WAR IS EXPENSIVE FOR THE LITTLE PEOPLE

 

War Is Expensive for the Little People

Operation Epic Fury will cost billions that could have been put to much better use

Paul Krugman Mar 3

 

 

On Sunday, according to the U.S. military, Kuwaiti forces shot down three U.S. F-15s in a “friendly fire” incident. Fortunately, the crews were able to safely eject and survived. The sad truth is that such incidents are common in modern war. One of the highest-ranking U.S. officers to die in World War II, General Lesley McNair, was killed in Normandy by U.S. bombs, not the Germans.

The shocking aspect of the story is the value of the equipment destroyed: A new F-15 costs U.S. taxpayers $97 million. So that’s almost $300 million lost in seconds. And we should think about what could have been done with that money other than launch a war without a clear plan or an exit strategy.

There are many reasons to be disturbed by Operation Epic Fury. Donald Trump has taken America to war, not only without Congressional authorization, but without even trying to make a case to the American people. Other than the hope that Iranians will rise up and overthrow the Ayatollahs’ regime, the war has no clear plan for either victory or exit. This strongly suggests that the rush to war was a Trump ego tantrum rather than a carefully planned campaign. And although it would be a great boon to the world if the Iranian people were able to liberate themselves from this evil regime, as with any war there are huge risks of unforeseen consequences, including to the world economy.

One of the reasons to be disturbed by this war is the extraordinary amount of money the U.S. government is either laying out now or will have to lay out in the future to replace the spent munitions.

The modern American way of war is extremely capital-intensive, deploying massive amounts of equipment while putting relatively few people in harm’s way. This has been true ever since World War II, when FDR rejected calls to recruit an immense army and chose instead to fight what Phillips O’Brien calls a “machine-intensive, infantry light war.” That’s a rational approach, given how rich our nation is and how averse it is to casualties. It’s certainly a lot more rational than Pete Hegseth’s talk about “warrior ethos” — are soldiers supposed to flex their biceps at attacking drones?

But the U.S. military’s reliance on munitions rather than manpower can create two problems.

The first problem is that modern munitions, which are highly sophisticated and complex, can’t be produced on short notice, and Trump has already used up many missiles and other weapons in his various military ventures. Yesterday he told reporters that the Iran campaign might go on for four to five weeks or even longer. But many reports suggest that the United States doesn’t have enough left in its weapons stockpiles to continue the current pace of action for more than a few days without dangerously weakening the military’s ability to counter other threats, such as a potential Chinese attack on Taiwan.

In a Truth Social post last night Trump insisted that the U.S. has a “virtually unlimited supply” of “medium and upper medium grade” weapons, which is in effect confirmation that stocks of high-grade weapons are on the verge of of exhaustion.

The other problem is that U.S.-style war is incredibly expensive — so much so that the cost becomes a serious concern even for a nation as wealthy as America.

Linda Bilmes of Harvard’s Kennedy School estimates that Trump’s largely unsuccessful bombing campaign last year against the Iran-backed Islamist Houthis in Yemen — a far softer target than Iran itself — cost between $2.76 billion and $4.95 billion. Operation Midnight Hammer, Trump’s one-day strike against suspected Iranian nuclear facilities, cost between $2.04 billion and $2.26 billion.

The current war is being waged not only with massive bombing but also with the use of large numbers of expensive interceptors to defend U.S. bases and U.S. allies against Iranian drones and missiles. So in just a few days we have surely incurred billions of dollars in cost. And if this war continues for an extended period, the costs could easily rise to the twenty to thirty billion dollar range.

How should we think about these costs? On one side, the federal budget is immense, and almost any individual category of spending is only a small fraction of the total. If we spend $20 billion, $30 billion, or even more on Trump’s war, it will still look almost like rounding error in the overall federal budget.

However, on the other side, consider what else could have been done with that money.

Conservatives complain constantly about the level of federal spending, claiming that we are spending more than we can afford on social programs. Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act imposes harsh cuts in nutritional and healthcare assistance, supposedly because the cost of food stamps and Medicaid is excessive. This, despite the fact that study after study has shown that the long run costs of not providing food stamps and Medicaid are far higher than the cost of providing them.

And if we compare the cost of this war to what we spend to help needy Americans, then it’s clear that this war is extremely expensive compared with other ways we could have spent the funds. Put it this way: SNAP — the Supplemental Nutritional Food Assistance Program, formerly food stamps — spends an average of about $2,400 a year per recipient. CHIP, the Children’s Health Insurance Program administered under Medicaid, provides comprehensive health care for about $3,000 per child.

So just replacing those three jets shot down over Kuwait — each of them, remember, with a price tag of $97 million — will cost about as much as providing 125,000 Americans with crucial food aid or providing healthcare to 100,000 American children. And the war might very well end up costing 100 times as much as the price of those jets.

Now, I support the U.S. government spending whatever it must to keep the nation secure. But the Trump administration, which hasn’t provided any coherent rationale for the war, is hardly bothering to pretend that it has anything to do with national security.

Public opinion on this war is extremely negative, As G. Elliott Morris says, “every modern American president who started a war had the public behind him at the outset” — until Trump. And there is no hint of a rally-around-the-flag effect.

Why are Americans so negative about this war? First, they believe it has been foisted upon them: Trump hasn’t bothered to give them a reason for it. Second, Americans – already disillusioned by false promises about DOGE (remember those) and tariffs – sense, correctly, that there is no strategy here. Third, the public senses, also correctly, that the little people will bear this war’s cost. There has, of course, been not even a whisper from Trump about shared sacrifice, about, for example, taxing billionaires to pay for the money being spent on missiles and bombs.

Ordinary Americans feel that Trump is setting billions of dollars on fire with no idea how that is supposed to work out, and that they will end up paying the price. And they’re right.