-budget-fy09/ Guess I should have waited and I would have come across it eventually. And it looks like the estimate of funds for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan only includes the first quarter of FY 2009. So the point about Republicans being responsible stewards of the country's money has been answered in the negative.
US ROE in Iraq
Here's an article, which includes a link to the leaked (classified) document. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/todays_must_read_268.php
Interesting to think how they got this document. Also interesting to note how the ROE have changed since then (as compared to what's followed now over there).
Interesting to think how they got this document. Also interesting to note how the ROE have changed since then (as compared to what's followed now over there).
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Big Oil Profits
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/02/big-oils-shame/
Is the fact this happens with 2 ex-oil men in charge of the administration a coincidence?
Saturday, February 2, 2008
The Cost of the War...
In 2007 dollars. (via Daily Kos)
Iraq and Afghanistan To Date - $695.7 billion
Compare to other wars...
World War II - $3.2 trillion
Vietnam War - $670 billion
World War I - $364 billion
Korean War - $295 billion
Persian Gulf War - $94 billion
Civil War (both Union and Confederate costs) - $81 billion
Spanish-American War - $7 billion
American Revolution - $4 billion
Mexican War - $2 billion
War of 1812 - $1 billion
Source: Congressional Research Service and Office of Management and Budget data.
Iraq and Afghanistan To Date - $695.7 billion
Compare to other wars...
World War II - $3.2 trillion
Vietnam War - $670 billion
World War I - $364 billion
Korean War - $295 billion
Persian Gulf War - $94 billion
Civil War (both Union and Confederate costs) - $81 billion
Spanish-American War - $7 billion
American Revolution - $4 billion
Mexican War - $2 billion
War of 1812 - $1 billion
Source: Congressional Research Service and Office of Management and Budget data.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)