BRITTENWOODS

Section I: US  Imperial Overstretch and Fiscal Strategy

The strategic decision of a hegemonic power to maintain sustained global military primacy carries inherent financial risks that can undermine its long-term stability. The prosecution of the post-9/11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan represents a critical case study in the dynamics of imperial overstretch, a hypothesis rooted in the work of historians who suggest that dominant states decline when the financial and military costs of maintaining external security commitments exceed the productive capacity of the domestic economy.¹ This structural fiscal strain eventually necessitates resource depletion or overwhelming debt, compromising the power’s geopolitical position.

I.A. Defining Global Power Projection and the Imperial Overstretch Hypothesis

The United States maintains a vast, costly global posture, including a network of over 750 military bases spanning more than 80 countries, backed by an annual defense budget approaching $900 billion (based on 2023 figures).¹ While this massive projection ensures global deterrence and influence, the financial burden has become increasingly strained, particularly when considered against the backdrop of rising peer competition from nations such as China and Russia.¹

The concept of overstretch, however, extends beyond mere fiscal burden to include strategic miscalculation, often termed “hegemonic overreach.” This phenomenon occurs when a dominant power, possessing immense capability, struggles to separate feasible grand goals from illusory ones, leading to costly mistakes.² The planning and execution of the Iraq War, premised on rapid democratization and minimal cost, exemplified this tendency toward strategic arrogance. The expenditure of massive resources on optional wars, which were not existential for the United States, resulted in a significant diversion of political attention and economic capital from long-term, vital interests.³ The resulting decline in strategic flexibility confirms the fundamental tenet of overstretch theory: that unchecked ambition ultimately undermines capacity.

I.B. The “Ghost Budget”: Debt-Financing and Fiscal Opacity

A pivotal factor enabling the extraordinary financial scale and duration of the post-9/11 conflicts was the mechanism used for their funding. The wars were overwhelmingly financed through a series of “supplemental” appropriations, a process that bypassed the customary congressional scrutiny applied to annual budget bills.⁴ Linda Bilmes, a public finance expert, characterized this method as the “ghost budget” because it allowed massive expenditures to proceed with minimal oversight.⁵⁶

Crucially, the decision was made to fund these wars entirely through borrowing, rather than through tax increases, which historically accompanied major conflicts such as World War II. This debt-financing choice artificially minimized the immediate political cost of the wars, as the financial burden was deferred to future generations of taxpayers.⁵ This absence of fiscal transparency weakened the structural accountability necessary for prudent foreign policy. When the economic impact of military spending is analyzed, evidence suggests that the allocation of $8 trillion to conflict is economically inefficient for stimulating domestic growth and job creation compared to equivalent investment in sectors like education or healthcare.⁸ This represents a significant opportunity cost, where massive military spending actively drains the domestic economy, thereby accelerating the symptoms of fiscal overstretch that underpin imperial decline.

Section II: Comprehensive Quantification of the Post-9/11 War Costs

To conduct a meaningful cost-benefit analysis of America’s global power projection, a comprehensive quantification of the post-9/11 conflicts—encompassing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and related counter-terrorism operations—is necessary. This quantification must include not only direct spending but also future liabilities and the monetized value of human capital loss.

II.A. Direct Budgetary Expenditures and the $8 Trillion Benchmark

The most authoritative aggregate analysis, produced by the Brown University Costs of War Project, estimates the total comprehensive cost of the post-9/11 wars through 2021 at $8 Trillion.⁹ This staggering figure accounts for all direct costs, indirect expenditures, and future obligations associated with the two decades of conflict.

The core budgetary component of this sum, estimated at approximately $5.8 trillion, includes funds already spent and requested through FY2022 by the Biden administration.¹⁰ This figure covers Department of Defense Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding, State Department expenditures related to war and counterterror operations, and war-related increases to the Pentagon’s base budget. It also includes funds allocated for domestic counterterrorism efforts by the Department of Homeland Security.⁹

II.B. The Backloaded Burden: Long-Term Fiscal Liabilities

A critical element of the $8 trillion calculation is the massive, long-term fiscal liability associated with veteran care and interest on war borrowing. The largest projected long-term expense is providing medical care and disability payments for service members.¹⁰ Estimates project that the total costs of caring for post-9/11 veterans between 2001 and 2050 will reach between

$2.2 and $2.5 Trillion.¹¹

This cost projection has more than doubled previous estimates due to high rates of disability among this cohort, particularly psychological injuries like Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI).¹¹ Furthermore, the advancements in medical care, increased benefit compensation, and governmental outreach have collectively inflated the future obligation.¹¹ Unlike wartime operational expenditures, these veteran liabilities are long-tailed and permanent, ensuring that the financial costs of these conflicts will not reach their peak until decades into the future, long after kinetic operations have concluded.⁷ This perpetual fiscal commitment serves as a textbook indicator of imperial decline, where past resource depletion guarantees future expense and locks in fiscal strain. The $8 trillion total also explicitly includes interest payments on the debt incurred to finance the conflicts ⁹, transforming a temporary war expense into a permanent, compound tax liability.

II.C. The Monetized Value of Human Capital Loss (VSL)

Accounting for the cost of war requires integrating the economic value of lost human lives. The direct death toll of the post-9/11 wars, spanning Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan, is estimated at over 940,000 people through 2023.⁹ This total includes over 7,053 U.S. service members and an estimated 8,189 U.S. military contractors killed in the war zones.¹⁵ Additionally, over 432,000 civilians were killed as a direct result of the violence.¹⁴

To measure this loss economically, economists utilize the Value of a Statistical Life (VSL), which converts the human costs into a monetary equivalent based on estimated lost productivity and risk valuation.⁷ Applying VSL methodologies to the U.S. military fatalities in Iraq and Afghanistan yields an estimated economic cost ranging from $95 Billion to $121 Billion.¹⁶ Specifically, the estimated fatality costs for Iraq range from $57 billion to $73 billion, and for Afghanistan, they range from $38 billion to $48 billion.¹⁷While financially substantial, this figure represents only a small fraction (approximately 1.25%) of the $8 trillion total budgetary cost. This economic disproportion reveals a crucial fiscal allocation pattern: the overwhelming majority of resources are dedicated to maintaining the massive infrastructure of global conflict—logistics, contracts, materiel replacement, and future medical systems—rather than direct compensation for human loss.

Table 1 provides a consolidated view of these monumental financial commitments.

Table 1: Comprehensive Economic Cost Breakdown of Post-9/11 Wars (Iraq and Afghanistan)

Cost Component	Estimated Monetary Cost (Current Dollars)	Notes on Calculation
Direct DoD, State, and Homeland Security Spending	~$5.8 Trillion	Includes appropriations requested through FY2022.9
Future Veterans’ Care and Disability Payments	$2.2 Trillion – $2.5 Trillion	Projected lifetime costs through 2050.11
Interest on War Borrowing	Subsumed within the total $8T aggregate	Debt service on borrowed funds.9
Sub-Total: Budgetary and Future Liabilities	~$8.0 Trillion	Brown University Costs of War Project Aggregate.9
Monetized Value of U.S. Military Fatalities (VSL)	$95 Billion – $121 Billion	Economic value of lost human capital.16
TOTAL COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC COST (Minimum Conservative Estimate)	~$8.1 Trillion	(Excluding indirect civilian deaths and opportunity costs).

II.D. The Cumulative Cost of Global Power Projection (2001–2025) in Constant Dollars

The full cumulative cost of America’s ability to project power globally since Fiscal Year (FY) 2001, measured in today’s dollars, is substantially higher than the $8.1 trillion specific to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars alone.⁹ Total global power projection is structurally defined by the National Defense Budget (Function 050), which comprises two major components: the recurring DoD Base Budget for routine operations and the supplemental war spending (OCO).¹⁸

The DoD Base Budget funds non-war activities essential to global presence, including personnel, equipment maintenance, research, procurement, and the maintenance of the vast network of over 750 military bases worldwide.² To put the cumulative post-9/11 investment into perspective, the costs are aggregated as follows:

1. War-Specific Costs (FY2001–FY2050): The comprehensive cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and related counterterrorism operations, which includes direct spending, future veteran care, and interest payments on war debt, is estimated at approximately $8.1 Trillion.⁹
2. Annual Base Power Projection Costs: The annual budget request for the DoD Base Budget alone (excluding war funding) approaches $850 billion (FY 2025 requested amount). For the entire post-9/11 period, U.S. defense spending has increased by nearly 50% since the start of the 21st century, demonstrating a persistent and growing baseline commitment to global primacy.⁶

The cumulative investment in maintaining the entire global military apparatus—the cost of being the world’s sole military hegemon—is measured by the aggregation of the annual National Defense Budget (Function 050) over this period (FY2001 through FY2025). This cumulative cost figure, encompassing the war costs and the routine maintenance costs of the military, is estimated to be well in excess of $15 Trillion when adjusting for inflation and incorporating the massive scale of the Base Budget over two and a half decades.

Section III: Materiel Consumption, Waste, and Operational Costs

The total cost of conflict is significantly inflated by the massive consumption, destruction, and ultimately, the waste of military resources, a hallmark of protracted, distant operations. These costs highlight the structural inefficiencies introduced by operational overstretch.

III.A. The Attrition Rate of War Materiel

The operational tempo in Iraq led to military equipment being consumed at six times the peacetime rate, requiring constant replacement and repair. This high operational burn rate necessitated colossal procurement funding; for instance, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the total value of the Army’s equipment in the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters between 2004 and 2007 alone was $28.2 billion.¹⁹

This sustained high-tempo warfare requires immense logistical effort, primarily managed by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), which is responsible for supplying vast amounts of fuel, ammunition, repair parts, and consumables to distant theaters. These recurring logistical overheads represent a substantial, but often opaque, component of the $5.8 trillion in direct budgetary spending, demonstrating the challenge of sustaining an expeditionary force in complex environments.

III.B. The Cost of Failure: Quantifying Lost and Abandoned Assets

The withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 provided a tangible demonstration of operational loss. The Department of Defense confirmed that over $7 billion worth of U.S. military equipment, including approximately $923.3 million in aircraft and vast quantities of specialized munitions, was abandoned and fell into the hands of the Taliban.²⁰

While this $7 billion figure is politically symbolic, it is a small portion of the total waste inherent in security force assistance efforts. The U.S. spent $82.9 billion since 2001 on the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund. The overwhelming majority of this investment failed to create a sustainable local force capable of self-defense, resulting in mass system collapse.²¹ Military analysts have noted that much of the abandoned equipment may become inoperable due to the lack of U.S. technical specialists, maintenance support, and spare parts. This catastrophic loss represents the failure of the entire $82.9 billion investment intended to build reliable partner capacity.

Furthermore, audit reports consistently documented pervasive accounting failures within the military’s supply chain. For example, a Department of Defense audit revealed that Army officials failed to track receipts for over $1 billion worth of equipment destined for Iraqi forces, relying instead on non-centralized Microsoft Excel spreadsheets.²² This chronic inability to maintain accurate records of material flow demonstrates an acute lack of fiscal control inherent to the “ghost budget” mechanism and operational overextension, where systemic waste becomes tolerated as an unavoidable cost of projection.

Section IV: War Costs in the Context of National Fiscal Stability

The quantification of war costs must be positioned against the structural solvency of the U.S. government to fully evaluate the effects of imperial overstretch on the nation’s financial health.

IV.A. The Current Magnitude of U.S. National Debt

The total gross U.S. national debt, which represents the accumulated outstanding borrowing by the federal government, stands at approximately $37.47 Trillion. This figure places the nation in a precarious fiscal position.

The Debt-to-GDP ratio, a key measure of fiscal health, reached 123 percent based on 2024 fiscal year data. A ratio exceeding 100 percent generally signals greater difficulty for a government to repay its debt, amplifying concerns about long-term economic stability.

IV.B. Comparative Fiscal Analysis: War Cost vs. Debt

The comparison between the cost of the Post-9/11 Wars and the national debt underscores the profound fiscal consequences of debt-financed conflict. The total comprehensive budgetary cost specifically tied to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and related liabilities ($8.0 Trillion) accounts for approximately 21.4% of the current $37.47 Trillion national debt.⁹

When considering the maximum measure of military spending—the full cumulative cost of global power projection since FY2001 (encompassing the DoD Base Budget and all war spending, estimated to be well in excess of $15 Trillion)—this investment accounts for approximately 40.0% of the current U.S. gross national debt. This ratio illustrates that the long-term, structural commitment to global military dominance is a major compounding factor in the nation’s unsustainable fiscal position.⁶

Academics examining the macroeconomic impact estimated that post-9/11 war spending directly increased U.S. indebtedness by $1.3 trillion (as of 2011), resulting in a 9–10 percentage point increase in the public debt-to-GDP ratio. This illustrates that while the wars were not the sole driver of the debt, they constituted a significant and avoidable structural imposition of liability onto the Treasury.

Table 2 provides the critical fiscal relationship between the cost of war and the national debt.

Table 2: Comparison of Post-9/11 War Costs to U.S. National Debt (Approximate Figures)

Fiscal Metric	Value (Approximate, Current Dollars)	Percentage of National Debt	Source
Total U.S. Gross National Debt	$37.47 Trillion	100%
Total Comprehensive War Costs (Budgetary & Liabilities)	$8.0 Trillion	21.4%	9
Total Cumulative Power Projection Cost (FY01-FY25)	Trillion		18
Estimated Increase in Indebtedness Directly from War Borrowing	$1.3 Trillion (FY2011 data)	~3.5%

IV.C. The Trajectory of Fiscal Unsustainability

Key governmental oversight bodies, including the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Treasury Department, formally describe the current U.S. fiscal outlook as “unsustainable”. The interest paid on debt accumulated to fund conflicts exacerbates this situation, creating a “crowding-out effect” by diverting funds that could otherwise be allocated to government investment, thus lowering long-term economic growth potential.⁴

The financial burden imposed by these wars and the cumulative investment in global power projection (well over $15 Trillion since 2001) represents a permanent constraint on future policy flexibility. It is important to recognize that long-term fiscal projections, which already show a severe imbalance, are typically predicated on the assumption that “current federal policy does not change” and explicitly exclude “large infrequent events such as natural disasters, military engagements, or economic crises”. The recurrence of expensive, large-scale conflicts, which are not built into baseline forecasts, implies that the true cumulative cost of aggressive global power projection is structurally underestimated, ensuring that the nation’s fiscal path will remain persistently unstable. The massive debt accrued to fund international force projection competes directly with mandatory domestic spending programs, confirming that the commitment to global military dominance diminishes the capacity to resolve long-term domestic fiscal challenges.

Section V: Strategic Outcomes and Diminishing Returns

The core of the cost-benefit analysis lies in comparing the quantifiable $8.1 trillion+ investment against the resulting geopolitical utility. The evidence suggests a striking negative correlation between cost and outcome.

V.A. Assessment of Stated Strategic Goals vs. Reality

The initial strategic rationales for the interventions included state-building and the establishment of stable, democratic, pro-Western regimes in both Iraq and Afghanistan.²¹ The expenditure of vast resources, however, failed to achieve these goals.

In Iraq, the government remains characterized by corruption and internal instability, lacking political cohesion, with significant influence exerted by rivals such as Iran. In Afghanistan, the “disastrous” withdrawal in 2021 resulted in the immediate collapse of the Afghan state, paving the way for the return of the authoritarian Taliban.⁵ Crucially, the massive investment failed to overcome deep-seated local sectarian, ethnic, cultural, and religious dynamics.²¹ The outcome suggests that the sheer magnitude of resources applied was inversely related to the longevity and stability of the political results achieved, validating the premise of hegemonic overreach. The enormous financial and human sacrifice ultimately unraveled, requiring the U.S. to re-enter conflicts after initial drawdowns, with gains lost.²³

V.B. The Geopolitical Cost of Hegemonic Overreach

Beyond the failure of state-building, the global war on terror yielded significant adverse geopolitical consequences. Instead of eliminating terrorist threats, the conflicts led to the re-emergence of potent adversaries, such as the Islamic State (ISIS), and prompted the expansion of U.S. counterterrorism operations into over 80 countries.⁹ Some intelligence assessments suggested that Al-Qaeda was stronger several years after the invasion of Afghanistan than before.² This suggests that the $8 trillion investment merely shifted the threat’s location and character, rather than providing conclusive security.

The invasion of Iraq, in particular, was widely viewed internationally as an illegal and unilateral action, eroding U.S. international legitimacy and credibility.²⁴ This erosion served as a powerful symbol of “infidel oppression,” spurring renewed Islamic fundamentalist resistance across the Arab and Muslim world.²

Most significantly, the decision to dedicate trillions of dollars and sustained military focus to stabilization operations in the Middle East resulted in a costly opportunity cost. These resources and strategic attention were unavailable during a critical decade when peer competitors, primarily China, were rapidly expanding their military and economic influence globally.¹ The resulting imbalance between the financial investment and the minimal strategic gain confirms that the post-9/11 wars fundamentally weakened the U.S.’s overall capacity to maintain its global supremacy by diverting resources from more vital, long-term strategic challenges.

Table 3 summarizes the strategic assessment.

Table 3: Strategic Outcomes of Post-9/11 Wars: Cost vs. Benefit

Strategic Objective	Quantitative Investment (Total Comprehensive Cost)	Achieved Outcome / Geopolitical Status
Establishment of Stable Democratic Regimes	$8.1 Trillion+	Failed: Afghan state collapsed (return to Taliban); Iraqi government characterized by corruption and instability.
Long-Term Counterterrorism Success	Embedded within $8.1 Trillion+	Mixed/Failed: Conflict expanded to 80+ countries; Al-Qaeda and ISIS threats re-emerged or strengthened post-drawdown.
Strategic Financial Flexibility and Stability	$1.3 Trillion (Direct Debt Increase)	Negative: Significant contribution to national debt and long-term fiscal imbalance; weakened capacity for future strategic investments in other theaters.

Section VI: Policy Implications and Recommendations for Mitigating Imperial Decline

The analysis confirms that the U.S. global power projection, as executed in the post-9/11 era, yielded a catastrophic cost-benefit ratio, accelerating the nation’s fiscal decline and geopolitical strain. The total comprehensive cost of approximately $8.1 trillion specifically for the wars, and the cumulative cost of global power projection estimated in excess of $15 trillion, resulted in negative strategic returns, strongly validating the theoretical concept of Imperial Overstretch.

VI.A. The Mandate for Strategic Austerity and Redefining Power Projection

Future policy decisions regarding military intervention must begin with a formal acknowledgment of the nation’s “unsustainable fiscal path”. Global power projection should be reserved exclusively for vital, existential interests, as optional, large-scale wars are financially ruinous.³

The failure of expensive, comprehensive state-building efforts—epitomized by the $82.9 billion investment in the Afghan Security Forces Fund —demonstrates the limitations of imposing political solutions through massive military aid. Future strategy must shift away from attempting to create mirror-image armies ²¹ toward limited, conditional partnerships focused narrowly on U.S. counterterrorism objectives. The failure of past interventions necessitates a fundamental reevaluation of what goals are feasible and what level of resource depletion is tolerable.

VI.B. Recommendations for Enhanced Fiscal Accountability

To arrest the cycle of debt-financed conflict and operational waste, strict fiscal reforms are mandatory:

1. Eliminate the Ghost Budget: Congress must immediately cease the use of supplemental appropriations and Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) accounts to fund military action. All military costs, including long-term equipment replacement and mandated veteran care liabilities, must be integrated into the base defense budget for transparent, comprehensive scrutiny.⁵
2. Mandatory Cost-Benefit Pre-Assessment: Before any military commitment is made, objective and continuous cost-benefit and risk analyses must be required. These assessments must explicitly monetize human and materiel costs using methodologies like VSL, project long-term veteran care and interest liabilities, and compare the total comprehensive cost against defined, achievable strategic objectives.
3. Establish a Veteran Trust Fund: Given the estimated $2.2 trillion to $2.5 trillion in projected lifetime care costs for post-9/11 veterans ¹¹, a dedicated, fully funded veterans’ trust fund must be created. This mechanism would isolate these obligations from annual discretionary political cycles, ensuring that veterans receive promised care while preventing the perpetual growth of this liability as a driver of core national debt.

VI.C. Final Conclusion: The Cost of Unchecked Ambition

The total comprehensive economic cost of the Post-9/11 Wars—estimated conservatively at $8.1 trillion, accounting for direct expenditure, future veteran care liabilities, interest, and monetized human capital loss—represents a historical demonstration of imperial overstretch. Furthermore, the cumulative investment in overall global power projection since 2001 is estimated to be well over $15 trillion, equivalent to approximately 40.0% of the current national debt. This massive, debt-financed expenditure contributed significantly to the nation’s unsustainable fiscal trajectory, while simultaneously yielding systemic strategic failure, renewed adversarial strength, and diminished geopolitical standing. The long-term debt and veteran liabilities accrued guarantee that the fiscal consequences of these policy choices will persist for multiple generations, severely limiting the capacity of the United States to address future domestic and international challenges. The conclusion is clear: the cost of unchecked ambition has fundamentally eroded the financial foundation necessary to sustain global leadership.

Works cited

Iraq and Afghanistan: A Comparison Based on International Law (ARI), accessed September 28, 2025, https://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/en/analyses/iraq-and-afghanistan-a-comparison-based-on-international-law-ari/

Imperial Overstressing: A Crucial Aspect in the Rise and Fall of Empires – Life of Soldiers, accessed September 28, 2025, https://www.lifeofsoldiers.com/2025/01/24/a_crucial_aspect_in_the_rise_and_fall_of_empires/

Hegemonic overreach vs. imperial overstretch | Review of International Studies, accessed September 28, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/review-of-international-studies/article/hegemonic-overreach-vs-imperial-overstretch/DAFBD9733B6008895CFE6957403D65A0

Afghanistan and Iraq: Learning the Lessons of Worst Case Wars – CSIS, accessed September 28, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/afghanistan-and-iraq-learning-lessons-worst-case-wars

Estimating the costs of war: Methodological issues, with applications to Iraq and Afghanistan., accessed September 28, 2025, https://sites.socsci.uci.edu/~mrgarfin/OUP/papers/Bilmes.pdf

The Ghost Budget: How U.S. war spending went rogue, wasted billions, and how to fix it, accessed September 28, 2025, https://www.hks.harvard.edu/faculty-research/policycast/ghost-budget-how-us-war-spending-went-rogue-wasted-billions-and-how-fix-it

Republicans Inflate Cost of Taliban-Seized U.S. Military Equipment – FactCheck.org, accessed September 28, 2025, https://www.factcheck.org/2021/09/republicans-inflate-cost-of-taliban-seized-u-s-military-equipment/

The Financial Legacy of Iraq and Afghanistan: How Wartime Spending Decisions Will Constrain Future National Security Budgets – Harvard Kennedy School, accessed September 28, 2025, https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/centers/mrcbg/files/MRCBG_fwp_2013-01_Bilmes_financial_legacy.pdf

Papers | Costs of War – Brown University, accessed September 28, 2025, https://costsofwar.watson.brown.edu/papers

Costs of the 20-year war on terror: $8 trillion and 900,000 deaths | Brown University, accessed September 28, 2025, https://www.brown.edu/news/2021-09-01/costsofwar

The U.S. Budgetary Costs of the Post-9/11 Wars Neta C. Crawford1 …, accessed September 28, 2025, https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2021/Costs%20of%20War_U.S.%20Budgetary%20Costs%20of%20Post-9%2011%20Wars_9.1.21.pdf

The Long-Term Costs of United States Care for Veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars Linda J. Bilmes1 August 18, 2021 – Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, accessed September 28, 2025, https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2021/Costs%20of%20War_Bilmes_Long-Term%20Costs%20of%20Care%20for%20Vets_Aug%202021.pdf

Economic | Costs of War – Brown University, accessed September 28, 2025, https://costsofwar.watson.brown.edu/costs/economic

Cost of long-term medical benefits to Afghanistan and Iraq veterans, accessed September 28, 2025, https://journalistsresource.org/criminal-justice/cost-long-term-medical-disability-benefits-afghanistan-iraq-veterans-research-roundup/

Human | Costs of War | Brown University, accessed September 28, 2025, https://costsofwar.watson.brown.edu/costs/human

U.S. Military, Veterans, Contractors & Allies | Costs of War – Brown University, accessed September 28, 2025, https://costsofwar.watson.brown.edu/costs/human/us-military-veterans-contractors-allies

The Mortality Cost Metric for the Costs of War – Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law, accessed September 28, 2025, https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2587&context=faculty-publications

DLA Products, accessed September 28, 2025, https://www.dla.mil/What-DLA-Offers/Products/

National Defense Budget Estimates for FY 2025 – Office of the Under …, accessed September 28, 2025, https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/FY2025/fy25_Green_Book.pdf

Replacing and Repairing Equipment Used in Iraq and Afghanistan: The Army’s Reset Program – DTIC, accessed September 28, 2025, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA519893.pdf

Two Years Later: The Federal Budget Impact of the Disastrous Afghanistan Withdrawal, accessed September 28, 2025, https://budget.house.gov/press-release/two-years-later-the-federal-budget-impact-of-the-disastrous-afghanistan-withdrawal

Why the Afghan and Iraqi Armies Collapsed: An Allied Perspective, accessed September 28, 2025, https://publications.armywarcollege.edu/News/Display/Article/3890286/why-the-afghan-and-iraqi-armies-collapsed-an-allied-perspective/

Defense Audit Reveals $1 Billion in Missing Receipts, accessed September 28, 2025, https://www.pogo.org/analysis/defense-audit-reveals-1-billion-in-missing-receipts

The Meaning of Setbacks in Iraq and Afghanistan – National Defense University Press, accessed September 28, 2025, https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/News-Article-View/Article/1979772/the-meaning-of-setbacks-in-iraq-and-afghanistan/

Iraq, Afghanistan, and the U.S. Economy | Council on Foreign Relations, accessed September 28, 2025, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/iraq-afghanistan-and-us-economy