I hate to do this. I really, really hate it because it's going to bring up a fight, sure as shootin'. But I was wondering about the budget proposed by GWB -- based upon what I know of it right now via the media -- and got to wondering how the dollar costs stack up agains the Vietnam War. It's not as simple as the question would first seem.

Okay then.

Here are figures from the US Civil War Center at Louisiana State University ("Statistical Summary -- America's Major Wars"):

Conflict                            Cost in $ Billions Per Capita
                                    Current      1990s (in $1990)
The Revolution (1775-1783)             .10         1.2 $   342.86
War of 1812 (1812-1815)                .09         0.7       92.11
Mexican War (1846-1848)                .07         1.1       52.13
Civil War (1861-1865): Union          3.20       27.3    1,041.98
                     : Confederate    2.00       17.1    2,111.11
                     : Combined       5.20       44.4    1,294.46
Spanish American War (1898)            .40         6.3       84.45
World War I (1917-1918)             26.00       196.5    1,911.47
World War II (1941-1945)            288.00    2,091.3   15,655.17
Korea (1950-1953)                   54.00       263.9    1,739.62
Vietnam (1964-1972)                111.00       346.7    1,692.04
Gulf War (1990-1991)                61.00       61.1      235.00

So, in 1990s dollars the total cost of the US involvement in Vietnam was $346.7 billion, spread over a period of 8 years, or $43.34 billion per year (on the average). Note that this is adjusted to the estimated worth of the dollar during the 1990s -- I'm trying to compare apples and apples, so to speak.

Now for Iraq. This is from a letter sent by the Congressional Budget Office to Kent Conrad, ranking member of the Committee On The Budget of the US Senate:

CBO also estimated the cost of three scenarios for the occupation of Iraq and GWOT operations using assumptions about the length of each operation and force levels specified in the request letter from Senator Conrad. Under the first scenario, the occupation force in Iraq would increase to 190,000 servicemembers for the 2005-2006 period and then decline so that all U.S. forces would be removed from Iraq by 2009. At that point, the only troops deployed overseas in support of the GWOT would be those stationed in and around Afghanistan. CBO estimates this scenario would require about $64 billion in budget authority in 2005, declining to about $10 billion a year from 2009 through 2014. Budget authority associated with this scenario would total about $266 billion over the 2005-2014 period.

Current force levels would be maintained in Iraq and other GWOT locations through 2006 under the second scenario. After that, the force levels would gradually decline to a steady-state level of about 69,000 deployed personnel by fiscal year 2010. Budget authority required for scenario two would total about $392 billion over the 2005-2014 period, CBO estimates.

Finally, the third scenario assumes that troop levels in Iraq would steadily decline beginning in 2005, so that by 2010 about 15,000 personnel would be deployed overseas in support of the GWOT. CBO estimates that budget authority under that scenario would total about $179 billion over the 2005-2014 period.

This is a nine-year period, and the averages are: $29.56 billion per year for scenario one, $43.56 billion per year for scenario two, and $19.89 billion per year for scenario three. Please note that this does NOT include the monies already spent.

If you want to read the entire letter from the CBO, here it is. The data from LSU can be found here.

Also, there are the costs ONLY FOR THE US. The UK, etc. aren't included.

Make of this what you will, but please please please be civil.