Costs of U.S. wars linger for over 100 years

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - If history is any judge, the U.S. government will be paying for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars for the next century as service members and their families grapple with the sacrifices of combat.
An Associated Press analysis of federal payment records found that the government is still making monthly payments to relatives of Civil War veterans - 148 years after the conflict ended.
At the 10 year anniversary of the start of the Iraq war, more than $40 billion a year are going to compensate veterans and survivors from the Spanish-American War from 1898, World War I and II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the two Iraq campaigns and the Afghanistan conflict. And those costs are rising rapidly.
U.S. Sen. Patty Murray said such expenses should remind the nation about war's long-lasting financial toll.
"When we decide to go to war, we have to consciously be also thinking about the cost," said Murray, D-Wash., adding that her WWII-veteran father's disability benefits helped feed their family.
Alan Simpson, a former Republican senator and veteran who co-chaired President Barack Obama's deficit committee in 2010, said government leaders working to limit the national debt should make sure that survivors of veterans need the money they are receiving.
"Without question, I would affluence-test all of those people," Simpson said.
With greater numbers of troops surviving combat injuries because of improvements in battlefield medicine and technology, the costs of disability payments are set to rise much higher.
The AP identified the disability and survivor benefits during an analysis of millions of federal payment records obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
To gauge the post-war costs of each conflict, AP looked at four compensation programs that identify recipients by war: disabled veterans; survivors of those who died on active duty or from a service-related disability; low-income wartime vets over age 65 or disabled; and low-income survivors of wartime veterans or their disabled children.
The Iraq wars and Afghanistan
So far, the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and the first Persian Gulf conflict in the early 1990s are costing about $12 billion a year to compensate those who have left military service or family members of those who have died.
Those post-service compensation costs have totaled more than $50 billion since 2003, not including expenses of medical care and other benefits provided to veterans, and are poised to grow for many years to come.
The new veterans are filing for disabilities at historic rates, with about 45 percent of those from Iraq and Afghanistan seeking compensation for injuries. Many are seeking compensation for a variety of ailments at once.
Experts see a variety of factors driving that surge, including a bad economy that's led more jobless veterans to seek the financial benefits they've earned, troops who survive wounds of war and more awareness about head trauma and mental health.
Vietnam War
It's been 40 years since the U.S. ended its involvement in the Vietnam War, and yet payments for the conflict are still rising.
Now above $22 billion annually, Vietnam compensation costs are roughly twice the size of the FBI's annual budget. And while many disabled Vietnam vets have been compensated for post-traumatic stress disorder, hearing loss or general wounds, other ailments are positioning the war to have large costs even after veterans die.
Based on an uncertain link to the defoliant Agent Orange that was used in Vietnam, federal officials approved diabetes a decade ago as an ailment that qualifies for cash compensation - and it is now the most compensated ailment for Vietnam vets.
The VA also recently included heart disease among the Vietnam medical issues that qualify, and the agency is seeing thousands of new claims for that issue. Simpson said he has a lot of concerns about the government agreeing to automatically compensate for those diseases.
"That has been terribly abused," Simpson said.
Since heart disease is common among older Americans and is the nation's leading cause of death, the future deaths of thousands of Vietnam veterans could be linked to their service and their benefits passed along to survivors.
A congressional analysis estimated the cost of fighting the war was $738 billion in 2011 dollars, and the post-war benefits for veterans and families have separately cost some $270 billion since 1970, according to AP calculations.
World War I, World War II and the Korean War
World War I, which ended 94 years ago, continues to cost taxpayers about $20 million every year. World War II? $5 billion.
Compensation for WWII veterans and families didn't peak until 1991 - 46 years after the war ended - and annual costs since then have only declined by about 25 percent. Korean War costs appear to be leveling off at about $2.8 billion per year.
Of the 2,289 survivors drawing cash linked to WWI, about one-third are spouses and dozens of them are over 100 years in age.
Some of the other recipients are curious: Forty-seven of the spouses are under the age of 80, meaning they weren't born until years after the war ended. Many of those women were in their 20s and 30s when their aging spouses died in the 1960s and 1970s, and they've been drawing the monthly payments since.
Civil War and Spanish-American War
There are 10 living recipients of benefits tied to the 1898 Spanish-American War at a total cost of about $50,000 per year. The Civil War payments are going to two children of veterans - one in North Carolina and one in Tennessee- each for $876 per year.
Surviving spouses can qualify for lifetime benefits when troops from current wars have a service-linked death. Children under the age of 18 can also qualify, and those benefits are extended for a lifetime if the person is permanently incapable of self-support due to a disability before the age of 18.
Citing privacy, officials did not disclose the names of the two children getting the Civil War benefits.
Their ages suggest the one in Tennessee was born around 1920 and the North Carolina survivor was born around 1930. A veteran who was young during the Civil War would likely have been roughly 70 or 80 years old when the two people were born.
That's not unheard of. At age 86, Juanita Tudor Lowrey is the daughter of a Civil War veteran. Her father, Hugh Tudor, fought in the Union army. After his first wife died, Tudor was 73 when he remarried her 33-year-old mother in 1920. Lowrey was born in 1926.
Lowrey, who lives in Kearney, Mo., suspects the marriage might have been one of convenience, with her father looking for a housekeeper and her mother looking for some security. He died a couple years after she was born, and Lowrey received pension benefits until she was 18.
Now, Lowrey said, she usually gets skepticism from people after she tells them she's a daughter of a Civil War veteran.
"We're few and far between," Lowrey said.
An Associated Press analysis of federal payment records found that the government is still making monthly payments to relatives of Civil War veterans - 148 years after the conflict ended.
At the 10 year anniversary of the start of the Iraq war, more than $40 billion a year are going to compensate veterans and survivors from the Spanish-American War from 1898, World War I and II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the two Iraq campaigns and the Afghanistan conflict. And those costs are rising rapidly.
U.S. Sen. Patty Murray said such expenses should remind the nation about war's long-lasting financial toll.
"When we decide to go to war, we have to consciously be also thinking about the cost," said Murray, D-Wash., adding that her WWII-veteran father's disability benefits helped feed their family.
Alan Simpson, a former Republican senator and veteran who co-chaired President Barack Obama's deficit committee in 2010, said government leaders working to limit the national debt should make sure that survivors of veterans need the money they are receiving.
"Without question, I would affluence-test all of those people," Simpson said.
With greater numbers of troops surviving combat injuries because of improvements in battlefield medicine and technology, the costs of disability payments are set to rise much higher.
The AP identified the disability and survivor benefits during an analysis of millions of federal payment records obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
To gauge the post-war costs of each conflict, AP looked at four compensation programs that identify recipients by war: disabled veterans; survivors of those who died on active duty or from a service-related disability; low-income wartime vets over age 65 or disabled; and low-income survivors of wartime veterans or their disabled children.
The Iraq wars and Afghanistan
So far, the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and the first Persian Gulf conflict in the early 1990s are costing about $12 billion a year to compensate those who have left military service or family members of those who have died.
Those post-service compensation costs have totaled more than $50 billion since 2003, not including expenses of medical care and other benefits provided to veterans, and are poised to grow for many years to come.
The new veterans are filing for disabilities at historic rates, with about 45 percent of those from Iraq and Afghanistan seeking compensation for injuries. Many are seeking compensation for a variety of ailments at once.
Experts see a variety of factors driving that surge, including a bad economy that's led more jobless veterans to seek the financial benefits they've earned, troops who survive wounds of war and more awareness about head trauma and mental health.
Vietnam War
It's been 40 years since the U.S. ended its involvement in the Vietnam War, and yet payments for the conflict are still rising.
Now above $22 billion annually, Vietnam compensation costs are roughly twice the size of the FBI's annual budget. And while many disabled Vietnam vets have been compensated for post-traumatic stress disorder, hearing loss or general wounds, other ailments are positioning the war to have large costs even after veterans die.
Based on an uncertain link to the defoliant Agent Orange that was used in Vietnam, federal officials approved diabetes a decade ago as an ailment that qualifies for cash compensation - and it is now the most compensated ailment for Vietnam vets.
The VA also recently included heart disease among the Vietnam medical issues that qualify, and the agency is seeing thousands of new claims for that issue. Simpson said he has a lot of concerns about the government agreeing to automatically compensate for those diseases.
"That has been terribly abused," Simpson said.
Since heart disease is common among older Americans and is the nation's leading cause of death, the future deaths of thousands of Vietnam veterans could be linked to their service and their benefits passed along to survivors.
A congressional analysis estimated the cost of fighting the war was $738 billion in 2011 dollars, and the post-war benefits for veterans and families have separately cost some $270 billion since 1970, according to AP calculations.
World War I, World War II and the Korean War
World War I, which ended 94 years ago, continues to cost taxpayers about $20 million every year. World War II? $5 billion.
Compensation for WWII veterans and families didn't peak until 1991 - 46 years after the war ended - and annual costs since then have only declined by about 25 percent. Korean War costs appear to be leveling off at about $2.8 billion per year.
Of the 2,289 survivors drawing cash linked to WWI, about one-third are spouses and dozens of them are over 100 years in age.
Some of the other recipients are curious: Forty-seven of the spouses are under the age of 80, meaning they weren't born until years after the war ended. Many of those women were in their 20s and 30s when their aging spouses died in the 1960s and 1970s, and they've been drawing the monthly payments since.
Civil War and Spanish-American War
There are 10 living recipients of benefits tied to the 1898 Spanish-American War at a total cost of about $50,000 per year. The Civil War payments are going to two children of veterans - one in North Carolina and one in Tennessee- each for $876 per year.
Surviving spouses can qualify for lifetime benefits when troops from current wars have a service-linked death. Children under the age of 18 can also qualify, and those benefits are extended for a lifetime if the person is permanently incapable of self-support due to a disability before the age of 18.
Citing privacy, officials did not disclose the names of the two children getting the Civil War benefits.
Their ages suggest the one in Tennessee was born around 1920 and the North Carolina survivor was born around 1930. A veteran who was young during the Civil War would likely have been roughly 70 or 80 years old when the two people were born.
That's not unheard of. At age 86, Juanita Tudor Lowrey is the daughter of a Civil War veteran. Her father, Hugh Tudor, fought in the Union army. After his first wife died, Tudor was 73 when he remarried her 33-year-old mother in 1920. Lowrey was born in 1926.
Lowrey, who lives in Kearney, Mo., suspects the marriage might have been one of convenience, with her father looking for a housekeeper and her mother looking for some security. He died a couple years after she was born, and Lowrey received pension benefits until she was 18.
Now, Lowrey said, she usually gets skepticism from people after she tells them she's a daughter of a Civil War veteran.
"We're few and far between," Lowrey said.
Having lived through the Cold War I can tell you the price was a bargain when you consider the alternative. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a good investment too, although we should have let Stormin' Norman do it in '91. Going back s second time was stupid.
It's too bad public schools in America don't teach relevant history anymore.
Eisenhower's speech about the military industrial complex should be required reading for all graduating seniors.
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html
"Costs of U.S. wars linger for over 100 years"Â
Maybe it would be wise to consider ending our continuous warfare. It has been non stop since the USSR collapsed.
so...does that mean i'm wrong in revolutionary war monies i'm receiving..? dam england...
Not that I am uncaring here BUT... paying to extended family benefits for the CIVIL WAR... honestly it should be to Widows during the raising of their kids until age 25 ... then the tap shuts off!
Who in the heck is still left after 146 YEARS that can still not take care of themselves! | DAM... I guess I better ask my dad about our Civil War ancestors to make sure we are not missing out on FREE MONEY! ...especially if the government is not going to use common sense on paying these sort of benefits out!
The problem is these "Wars" we're in, and were in, are not "Wars" in the actual sense. Were not fighting in a War like WWI or WWII where were looking to Defeat a nation or get a signed deceleration of surrender. Were over their because of foreign relations and foreign relations only. If we were really at War with a Country then we would be bombing  and beating them back into submission until they unconditionally surrendered. Both Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. got us into all of this this because of the supposed "Weapons of mas destruction" Iraq and Saddam Hussein  possessed, which we never found any evidence of. Now we "The American People" are left to pay for and pick up the pieces of  Invasions that should have never happened in the first place.
Say what you want about the Current President but I don't remember him giving a order to invade a 3rd world Country and Pass the Debt on to the American People. Argue all you like but If Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. hadn't slung us into both of those "supposed wars" then we wouldn't be reading a article like this right now.
This Country is almost unable to recover from the economic debt these "Wars" have cost us. I feel sorry for the fact that our leaders have let us and the future generations down, by creating a debt so large that it would probably take 3-6  generation to pay it all off, and that's only if we stopped borrowing money RIGHT NOW!
Yet everyday we fight to give aid to others who invade our country illegally, foreign aid to countries who citizens spit in our faces, and all  while were not investing a penny into our own Countries financial ability to get out of debt.
I'm just so disappointed in our government because it  has stopped putting itself and its tax paying citizens first and instead it puts the needs of other countries ahead of everything, including it's own debt.
@Seahawker these wars are a small percentage (3%) of total expenditures over the last 10 years...it is not the wars....It is the Stimulus Package and other greasing of the palms of political supporters
@Seahawker I agree, but I don't see anything changing. Until our foreign policy changes, we will be giving billions of taxpayers monies to other countries. I really don't think our government actually cares about it's own people.
We are still paying a tax on the telephone that was put in place to pay for the Spanish American war. When it was asked about in the 1990s, Al Gore got it converted to a social welfare support tax rather than retire it.
No, you don't think about the "cost" of war. You think about whether it advances the National Interest (sorry Darfur), it's morally justifiable (can't invade Sweden for their beautiful women) and whether you can win it (Afghanistan? Drop the bombs, arm the women and run).
@Getov Mylon Cost and national interest are the same unless you believe in the don't tax and spend GOP mantra.
What about the cost of politicians making a quarter mil a year to sit around, go on vacations, not do their job and block the other sides attempts to do anything.
@Xirxious Obama spends more on one golf trip than most of us will make in a lifetime. His and Her jets too.Â
George Orwell was right with the pigs in Animal Farm.. "some of us are more equal than others"
This country has it's priorities soo wrong. Instead of wasting our time, resources and money on destroying things, we could have spent that same effort on innovation and infrastructure.
Just think, we could have built a massive high-speed rail network all over north america, but instead we destroyed Iraq. We could have invested in research to cure cancer, aids, Parkinson's, alzheimer's, develop a smart power grid or nanotechnology or a space elevator or a moon base or a carbon sink machine to slow global warming. But instead we destroyed Iraq. What a pointless waste.
@avacadoinacan Then after all that is done we can mount a winged horse and fly away into the sunset to the land of sunshine and unicorns. Cumbayah!
@70MonteCarlo @avacadoinacan That's what they said about the war in Iraq and Afganistan, that we'd all be better off for it and peace would reign and everybody would be happy. Well here it is, a decade later, we've got next to nothing to show for it except thousands of disabled young veterans, crumbling infrastructure, massive debt and we're falling behind in nearly every industry.
If we hadn't wasted our time with those stupid wars, there's no question that the US and the world would be much better off.
@avacadoinacan @70MonteCarlo
You people don't get it. This war has been going on since the seventh century when Mohammed and company mounted their horses and set out to spread the word of Allah at sword point.
It won't end until we become muslims, we become dead, or they become dead. Take your pick - those are the choices.
I like that 'we' statement by Patty Murray - Â I don't remember getting a vote about going to war, did anybody else? Â Oh yes, we vote them in, so maybe that's how 'we' get to 'vote'. Â Oh well, there will always be wars and rumors of wars....
@Elaine2 Just FYI and a question for you? How many times has congress declaird war? in the 230 plus years we have been a nation? Just answer the question 5 times the rest have been authorized by congress that has been over 20 times so get over it. The US does not have to delcare war Congress can have a authorzation Vote to fight a war.
@Exiled_Patriot -  Oh I'm 'over it' as you say.  As for wars, I wasn't talking entirely about our wars.  If another country attacks us, I do hope we decide to retaliate.  The comment about there will always be wars and rumors of wars isn't my quote.Â
@Elaine2 Pork Barrel Patty voted for the wars. She is a true idiot.
@MonroeMad @Elaine2 A true idiot voted for Bush in 2004 and should be admitting as much.
@MonroeMad I blame the Bush supporters. They lost all credibility yet expect us to sweep it under the rug and buy the snake oil they are selling now. They publicly proved they don't know squat and should just shut up now. BTW, we are not on the brink of total collapse. The dollar value is not in the toilet. If it were it would be good for us foreign debt wise. Snake oil.
@Seattleisaslew @MonroeMad @Elaine2 Blame Bush for everything...getting real stale....look at what we have now...we are on the brink of a total collapse. Our currancy ani't worth squat in another year and we will be paying a Bill Gates EVERY MONTH in interest alone....nice.
It is not the wars....it is child like behavior in the White House... can't leave the candy jar alone even though they know they will be sick later
The costs of these wars are miniscule compared to what the unfunded liabilities associated with Social Security and Medicare (now also Obamacare) will utlitmately cost us. We could fight all these wars many times over with what we have coming down the pike regarding entitlements.
If AP is going to quote history you would think that they at least read it. WWII was on credit and cost much much more as compared to GDP. We paid it off with a 3% income tax including what the pathetic Soviet Union owed. So why is this a burden? This is just a political hack job of lies.
Maybe because social spending in now 60% of our spending and will be 100% soon if we don't get the budget controlled. That means balanced .....Obozo...... geez why can't we elect someone who understands economics?
@MonroeMad No we are still paying the debt of WWI and WWII just so you know. and both Iraq and afganistan are being paid for by the Credit card of the first bank of china. all borrowed money. even if we stop paying for the war right now there is no lump of money to go any were. it is all on credit.
@Exiled_Patriot It is impossible to parse the war debt in the 1950s and 1960s from the social debt. If you take revenue less war debt there was enough to retire the war debt and spend for government functioning....adding social spending into the debt package as a whole does not drag the war debt on.
Bank of China? See Richard Blum the husband of Senator Diane Fienstien and you will see why we owe China....
Also 80% of most Japanese cars are China content.
Yep.... War(s) on credit.... The Executive Branch & Congress have zero respect for "we the people" and our wishes. Our Congress has continually thrown good money after bad with their 100% failed Foreign Policies. In addition Congress now expects generations of Americans to pay for their inaction, indecisiveness and increased size pertaining to the war on terror! Does anyone believe anything has been accomplished in the M.E. to warrant running our country to the brink of collapse?
I wonder how many more years we will be paying for the "war on drugs"?Â
@Shelly Gotta continue with the war on Americans in the name of security..... Gotta continue the war on a Social Health problem at best pertaining to the "war on drugs"....  Gotta continue telling others how to live and establish a government abroad.... So many friggin' busybodies in our government who truly have no place telling anyone how to live......
@Funky-Munky @Shelly That is the progressives either Democrat or Republican Progressives love to dictate their will on you! They know better then you how to eat what to drive how to wipe your butt to everything in between. John Mcain is a Progressive, Bush is a progressive Obama is a progressive. That is why I support those who stand on principal and are strict constitutionalist who know that the constitution is written in concrete. Not open for interpitation.
"strict constitutionalist": people who interpret the constitution the way I want them to.
@Funky-Munky @Shelly I don't know if you can call it a war on drugs. War's end, this never seems to....
If War has lingering effects for years and years, why do they keep telling the American people "that War is Profitable"? Â The only people making a profit, it would seem are those getting no bid contracts to "clean it up and rebuild"......... Â I have always thought that the statement of War being Profitable, and good for the economy, is just a smoke-screen for the war-mongers, who benefit monetarily for the costs of war.
@Slingerss War has always been a shift of our tax dollars into the hands of a few. In the case of Iraq it should be called theft.
Why the heck are we still making payments to "descendants" of people from the civil war? That's about as dumb as "slave reparations."Â
By now, it's statistically likely that those descendants have at some point through their family tree probably inter-married with descendants of people who were their ancestor's enemies on the battlefield!
The war was over 150 years ago!
those descendants are probably getting about .75 cents a month if that. Like you said that was 150 years ago
@my2centsYa but are you talking 1865 dollars adjusted for inflation or 2013 dollars?
Regardless this is dumb, enough is enough, we shouldn't be paying it. Either it's a lot of money and a huge waste, or even if it was hardly anything then it wouldn't be worth the manpower and processing costs. Just shows what a huge, bloated wasteful entity the government has become.Â
oh I agree 100% I was just making a statement about the cost, which also was a waste of my time. LOL
"......we have to consciously be also thinking about the cost," said Murray.
And from the other side of her mouth she proposes a $100 billion economic stimulus plan.
@al_wa Patty Pork Barrel is the worst...Pork, Pork, and more Pork
@al_wa War helps no one vs an economic stimulus which would. Don't act like money spent in different places is all the same.Â
@quidproquo @al_wa It is "all the same" It's all other peoples money.
Quid, where are they going to get the money for an "economic stimulus"? Oh,... Borrow it... That is really really smart... Out of control spending, limited revenues, and trying to spend the economy into health... doesn't work... history shows it doesn't work.. it brings more inflation..
@MonroeMad You are a swirling turd, no argument here.
@quidproquo @Mr. H And all sane economists know that there is a tipping point and we are over it.... we are all just swirling turds in a toilet waiting to go down
@Mr. HÂ There are many schools of economic thought that believe, on a macro scale, some amount of debt is a good thing. It's a principal we've followed through out our entire history in this country. Please give me a time when we weren't borrowing money either via treasury bonds or from other countries.Â