The Cost of the Post-9/11 Security State Is $21 Trillion, Report Finds

The war on terror has fueled 20 years of massive military and other spending.

Lcpl. Nicholas Guevara/U.S. Mari/Planet Pix via ZUMA Press Wire

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

The war in Afghanistan is coming to a close just days before the 20th anniversary of its preceding event: the 9/11 attacks. Even as the US government pledges to keep attacking targets in the country there—producing horrific collateral damage—the military is out, and we’re beginning to take stock of its enormous cost.

There are the typical numbers you might see, specific to the war in Afghanistan: $2.3 trillion spent; 2,443 American service members killed, along with 3,846 US contractors; and an estimated 71,000 Afghan and Pakistani civilians killed. Widening the scope, analyses of data from all the US post-9/11 war-on-terror violence paint an even starker picture: $6.4 trillion in direct spending on wars and war-related costs; 800,000 killed directly in the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere; 38 million displaced; and “counterterrorism” operations in 85 countries.

But that’s still not a full accounting of US foreign and domestic military and related activity in the wake of 9/11. A new study from the National Priorities Project at the progressive Institute for Policy Studies calculates that over the 20 years since 9/11, the United States has spent $21 trillion on “militarization, surveillance, and repression,” when analyzed holistically.

“Twenty years later, the War on Terror has fed a sprawling security apparatus that was designed for counterterrorism but has also taken on immigration, crime, and drugs,” the report’s authors wrote.

The policy and spending choices made in this era have “turbo-charged militarism and xenophobia” internationally and domestically, they wrote, and have “driven some of the deepest divisions in US politics, including the growing threats of white supremacy and authoritarianism.”

And although some of the ill effects are hard to measure monetarily, there are figures that can be cited, the paper argues. For the military, the cost has been $16 trillion, including $7.2 trillion for military contracts. Additionally, the authors tabulated $3 trillion for veterans’ programs, $948 billion for the Department of Homeland Security, and $731 billion for federal law enforcement.

Some may find the $21 trillion figure over-inclusive, since most of these agencies would have spent considerable sums even in the absence of the 9/11 attacks. But the authors argue that spending on federal law enforcement programs is relevant “because the militarization of police and the proliferation of mass incarceration both owe much to the activities and influences of federal law enforcement. The same agencies use the same militarized tactics to combat terrorism, crime, and narcotics.” Additionally, they argue, federal law enforcement agencies operate domestically and globally and frequently collaborate with the Department of Defense.

“Over the last 20 years,” they wrote, “[defense] contractors took in more than $7.2 trillion in DoD funds, compared to only $4.7 trillion in the 20 years before that, which included the peak years of the Cold War and nuclear weapons.”

The Department of Homeland Security is included because of its post-9/11 origins and mission, while the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which is part of DHS, is not included. Federal law enforcement makes the cut due to its heavy counterterrorism and border security missions. “The same agencies use the same militarized tactics to combat terrorism, crime, and narcotics,” the authors wrote. 

The authors argued that for far less money, the country could have funded major projects such as fully decarbonizing the US electric grid, wiping away student debt, guaranteeing preschool for young children, and increasing pay for teachers. Post-9/11 spending on the War on Terror and its outgrowths “is proof of concept that the US government has both the means and the political will to act on its priorities,” the authors wrote, making the case that a different path was possible.

“The militarization of US domestic and foreign policy over the past two decades has wreaked havoc,” the authors wrote. “It has cost lives and well-being for those caught up in our foreign wards and our domestic crackdowns alike, and has cost a fortune in the process.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate