The Cost of War

This episode of Search Engine is brought to you in part by Odoo. Ever feel like you need one app for sales, another for inventory, another for accounting, and the list never ends? Managing a business should not feel like a full-time juggling act. That's where Odoo comes in. Odoo is the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all-in-one, fully integrated platform that handles CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, HR, you name it. No more bouncing between apps or remembering a dozen logins. Everything works together seamlessly, so you can actually focus on growing your business. And the best part, Odoo replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. And it's designed to grow with your business, whether you're just starting out or already running a large company. It's easy to use, customizable, and streamlines every process so you can spend less time on software headaches and more time on what really matters. Thousands of businesses have already made the switch. Why not you? Try Odoo for free today at odoo.com. That's O-D-O-O dot com. We'll see you in part by Snapple. Hey, before we jump back into the show, let's take a quick break. But not just any break. This is a refreshing break with Snapple. We all know about Snapple's iconic real facts, so let's take a moment to go over some of my faves. Snapple Real Fact 1361, a nun held one of the first PhDs in computer science. Snapple Real Fact 1643, the first search engine's name is Archie. Snapple Real Fact 1517, in New York it is illegal to sell a haunted house without telling the buyer. Snapple Real Fact 1228, chimps can develop their own fashion trends. So grab a Snapple, take a second, and enjoy the moment. Because, let's be honest, this might be the most refreshing part of your day. Snapple, make your break more interesting. All right, now let's get back to the show. Quick note before we start the show, we are doing an AMA. That's an Ask Me, I'm the proverbial me in this, Ask Me Anything on the search engine subreddit. This is going to be Friday, April 24th at noon Eastern. Don't feel like you have to ask me anything. It's more like we've done a bunch of recent episodes that people have emailed a lot of questions about. There was our big series on driverless cars. There was our episode about GLP-1s. There was our episode about Anthropic, the company behind Quad. And these are just things that generated a lot of questions from people. And we wanted to say, if there's something that we've published recently that you wanted to know more about, or if you wanted to know. why we did something, or how we did something, or even if you just have general questions about how the show works, we're doing an Ask Me Anything. I guess, yeah, anything. Anything you want. Again, April 24th, Friday. This will be in the search engine podcast subreddit at noon Eastern time. We'll be right back. PJ, explain why the United States is currently at war with Iran. I would have to answer, I don't know. I do read the newspapers. So I know Trump said he wanted to hit Iran's nuclear program. I know Netanyahu was pushing for strikes. I also know that after quickly deposing Maduro in Venezuela, Trump seemed to walk away with the belief that regime change was just something you could do conveniently from home. DoorDash. But with armed drones. But, like, what is the case for the Iran strikes, other than they're emotionally satisfying for the president? What is the argument for why this is in the national interest? I genuinely don't know. I'm not alone. Two-thirds of Americans, polled by CBS YouGov, said they don't understand the reason for our current war. They don't get it. Like, it's a too challenging David Lynch movie. The most disturbing possibility. might be that there just is no underlying reason. That this is confusing because it actually doesn't make sense. But if the benefits of the war don't add up, the one thing we should still be able to understand are the costs. Obviously, war has an incalculable moral cost. The deaths of civilians, the deaths of soldiers, the cost to America's moral standing in the world. But that's not the part I wanted to understand this week. I wanted to understand the cost of the war. I wanted to understand something much more literal. The price tag. So this week, Search Engine called someone who actually tries to put prices on American conflicts. So first off, can you just say your name and what you do? My name is Linda Bilns, and I am the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Senior Lecturer Chair in Public Policy and Public Finance at the Harvard Kennedy School. And when you're at Thanksgiving and people ask you what you think about all day, like, what do you say? Well, I spend my time thinking about how society allocates resources. I think about the roads in Fitchburg. I think about the composting in Somerville. And I also think about how we spend money on wars. I've been obsessed with the cost of war since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. And as I've studied this for years and years and years, I mean, I've been obsessed with the cost of war. I mean, I've been obsessed with the cost of war. I mean, I've seen this real disconnect between the fact that we're talking about billions and even trillions of dollars on costs of war when we're talking about $6 for after-school basketball in a local community. I mean, it is this enormous disparity. And I think that partly because of the fact that the words millions, billions, and trillions rhymes in English, we don't even really fully grasp the scale of the spending on wars. And trillions are. order of magnitude bigger than billions. I always tell my students, like, a billion seconds ago is like, you know, in the 90s when the Lion King came out. And trillions is woolly mammoth era. You know, it's about a long time ago. So Professor Bilmes is saying part of the issue here is that we're just bad at imagining a trillion. But there's another part, which is that war spending is also confusing because it's been intentionally designed to be. The government. The government spends war money less honestly than it spends most of its budget. When the government goes to war, it starts to behave more like a shady moving company, quoting you one price to get the job, then changing that price once it's holding your precious flat screen over the sidewalk. How did the government learn the pricing maneuvers of Brooklyn Movers? That's the story that starts before this war in Iran. For Professor Bilmes, it starts with Iraq. In the early aughts, the cost of that war was a topic that came up in her classroom. My students in my introductory public finance class started asking me, how much is this costing? And I said, that's a good question. And when I started looking into how much it was costing, I realized that the government was not really adding it up. And to the extent they were, they were drastically underestimating the costs. And they were underestimating the costs partly because of the way that we were budgeting for the wars, which didn't lead to a large paper trail of explanations of spending, and partly because of the way we think about spending for wars and all the costs that we don't include. But why could you tell even then that the way that they were accounting for this was imprecise or strategic or whatever? Choose your word. But why was it obvious even back then that the price tag that the American public was seeing was really, really not the price tag? Well, I mean, the Bush administration was saying at the very beginning of the U.S. invasion of Iraq that it was going to cost not very much. It was going to cost a few billion dollars, maybe $50 billion. It depends on the assumptions. It depends on how long the war lasts. It depends on whether weapons of mass destruction are used. What we have done is we have taken estimates looking at different variables and said, if this were the case on this variable and then on this variable, but there's so many variables that the numbers of possible point answers create a range that simply isn't useful. I'm not going to get into any speculation about numbers. So the money's going to come from Iraqi oil revenue, as everyone has said. They think it's going to be something like $2 billion this year. They think it might be something like $15, $12 next year. And Larry Lindsey, who was the Republican economic advisor at the time, started saying, you know, this could cost hundreds of billions of dollars. This could cost like 1% of GDP. And he was fired for even having that thought and expressing it. So there was a very deliberate effort to not discriminate. Discuss the cost of the war because that was going to interfere with the rush into war. And then one of the major issues that I saw at the beginning of the Iraq war was that we were paying for the war through emergency appropriations. Good evening, everyone. Tonight, we begin with the cost of war. Tonight, it looks very much like President Bush is going to ask the Congress for an additional $65 to $75 billion to pay for the U.S. commitment in Iraq. over the next year. - The administration's request for 87 billion is the clearest sign yet the U.S. war in Iraq is far from over. President Bush today signed a bill authorizing additional funding for this nation's dual wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, $162 billion, enough to fund operations into next year. Now, emergency appropriations are there for a reason. So, for example, if there's a hurricane or an earthquake, the objective is to get money out to people who need it very quickly. But 10 years into the Iraq war, we were still paying for trillions of dollars of spending as an emergency, even though we had 400 bases in Iraq that we had built, and we had hundreds of thousands of troops who were there. So we were still pretending that this was like some very, very short-term emergency thing where we didn't really need to worry about the details. And that meant that we were significantly underestimating the costs. Okay, so those were kind of the main reasons. The clues that whatever was being said here probably wasn't true. Yeah, and it was very convenient for the administration and for Congress to fund these wars through emergency spending, because that way they didn't have to put it into the budget for the following year. So they could every single year minimize the projection of what the deficit would be. So they could say, oh, the deficit's going down, the deficit's going down, because they weren't accounting for the fact that we were going to be spending another $150 billion. $150 billion or whatever in emergency spending on the war, even though there was no way we could not be spending that. But it made it look as if the deficit would be lower. And it also made it seem as if the end of the war could be right around the corner. And for quite a few years early into the Iraq war, if you look at the statements of senior officials, they were continually saying that the war was about to end, that we were about to turn a corner, the worst was behind us, and so on. And that kind of made it seem as if that could be real, because we weren't budgeting for it for the following year. And so, okay, so this is like your origin story as a person who pays deep attention to this starts there. That's right. Once you start deciding like, okay, they're not going to give real numbers for reasons of political expediency. How do you just start yourself auditing? Like, I imagine that's very hard. Well, I mean, it was difficult to try and get up to speed. I mean, it was difficult to try and get up to speed. I mean, you have a, obviously, very large, complex organization, which has a record of poor accounting. It has flunked its audit every year since accounting was required for federal agencies and is the only federal agency that has done so. I didn't know that. Yeah, well, I mean, flunked its accounting, in a sense, up until about five years ago, it wasn't even able to submit its accounts for accounting. It was so bad. Is that like because they're top secret? Or is it just they're bad at their bugs? No, no, no. I mean, it's just that they have not been able to account for their assets. I mean, they cannot account for at least 50% of their assets around the world. The GAO, the Nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, ranks the lack of financial accountability at the Pentagon among its top risks of government every single year, for years and years and years. And many people have tried to work on this, but they have made only modest progress. And in fact, the day before 9-11, Donald Rumsfeld, the then defense secretary, gave a speech about how the Pentagon needed to get a grip on its accounting failures and how important it was to account for where taxpayer money went. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. Then, of course, 9-11 happened. And here we are 25 years later, and we still don't have any kind of accountability for where taxpayer money is spent in the Department of Defense, or now Department of War. I mean, I teach, of course, accounting. I happen to believe that accounting for assets matters. And if the Pentagon were a private sector organization, there would be extreme penalties for failing to be able to account for spending and where the spending goes. And this is separate from the relatively small portion of the defense budget, which is so-called secret. So it's not, because the explanation my brain would supply is, well, the Pentagon is, a bunch of spies, and the spies aren't going to tell you where the spies are spending money because it's top secret. You're saying, no, no, no, no, no, forget about that. It's a small proportion of the money they spend. This is just, like, we do not know, they do not account for American taxpayer money that they are spending on things that are not secret, things like conflicts. I think it's because it's a very far-flung, complex organization. The Army, the Navy, the Air Force have different mechanisms. They have different units that account for things in different ways, and they have not been able to reconcile them. So there are certainly portions of the Pentagon that can account for their assets, but there are others that can't, and they can't reconcile how they do it. And so in that environment in which war is expensive but hard to measure, like, one of the reasons you would want war to be more transparently measured is because, in theory, the American public, in theory, Congress, should be able to make decisions about whether we want to go to war and the cost of war is part of it. In this context, how price-sensitive are U.S. presidents to wars? Like, how much does their estimation of the possible price tag influence their calculation to go in or not go in? Well, I think it's important to look at the historical context of this, because in U.S. history, we always paid for wars through a combination of tax increases and non-war budget cuts. So from the War of 1812 through the Civil War, through the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, this issue of how we were going to pay for the war was a very big issue. And so I think it's important to look at the historical context of this. It's a very big issue for presidents and Congresses in which they spent a lot of time thinking about how they could raise the money for the wars and whether it was worth it. And certainly if you go to the archives, for example, the Johnson archives, you see him talking at length with all of his advisors about how he could retain support for his domestic programs at the same time that he was paying for expletive-deleted this effing war. But the money used to have to come from somewhere. Right. It used to have to come from somewhere. And taxes were raised a lot. And President Wilson in World War I raised corporate taxes from 1% to 12%. Wow. President Truman raised top marginal tax rates to 92%. Jesus. President Johnson imposed a tax surcharge to 75% top rates. So they really raised taxes to try and offset the cost of these wars. Now, one of the consequences of that is that Congress had to get involved. Because Congress has to approve tax increases. So this forced the fiscal committees in Congress, that's the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, to approve these taxes. So they had to hold a lot of hearings about this. And when you look back at the hearings in all these previous wars, Congress spent a lot more time grappling with how are we going to pay for these wars. A significant percentage of their hearings were spent figuring this out. And after 9-11, something changed. So we cut taxes, actually twice, in 2001 and 2003, as we went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. We then cut taxes again during President Trump's first term in 2017. And then, of course, again last year. So the taxes have gone down at the same time that we had 20 years of increasing war expenses. And now we just add it to the deficit? Right. I mean, so everything that we are spending now in Iran is just adding to our national debt. But why? I understand that 9-11 felt uniquely urgent. You know, it was an attack on American soil. It was a surprise attack on American soil. But what about that event justified the kind of Klarna model or whatever, where rather than raising the money to fund the thing, you just borrow the money against the future to fund the thing? Well, this is a really, really important question that you're asking about why is it that we completely shifted the way we pay for wars? And I think there are three main reasons. I mean, first of all, is the general dysfunction of the congressional budget process. As everybody knows, having just lived through another year of shutdowns and almost shutdowns, the budgetary process has broken down to a large extent in a bipartisan way. So from the military perspective, they kind of felt, well, they need to get this emergency money because they couldn't rely on Congress to appropriate funds. Secondly, you had the situation through the 2000s and through most of the 20 years that we were in Afghanistan of historically very low interest rates. So we could borrow at a very, very low rate. It's as if we had a credit card with an expanding limit at lower and lower and lower rates. So we could borrow at almost zero after the 2008 financial crisis. So this made it really, really convenient to keep borrowing the money. So it wasn't Klarna because for a long time, the interest rates were really low. Well, they were really low. And so people didn't feel the effect of this rising debt. Yeah. So when we went in. to Iraq in 2003, at that time, the national debt held by the public was less than $4 trillion. And now that number is $31 trillion. And we borrowed a lot of money at low rates that we are now paying back at much, much higher rates. So we paid at that time about 6%, 7% of our total budget on interest. And now we're paying 15% of the budget on interest. That's not all because of the wars, but it's a lot of it is because of the combination of tax cuts at the same time that we were increasing spending. But that kind of set the tone of being able to pay for these wars through debt in addition to the low interest rates. And in addition to the budgetary dysfunction, there were a number of reasons internally. Within the Defense Department that made it very advantageous for them to have money that was provided in this way. First of all, the money went into a more flexible account, so they got more discretion over how to spend it. This was happening at the same time that the department and the country was increasing its reliance on contractors. So we had far, far, far more contractors involved in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars than we had in any previous wars. It was much easier to pay the contractors and so forth with this funding. It also meant that it was more protected from the budgetary dysfunction. So if there was a shutdown or an almost shutdown or, you know, some other budgetary crisis, it could continue to pay contractors who often don't get paid during government funding lapses. What ended up being the total bill of Iraq and Afghanistan? Well, Joe Stiglitz, my co-author on The Three Trillion Dollar War, and I, we had estimated it in 2008 that the absolute minimum that the Iraq war could cost was $3 trillion. And this was on the basis of what Joe called excessively conservative. Now, we had estimated at that time that the war would be done by 2015. So if you look at what actually happened, and based on our methodology, it cost between $5 and $6. Trillion. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars together. Now, my colleagues at the Brown University Cost of War Organization estimated at $8 trillion. So it's somewhere in that range. Expensive. It's expensive. That absolute highest estimate you heard, $8 trillion, the top estimate from the Brown University Cost of War Project, that's for every part of Operation Enduring Freedom. It includes everything that sprung from 9/11. Iraq, Afghanistan, the spillover military operations that took place at the time in Pakistan and Syria. But that war, which every major U.S. politician now admits was a massive error, cost us a price that would have paid for a full century of free education at all public American universities. I'm not a devout Quaker. I don't think our country should never go to war. But one thing Iraq teaches us is that of all the stupid mistakes a country can make, stupid wars are the most expensive one. So what, then, of our current conflict? How are we pricing that one? After the break, and in celebration of American Tax Week, as the government audits us, we, Search Engine, will audit the government. That's after these ads. This episode of Search Engine is brought to you in part by NPR Politics. Let's be honest, trying to keep up with every day political news, especially with all the midterm hype and endless online arguments, can leave your head spinning. My secret weapon for cutting through the noise is the NPR Politics podcast. It's a sharp daily show that drops the biggest political updates in 15 minutes or less, giving you exactly what you need to know about the world, without wasting your time. Right now, they are zeroed in on the midterm elections and the actual policy decisions hitting our daily lives. Everything from skyrocketing housing and healthcare costs to immigration policy, national debt, and foreign affairs. What makes it work so well is the rapport between journalists like Miles Parks and Susan Davis. They break down messy topics with total clarity and zero attitude, feeling more like knowledgeable friends chatting in your living room than talking heads on cable news. It leaves you feeling completely informed. This episode of Search Engine is brought to you by LabCorp On Demand. We've all laid awake at 3am with questions that keep us up at night, like why am I constantly this exhausted, or am I actually getting the right nutrients? We usually just blame stress or the changing seasons, but guessing doesn't give us peace of mind. If you need clear insights into your health, LabCorp On Demand is an easy and convenient way to understand what's happening inside of your body. When you visit their website, you can choose from a suite of more than 100 health tests, including testosterone, fitness, sexual wellness, and more, all available to purchase without a doctor's appointment. You visit the LabCorp location closest to you for testing. It's incredibly simple, and in just days, you'll be notified by email when your results are ready. Results that are accurate, easy to understand, and from a lab doctor's trust. If you have a question, if you have questions about your health, and you're ready to get closer to answers, visit ondemand.labcorp.com/searchengine, and use code SEARCH to save up to 15% on select tests. It's ondemand.labcorp.com/searchengine, and use code SEARCH. Know yourself. This episode of Search Engine is brought to you in part by Mint Mobile. Think back to childhood summers. Total freedom, zero responsibilities, and no one bossing you around. Mint Mobile brings your freedom back to your wallet right now. During their huge summer sale, every single Mint plan is down to just $15 a month. Yes, even unlimited. All plans feature high-speed data alongside unlimited talk and text on the nation's largest 5G network. You can choose a 3-, 6-, or 12-month plan up front and eliminate the headache of a monthly bill entirely. To get your new wireless plan for just 15 bucks a month, go to mintmobile.com/search. That's mintmobile.com/search. Cut your wireless bill to 15 bucks a month at mintmobile.com/search. That's it. There's no catch. Upfront payment of $45 for three months, $90 for six months, or $180 for 12 months. Plan required. $15 per month equivalent. Taxes and fees extra. Initial plan term only. Greater than 50 gigabytes may slow when network is busy. Includes up to 20 gigs hotspot. Capable device required. Availability, speed, and coverage varies. See mintmobile.com for details. Welcome back to the show. For the rest of this episode, Professor Bilmes is going to help us track the numbers that the government has gotten pretty good at obscuring. The running cost of war, specifically the Iran war, will try to understand how money is being spent via the milestones of the conflict so far. I should note something you've probably noticed is that the passage of time doesn't work correctly anymore. By which I mean, you'll probably be surprised to learn that this conflict with Iran has been running for under seven weeks so far, not the many, many months it feels like. But the war does start to come into a kind of focus if you try to understand it through money spent, rather than through apocalyptic truth social posts. So Saturday, February 28th, the beginning. Good evening, and here we are. Weeks of failed diplomacy have exploded into full-blown war with Iran. Iran's supreme leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei, has been killed during the joint U.S.-Israel attack on Iran. We saw several sites hit in what Donald Trump has described on social media as major combat operations. February 28th, the United States and Israel launched strikes across Iran. Can you just give me a sense of like how the U.S. would have priced those strikes internally? Like, is there a budget? Do they agree on a budget ahead of time? Is it like there's no budget but they have an idea of a financial cutoff point? Like, what is the internal conversation? Oh, I don't think there's any internal conversation upfront about how much is the spending limit. Really? I think the internal conversation is about which weapons, from a tactical perspective, are best to hit which targets. And from that perspective, the performance of most of the U.S. weapons systems and the military has gone very well. I think that the costs, however, are enormous. And the costs that have been released so far are just the tip of the iceberg. Well, and so talk to me about some of those costs. Like, how do you think through the component parts that we are spending on? Okay, so on my model, I model short-term operating costs, medium-term costs, and long-term costs in three different buckets. Okay. So let's start with the upfront operating costs. We're getting a better picture about just how much Operation Epic Fury has cost the U.S. so far. $11.3 billion. That's the cost for the first six days of this war in iran that figure would amount to about 1.3 million dollars a minute the pentagon had released the number that they had spent 11.3 billion in the first week but that number is an underestimate because that is based on the historic cost of inventory but the replacement costs are higher so for example the tomahawks that we're firing now cost about 2 million but replacing them costs three and a half million the patriot missiles that are in the inventory are valued at one to two million but the newer interceptors cost four million and so on so the 11.3 billion is much closer to 15 or 16 billion and everyone who has looked at this number seriously has a much bigger number okay so your point is the same way if i crash my car and have to buy a new car it's not going to be the price that i bought that car for years ago right but they're pricing it as if so they're saying this is how much we spent based off old things that we had in our stockpile the real price already in the week one is higher because the replacement cost is higher right and in addition to underestimating it for that reason the reported costs also don't include the full repair and maintenance costs or the full costs of keeping the carrier strike groups at sea or the full costs of the fact that the troops have been deployed on the carrier strike groups long beyond their tours of duty and that kind of thing so okay and so just like when you're pricing week one of the war 11.3 billion dollars if it were a pie chart i'm guessing like most things in life the biggest slice is labor but i i don't know is it weapons or is it soldiers well i mean a carrier strike group which are as the president calls them flotillas i mean this is a huge range of ships and aircraft and submarines and and supply ships and all kinds of things keeping them there i mean that costs 10 million dollars a day when you're not at war and cost more than that during war so you have that as well as the cost of combat pay and so forth 50 000 people who are involved before we sent in marines and so forth and then this you know very very significant cost of all the munitions that have been used up i mean for example on friday an iranian drone severely damaged a boeing e3 airborne surveillance system and that alone cost 700 million dollars i mean so so you know there's these huge you know we've lost several planes through friendly fire and then keeping all the aircraft and the depreciation and so on for all the aircraft that are involved and then all the munitions the munitions are the things that get fired and then you have the the things that fire them so all of that together is the largest component so professor bilmes says the biggest part of the upfront operating cost of war is the war machine itself not the troops the cost for the weapons the missiles the cost to run a battleship but of course humans are expensive too and when you're paying for war human troops cost money not just in the short term through their immediate pay but in many long-term ways as well something that is not considered upfront but which becomes the cost of war is the fact that we have in the first two weeks 50 000 u.s troops who are exposed to toxins and contaminants which will make them eligible for in many cases lifetime disability benefits and medical care and so forth and that's a very very significant cost so just to put this in perspective right now in the government financial statements we owe 7.3 trillion dollars in just disability benefits not even counting medical care to living veterans you're basically veterans of the first gulf war iraq afghanistan and some from vietnam so it's a huge number and in the first gulf war which was a six-week war 37 of those troops have claimed and have been approved to receive lifetime disability benefits in large cases for inhalation of toxins and things like that i mean it was a ground war but a lot of the inhalants were similar to the things that some of the troops who are stationed in the theater now are inhaling and so if we assume that say a third of those 50 000 who are there and who are inhaling this stuff now for weeks on end will develop some kind of respiratory problems some of them more severely we've had several hundred who have been wounded more severely i mean that that leads to this long tail of conflict between the military and the armed forces and i think that's a really big problem and i think that's a really big problem and i think that's a really big problem of cost which go on for the next 30 40 years which they don't price into the war like even though we do and should take care of veterans long-term health concerns when they're saying it's going to cost this much money they're just deleting that from their budget they're totally deleting that we have no long-term mechanism for even really tracking those costs so if you think about social security liabilities that the us has there is a social security trust fund and we know like what the shortfall is but when it comes to veterans liabilities we have all these accrued liabilities but we don't really even know the full scale we know that the floor is 7.3 trillion which is just the like benefits we've already promised but not yet paid so to recap the pentagon had quoted an initial price for the war's first six days of 11.3 billion dollars the pentagon of course only counting short-term costs not medium or long-term so the pentagon of course was long-term so the pentagon of course was long-term there are significant costs so the pentagon of course was long-term there are significant costs of the war around rebuilding there are significant costs of the war around rebuilding damaged infrastructure if you think of the war around rebuilding damaged infrastructure if you think about the straits per se about the straits per se it's really too early to estimate what it's really too early to estimate what it's really too early to estimate what the long-term economic costs will be the long-term economic costs will be the long-term economic costs will be of the impact on energy prices of the impact on energy prices of the impact on energy prices and insurance and shipping and food and insurance and shipping and food and insurance and shipping and food prices and all those things but you can prices and all those things but you can prices and all those things but you can already see already see already see some costs for example the u.s through some costs for example the u.s through some costs for example the u.s through the treasury has opened the treasury has opened the treasury has opened a reinsurance facility in an effort to a reinsurance facility in an effort to a reinsurance facility in an effort to get oil tankers and other ships in the get oil tankers and other ships in the get oil tankers and other ships in the persian gulf moving the trump persian gulf moving the trump persian gulf moving the trump administration has announced it will administration has announced it will administration has announced it will provide 20 billion dollars in provide 20 billion dollars in provide 20 billion dollars in reassurance to shippers in the area reassurance to shippers in the area reassurance to shippers in the area since the u.s and the u.s has put 20 since the u.s and the u.s has put 20 since the u.s and the u.s has put 20 billion dollars into buying up and billion dollars into buying up and billion dollars into buying up and backstopping the insurance companies backstopping the insurance companies backstopping the insurance companies insurance president trump says u.s will insurance president trump says u.s will insurance president trump says u.s will provide government-backed insurance and provide government-backed insurance and provide government-backed insurance and naval escorts to help get those oil naval escorts to help get those oil naval escorts to help get those oil shipments moving again shipments moving again shipments moving again so i mean there are all these costs i so i mean there are all these costs i so i mean there are all these costs i mean the u.s has got major military mean the u.s has got major military mean the u.s has got major military sites that have sustained damages along sites that have sustained damages along sites that have sustained damages along with facilities like the u.s embassy in with facilities like the u.s embassy in with facilities like the u.s embassy in baghdad which was the world's most baghdad which was the world's most baghdad which was the world's most expensive embassy and that's four or expensive embassy and that's four or expensive embassy and that's four or five years of five years of five years of very significant costs to rebuild all very significant costs to rebuild all those u.s facilities not to mention the those u.s facilities not to mention the those u.s facilities not to mention the fact that there are also all these fact that there are also all these fact that there are also all these facilities in these countries which facilities in these countries which facilities in these countries which belong to the countries yeah and the u.s belong to the countries yeah and the u.s belong to the countries yeah and the u.s may may may be involved in helping to rebuild some be involved in helping to rebuild some be involved in helping to rebuild some of those like of those like of those like the reslaffan liquefied gas facility in the reslaffan liquefied gas facility in the reslaffan liquefied gas facility in qatar which is qatar which is qatar which is estimated to cost 26 billion dollars to estimated to cost 26 billion dollars to estimated to cost 26 billion dollars to repair repair repair so we see cost and there will be cost so we see cost and there will be cost so we see cost and there will be cost but it's too early to estimate the full but it's too early to estimate the full but it's too early to estimate the full economic impact professor bilmes thinks of this crop of professor bilmes thinks of this crop of professor bilmes thinks of this crop of costs as medium-term ones costs as medium-term ones costs as medium-term ones the post-war repairs for all those u.s the post-war repairs for all those u.s the post-war repairs for all those u.s military installations and embassies military installations and embassies military installations and embassies the cost to help fund similar repairs the cost to help fund similar repairs the pentagon had requested 200 billion the pentagon had requested 200 billion the pentagon had requested 200 billion more dollars for the war from the white more dollars for the war from the white more dollars for the war from the white house house house the next day reporters had questions for the next day reporters had questions for the next day reporters had questions for secretary of war pete hegseth secretary of war pete hegseth secretary of war pete hegseth there was a report last night that the there was a report last night that the there was a report last night that the pentagon asked the white house for 200 pentagon asked the white house for 200 pentagon asked the white house for 200 billion for iran war supplemental can billion for iran war supplemental can billion for iran war supplemental can you confirm this and can you explain you confirm this and can you explain you confirm this and can you explain why a package this large is necessary why a package this large is necessary why a package this large is necessary well first of all none of this would well first of all none of this would well first of all none of this would have been possible without midnight have been possible without midnight have been possible without midnight hammer without that audacious mission hammer without that audacious mission hammer without that audacious mission with very clear goals that did with very clear goals that did with very clear goals that did obliterate their ability to enrich and obliterate their ability to enrich and obliterate their ability to enrich and the capabilities they have on a dais the capabilities they have on a dais the capabilities they have on a dais with one american flag behind him a with one american flag behind him a with one american flag behind him a second folded up as a pocket square in second folded up as a pocket square in his breast pocket secretary hegsatz his breast pocket secretary hegsatz his breast pocket secretary hegsatz praises his team for last year's bombing praises his team for last year's bombing praises his team for last year's bombing operation in iran before turning to the operation in iran before turning to the operation in iran before turning to the specific subject at hand the price of specific subject at hand the price of specific subject at hand the price of this year's war yes now that you this year's war yes now that you this year's war yes now that you mention it here's why the price will be mention it here's why the price will be mention it here's why the price will be rising as well as far as uh 200 billion rising as well as far as uh 200 billion rising as well as far as uh 200 billion dollars i think that number could move dollars i think that number could move obviously uh it it takes uh obviously uh it it takes uh obviously uh it it takes uh it takes money to kill bad guys so we're it takes money to kill bad guys so we're it takes money to kill bad guys so we're going back to congress and our folks going back to congress and our folks going back to congress and our folks there to ensure that we're Properly funded for what's been done, for what we may have to do in the future. Ensure that our ammunition is everything's refilled and not just refilled, but above and beyond. I mean, President Trump, as he said, rebuilt the military in his first term, didn't think he'd use it as dynamically in his second, but he had. So thank goodness he did that. And an investment like this is meant to say, hey, we'll replace anything that was spent. And now that we're reviving our defense industrial base and rebuilding the arsenal of freedom and cutting deals like our great deputy secretaries here is doing. Long lead times on exquisite munitions. We're going to be refilled faster than anyone imagined. I asked Professor Bilmes what she'd made of this press briefing on the lengthening national bill for all of our exquisite munitions. I think the $200 billion that they came up with was just a confirmation of what I've been saying. That these numbers like $11.3 billion that they were reporting the first few days was a significant underestimate. So I was not at all surprised. That they asked for $200 billion. I think that what is even scarier is the fact that the president has asked for a 50% increase, even before all this happened, a 50% increase in the defense budget, which would take it from $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion. Oh, my God. And Congress was kind of super lukewarm to this idea before this war. But I think that the president will be able to get a higher increase. He won't get $1.5 trillion, but maybe on top of the $200 billion of emergency money for replacing inventory and everything, we'll get a higher long-term increase to the Defense Department. And once you get that increase in the base, that goes on and on. Right. They don't give the money back next year. Right. They didn't need it. The other thing I didn't understand about that announcement. In theory, the president goes to Congress to fund a war. He had chosen not to do that. Why at this point are they telling us the price tag of a thing when they are just spending money as they want to? Well, almost everybody who looks at this is concerned about the inventory levels. The U.S. had a finite number of particularly these interceptors. These are the things that intercept incoming drones. And the Iranians produce very cheap drones for $20,000, maybe $30,000. And we use $2 million, $3 million interceptors to down these drones. So this is highly asymmetric and really just kind of shows why the Iranians have been able to severely damage us, if not so much in terms of the human loss, but economically. Right. Right. Right. Right. We've taken a major hit because so much of our inventory has been used up on this. And there are many people within the military in particular who are concerned about the fact that this means our overall inventory of all of these weapons, many of which are defensive, intercepting weapons, are therefore depleted. So we already depleted about 20% of our high-altitude interceptor drones last summer in the 12-day operation Midnight Hammer with Iran. So now we further deplete. So there was a huge rush to, we've got to spend the money, we've got to get these big contracts out so that we can replenish the inventory and more. And is that unusual to spend out our inventory in such a way? Like, is that sort of specific Trump planning or is that something that happens routinely? I think that we have seen now in Ukraine, Russia, and now again, that the nature of warfare has changed somewhat. So even at the beginning. And midway through the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, we were not in the era yet of these sort of advanced, hypersonic, AI-driven weaponry that we are now. And we see now a war going on between largely unmanned weapons that are attacking targets. Very complex, high-performing, precision-driven weaponry. In this case. We've seen with Iran that they can produce large, large numbers of relatively cheap weapons and they can just send tons of them out. And we were not really prepared for that. We have expensive weapons that are really, really good at precision and are wildly expensive to produce. And we're sending them for every one of these very cheap weapons. I mean, like we have a kind of a one-size-fits-all. So we had this number of high-altitude interceptors. We've reduced by half our inventory, so we need to replace it. And the new ones are going to be even better. I was speaking to Professor Bilmes on April 9th. By that point, what had really changed about the war was this. President Trump, who's actually quite sensitive to what is popular with the public, could now tell that his war was over. He'd made a bet it would be quick and clean. It was neither. And worse, the dynamics that American presidents rely on to make wars appear cheap had slightly broken down here. The closing of the Strait of Hormuz had raised oil prices. And the gas pump is one price every American notices. Trump had started freaking out, first menacing Iran online with allusions to nuclear war. Donald Trump has issued his most apocalyptic threat yet. The president of the United States deciding to deal openly. If incoherently, in the language of genocide. He said, quote, After that, normally stalwart MAGA media stars started openly turning on Trump. Alex Jones, Nick Fuentes, even Tucker Carlson. Those people who are in direct contact with the president need to say, no, I'll resign. I'll do whatever. I'll do whatever I can do legally to stop this because this is insane. And if given the order, I'm not carrying it out. Figure out the codes on the football yourself. Because everything hangs in the balance right now. This is not hysteria. This is 100% real. It was a moment where living in America felt like living on the brink of something awful. And then, late on April 7th, a two-week ceasefire was announced. A ceasefire which felt, which feels, immensely fragile. Iran and the U.S. agreed to a two-week ceasefire less than two hours before the war. President Trump's deadline to strike the country's bridges and power plants. After 38 days of joint U.S.-Israeli military operations against Iran, known as Operation Epic Fury, that agreement announced this evening by President Trump. Although the details of that agreement remain clouded in contradictory statements between the two sides. And there is real uncertainty over whether that 14-day truce will actually happen. Why, again, are we at war with Iran? I said at the beginning, that this story was not about the moral cost of war. And it's not. Even though it's hard to miss how quickly that cost has risen. The more than 100 children who died when the U.S. accidentally bombed their school. The 3.2 million Iranians displaced from their homes. The day that our president threatened an entire people with genocide over the internet. Those are the costs we all know matter. But Professor Bilmes' work suggests that if we want to avoid wars like this in the future, the more persuasive costs to track still might be the narrower one. Because traditionally, wars don't end for moral reasons. They end for pragmatic ones. Historically, wars ended when countries ran out of blood or treasure. And if we pay for every war on credit card and never think about the treasure side, one of the most basic deterrents to perpetual war is missing. It's Kant's fourth principle. For staying at peace, do not borrow. You know, if you borrow, that leads to war. And that leads to prolonging war. Because it makes the costs invisible. So it's a long-standing concept. But in terms of what's happening today, if the costs are not felt, particularly in a situation where there is no draft and where only a very tiny percentage of the population is directly fighting, then we're not going to be able to fight. We have a situation where we don't fight and we don't pay. You know, so there's sort of no, there's no pain. Now, people feel the pain of this war in terms of gas prices. Not as much as they do in most of the rest of the world. But even that is a cost that the government has tried to suppress by lifting sanctions on Iranian oil and Russian oil. So, you know, that's the craziness of this situation. I mean, I take your point, which is just the more you, you want a citizenry that to some degree sees the bill and pays a cost for war. Without that, as the cost becomes more invisible, the likelihood of conflict just goes up. Right. And I think that this is important and it's a bipartisan shift, which is bad. So, for example, when President Biden decided to support Ukraine and he fought hard in Congress to get money for Ukraine, He also at the same time to make absolutely sure that public wouldn't feel any impact at the gas pump, he released half of the strategic petroleum reserve to make sure that we didn't feel anything. Now, if he had done what had been done in all previous wars, going back historically in the U.S., he might have said, this is so important, this is so critical to freedom that we're asking everybody to pay two cents more per gallon to support Ukraine. But, I mean, that kind of thinking was anathema, right? I mean, and now you see going even further in the Trump administration saying, you know, not only are we going to do this war, but we're going to vastly increase military budget and we're going to cut taxes even more. I mean, there's no construct at all in which anyone is saying this costs a lot of money and we should therefore pay for it now. And when you go back, for example, to President Truman or President Roosevelt or President Wilson or whatever, there's no construct at all in which this costs a lot of money and we should therefore pay for it now. And when you go back, for example, they had hundreds of speeches to the public saying, this is so important, we have to pay for it now. We can't pass these costs on to our children. The worst thing we can do is bestow a legacy to our children of paying for this war. We're going to pay as we go. So we have the opposite situation now. Professor Linda Bilmes, she's the author of the forthcoming book, The Ghost Budget. As of today, her minimum estimate for what the Iran war will end up costing us is $1 trillion. For $1 trillion, the U.S. government could fund free school lunch for every K-12 student in America for over 40 years. But if the government wanted to do something flashier, it could take $1 trillion and buy every single sports team in the NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL. It would then have about $500 billion left over, which could give us a lot of money. The U.S. government could use to fund NASA for 20 years. This episode of Search Engine is brought to you in part by Vanguard. To all the financial advisors listening, let's talk bonds for a minute. Capturing value in fixed income is not easy. Bond markets are massive, murky, and let's be real, lots of firms throw a couple flashy funds your way and call it a day. But not Vanguard. They deliver institutional quality strategies across a lineup of over 80 bond funds, powered by a 200-person global team of sector specialists, analysts, and traders. Navigate the complex bond market with a powerhouse that uses its scale to spot opportunities across diverse sectors, maturities, and geographies without taking reckless gambles. Instead of chasing high-risk returns that create a total rollercoaster, Vanguard prioritizes steady, dependable consistency to set the standard for smart, fixed-income investing. So if you're looking to give your clients consistent results year in and year out, go see the record for yourself at vanguard.com slash audio. That's vanguard.com slash audio. All investing is subject to risk. Vanguard Marketing Corporation Distributor. This episode of Search Engine is brought to you by Vanguard. This episode of Search Engine is brought to you in part by Rosetta Stone Sapphire. I've always dreamed of landing in Tokyo and effortlessly chatting up local chefs at tiny ramen shops, but standard memorization apps always leave me freezing up when it's time to actually speak. That's why I was so excited to hear about Rosetta Stone Sapphire, their biggest launch in over a decade. It takes Rosetta Stone's famous research-backed method and pairs it with incredible new technology. My favorite feature is chat missions, which turn real-life practice into a real-life experience. I've had a lot of fun doing my own research, and it's been a lot of fun to work with Rosetta Stone Sapphire. This episode of Search Engine is brought to you in part by Scribe. Most teams don't struggle to grow because of budget or headcount. They struggle because the knowledge of how things actually gets done lives in a few people's heads, and nobody has time to write it all down. That's the problem Scribe was built to fix. Scribe is a workflow AI platform trusted by 94% of the Fortune 500. You just do the thing the way you normally do it, and Scribe automatically captures the workflow as it happens, including the steps and screenshots, and turns it into a guide to the next level. So, say you're the one person at your company who knows how to run the monthly expense report? Do it once with Scribe, and now there's a guide, ready the next time someone else needs to run it. Scribe also automatically redacts sensitive information like names and account numbers from every screenshot. Anyone following the guide gets real-time on-screen guidance, showing them exactly where to click inside the actual tool. And Scribe doesn't just document workflows. It uses AI to identify redundant steps and opportunities to simplify or automate. To see what Scribe could look like for your org, head to scribe.how.com and mention Search Engine for your first month of Scribe capture-free on select plans. That's S-C-R-I-B-E dot how slash search. and mixing by Armin Bazarian. Our production intern is Piper Dumont. This episode was fact-checked by Madeline LaPlante-Duby. Our executive producer is Leah Reese-Dennis. Thanks to the rest of the team at Odyssey. Rob Morandi, Craig Cox, Eric Donnelly, Colin Gaynor, Maura Curran, Josefina Francis, Kurt Courtney, and Hilary Schaaf. If you have a business and would like to advertise on our show, please shoot us an email, pjvote85 at gmail.com, subject line, advertising. If you're a listener and you'd like to support our show, get ad-free episodes, zero reruns, and bonus episodes, please consider signing up for incognito mode. You can find it at searchengine.show. Thank you for listening. We'll see you soon. This episode of Search Engine is brought to you in part by Vistaprint. As a small business owner running a podcast, I'm always looking for authentic ways to connect with listeners, which makes Vistaprint such a valued expert partner for us. I was on their site the other day, brainstorming new things we could make for our show, and the creative momentum took over. I ended up designing Search Engine stickers, and I tried to make a sign for our office. When your physical branding looks this sharp and professional, it immediately communicates credibility and shows your audience that you mean business. Vistaprint truly helps every dollar go further, delivering premium quality and design support that make your company look established without breaking the bank. Whether you need your design tweaked or a total rebrand, Vistaprint has you covered with the expert service small businesses deserve. That's why over 17 million businesses trust them every day to bring their ideas to life. Vistaprint. Print your possible. Right now, new customers get 20% off with code NEW20 at vistaprint.com. That's 20% off at vistaprint.com using code NEW20.