In anticipation of the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Brown University’s Costs of War Project on Wednesday published an “updated estimates on the most comprehensive and widely-cited assessments of the financial and human costs of the past 20 years of war.”
The Project’s last update in 2019 estimated that the post-9/11 wars cost more than $6 trillion and 800,000 lives. But its new assessment has found that between 897,000 and 929,000 have been “directly killed,” while the United States has appropriated and obligated to spend more than $8 trillion.
The latest report comes as President Biden ended America’s 20-year war in Afghanistan, which was estimated to have cost U.S. taxpayers $2.313 trillion, while Washington has so-far spent $2.058 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Syria. But while the U.S. war in Afghanistan is now over, the so-called “forever wars” are still ongoing throughout the region in places like Yemen and the Horn of Africa, where the Project estimates that roughly $355 billion have been spent.
The Project’s estimate includes the cost of veterans’ care from 2001 to 2050, which according to its report from August, will cost U.S. taxpayers between $2.2 and 2.5 trillion.
“Many people don’t know the extraordinary toll these wars take, not just the cost of deploying troops, not just the cost in terms of human lives, but the costs in terms of benefits and in terms of our obligations for decades to come,” said Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) in prepared remarks for the Cost of War Project’s online event launching their new findings. “Had we not stayed in Afghanistan for 20 years we would have had enough money to provide a free college education or vocational school for every American.”
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), also in prepared remarks for the event, noted that she voted “no” on the authorization to use military force in Afghanistan after 9/11 (she was the lone dissenting vote).
“I voted no because I feared the consequences of giving the president, any president, open ended power to use military force anywhere against anyone or any nation,” she said, adding, ”Those consequences have been devastating.”
Ben Armbruster is the Managing Editor of Responsible Statecraft. He has more than a decade of experience working at the intersection of politics, foreign policy, and media. Ben previously held senior editorial and management positions at Media Matters, ThinkProgress, ReThink Media, and Win Without War.
Marine reinforcements fly towards an area somewhere near Kandahar
December 10, 2001. The Marines have pushed closer to Kandahar to
continue their mission of interdicting lines of escape.
REUTERS/POOL//Earnie Grafton, The San Diego Union-Tribune
DPW/WS
A majority of Muslim-Americans voted for Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein in this week’s election, while just 21 percent supported Republican Donald Trump and 20 percent voted for Vice President Kamala Harris, according to newly released data.
The survey, conducted by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and released on Friday, polled 1,575 verified Muslim-American voters nationwide. ,
CAIR also released exit polling results from Michigan and Maryland voters. Out of the 502 Muslim-Americans surveyed in Michigan, 59% supported Dr. Stein, 22% voted for Trump, and 14% pulled the lever for Harris. Stein received 81% of the vote from Muslim-Americans in Maryland with Harris earning 12% and Trump around 4%.
The results stand in stark contrast to results from previous cycles. CAIR found that in 2020 President Biden had support from 69% of those surveyed, with Trump earning 17%, and other candidates 3%. Additionally, a study released in October of 2016 found that 72% of Muslim-American voters supported Hillary Clinton, while 4% voted for Trump, and 5% chose other candidates.
CAIR says the dramatic shift away from the Democratic Party candidate can be explained in large part by President Biden’s Middle East policy. ”Our final exit poll of American Muslim voters confirms that opposition to the Biden administration’s support for the war on Gaza played a crucial role,” CAIR National Government Affairs Director Robert S. McCaw said, “leading to a sharp drop in support for Vice President Harris compared to the support President Biden received from Muslim voters in 2020, and a sharp rise in support for third party candidate Jill Stein. President-Elect Trump also managed to make in-roads with Muslim voters.”
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: Itamar Ben-Gvir, Minister of National Security of Israel, shouts at the opening of the 25th Knesset session marking the anniversary of the “Iron Swords” war on Monday, in Jerusalem, October 28, 2024. DEBBIE HILL/Pool via REUTERS
Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, approved a piece of legislation on Thursday that gives the government permission to deport family members of those who Israel labels as “terrorists.” This law affects Israelis, as well as Palestinian citizens.
The law was sponsored by Hanoch Milwidsky, a member of the right-wing Likud party. If the legislation goes unchallenged by the courts, it would allow the interior minister to deport parents, siblings, or spouses of anyone labeled as a terrorist, if that person has “expressed support or identification” or failed to report information concerning an act of terror, or terror organization. Al Jazeera’s Nour Odeh points out that one potential issue with this policy is that “all Palestinian factions are labeled as terrorist organizations by Israel.” Additionally, expressing sympathy for the humanitarian situation in Gaza has previously been labeled as being sympathetic to terror.
Annalle Sheline, research fellow at the Quincy Institute, agrees, saying “the proposed legislation is horrifying, both for expanding Israel's existing policy of holding individuals accountable for the actions of members of their family, and for the extremely broad definition of so-called 'terrorism' that they intend to apply.”
Israeli national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir expressed support for the new law on X: “today we passed a law deporting families of terrorists. It seems to me that the left has come under pressure, let's continue!”
The expulsions would range from 7-20 years depending on the legal status of the defendant. The law may be challenged in court, however, with a senior researcher at the Israel Democracy Institute, Eran Shamir-Borer, saying that the Supreme Court will likely strike down the law. “The bottom line is this is completely nonconstitutional and a clear conflict to Israel’s core values,” he said.
Israel does recognize a basic protection of freedom of speech and expression, but it is notably limited. Expression is restricted when it is likely to cause public harm. Speech that could insight racism, terrorism, Holocaust denialism, or insult to public servants is also restricted.
During the same session, the Knesset approved a temporary measure that allows for minors under the age of 14 to be imprisoned following a murder conviction that is connected to a terrorist act or organization.
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: French President Emmanuel Macron welcomes President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky and German Chancelor Olaf Scholz at the Elysée Palace in Paris on Feb. 8, 2023. (Frederic Legrand - COMEO/ Shutterstock)
President-elect Trump says he can end the war in Ukraine in a day.
But there is a catch. Washington institutions and EU policy makers have Trump-proofed the war for at least another year. This idea — that hard-wired Western support for President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s fight against Russia could be insulated from the incoming U.S. president — has been cooking for the past year.
In the month before the first votes had been cast in this week’s U.S. election, policy makers on both sides of the Atlantic had been solidifying their fortifications against the risk of a Trump victory. In its October report, the International Monetary Fund — which the developing world often sees as a rich country club serving Western interests — made a baseline assumption that war in Ukraine would “wind down in late 2025,” at the earliest, one year after the U.S. election.
Provisional Western funding for another year of war had already been secured in June in the form of the G7’s $50 billion lending package for Ukraine. That gives Zelenskyy enough to plug the yawning hole in his state finances sufficiently to keep fighting. He will still need to manage other significant risks along the way, not least of which include the country’s energy infrastructure and military mobilization. Ukraine recently announced a plan to mobilize a further 160,000 troops following the April decision to lower the age of military draftees from 27 to 25.
But the EU has been working hard to ensure that Zelenskyy can take the risk, underwritten with European money. Although what they have created is catastrophically ill-thought through.
The European Union loan itself — up to a maximumof €35 billion (around $38 billion) — is so high precisely because of the uncertainty about whether the U.S. would match the funding of other G7 nations. This is Trump-proofing in action. In essence, even if Trump doesn’t agree to the proposed $20 billion U.S. contribution made by Biden, Europe is prepared to cover the cost of another year of devastating war.
Little matter that, for Ukraine itself, $50 billion in extra debt represents around 30% of GDP for one year of fighting — if the country hasn’t collapsed in that time. According to the IMF, if war does indeed end in late 2025, Ukrainian debt will hit 108% of GDP and only start to fall in 2028. In this scenario, Ukraine’s economy wouldn’t return to its pre-war size until 2031, representing nine years of lost growth.
If war continues into 2026 (the IMF downside scenario), debt will hit a massive 136% of GDP, and Ukraine’s economy will be further stunted.
The G7 funding was made on the naive assumption that Ukraine would never have to repay it, or, in the IMF’s words, “to ensure debt sustainability.”
In late October, the European Parliament agreed on a Ukraine Loan Cooperation Mechanism as “non-repayable financial support” to cover any repayments Ukraine needs to make against the G7 loan package of $50 billion. Separate from the G7 loans, it is the pot of funds made up of the profits from seized Russian assets of €210 billion (about $225 billion) held in EuroClear in Belgium. These funds currently generate around €4-5 billion ($4.3-5.4 billion) in profit each year although some of that profit is already being used, for example, in restoring Ukraine’s energy infrastructure.
However, this Loan Cooperation Mechanism could easily fall apart in the coming year. Self-evidently, if a ceasefire is agreed in Ukraine and a peace process, finally, launched, Russia will press hard for the return of these assets as part of staged sanctions relief.
U.S. officials under the Biden administration had been pressuring the EU to agree to a longer freezing of Russian assets of 3-5 years, although Hungary blocked a decision to change EU policy on sanctions renewal until after the U.S. election. With Trump now elected, Hungary, and possibly others, likely won’t want to set the Russian asset freeze in stone.
Look at the EU small print, and you’ll see that if funds from frozen Russian assets run out or if no funds are received from Russia for war reparations, then Ukraine will have to service the loan itself.That would explode the IMF’s claim that this debt is sustainable and put significant additional pressure on Ukraine’s flagging finances. Economies rebound after wars though, so, perhaps, some might argue, this is worth the risk. Growth over time would help to reduce the massive Ukrainian debts brought on by war.
But what benefit is another year of fighting when Ukraine is losing the war in its east? Russia’s Donbas offensive sped up ahead of the U.S. election with a major southern push towards Khurakove. Around 50% of Donetsk remains under Ukrainian control, including major centers such as Kramatorsk and Pokrovsk. At the current rate of military progress, it would, according to some commentators, take Russia at least another year to complete its conquest of the Donbas.
Although with Ukraine potentially demoralized by the change in power in Washington, Russia will continue to press its advantage and gobble up more ground before Trump takes office. There is no foreseeable military scenario at the moment which predicts that Ukraine will reverse the tide of Russian advances. Despite stop-start talks in Qatar, Russia will continue to pummel Ukraine’s critical national infrastructure, rendering life miserable for even more Ukrainian people as the winter grows colder.
By giving Ukraine an extra $50 billion in lending, Europe will simply be helping Ukraine manage to sacrifice more of its land, at a huge cost in death and destruction.
As Vice President-elect JD Vance pointed out in April, the math doesn’t add up. And with a now significant possibility that U.S. weapon supplies will dry up, the risk of a complete collapse of Ukraine’s front line will grow.
The best way to stand with the glorious country of Ukraine is to end this nonsense and finally sue for peace. That will require difficult conversations between the 47th president of the United States and his war-hungry European colleagues. But first, he needs to pick up the phone to Putin and Zelenskyy.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.