Costs of War Project

Costs of War Project
Filetime · CC BY-SA 4.0 · source
Name	Costs of War Project
Formation	2011
Type	Research project
Headquarters	Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, Brown University
Leaders	Neta C. Crawford (Director)
Affiliations	Brown University, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs

Costs of War Project

The Costs of War Project is a long-term research initiative based at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University that documents the human, economic, and political consequences of post-9/11 conflicts including the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021), the Iraq War, and related global counterterrorism activities. It synthesizes data drawn from government reports, academic studies, and international organizations to estimate casualties, fiscal costs, and downstream impacts on veterans, refugees, and reconstruction in regions such as Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia. The project’s outputs have been cited in debates involving policymakers, journalists, and advocacy groups concerned with U.S. interventions and allied operations in NATO theaters, Coalition actions, and counterinsurgency campaigns.

Overview

The project was launched by scholars at the Watson Institute including Neta C. Crawford and the late Andrew Bacevich to provide consolidated estimates across theaters such as the Global War on Terror, the Iraq War (2003–2011), and the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021). Its work aligns with scholarship found at institutions like the New America Foundation, the Brookings Institution, and the RAND Corporation while engaging datasets from the United Nations, the World Bank, and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. The project covers human costs—including civilian deaths and combatant casualties—financial totals such as appropriated war budgets and interest payments, and indirect burdens like veteran care and refugee assistance tied to conflicts like the Syrian civil war and interventions in Libya.

Methodology and Scope

Researchers combine open-source documents from the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of State, and the U.S. Congress with casualty tracking by groups such as Iraq Body Count, Physicians for Human Rights, and the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan. Fiscal accounting incorporates appropriations from legislation including wartime supplemental bills passed by the United States Congress and analyses from the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office. The project employs epidemiological methods similar to those used in studies by The Lancet and demographic techniques used by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation to estimate excess mortality and displacement in cases like Mosul and Aleppo. Its geographic scope spans theaters with direct U.S. involvement and partner campaigns documented by NATO reports and CENTCOM releases.

Major Findings and Estimates

Major outputs include multi-decade estimates of direct budgetary expenditures, long-term veteran care costs administered via the Department of Veterans Affairs, and regional reconstruction obligations involving entities such as the United States Agency for International Development and the World Food Programme. The project’s casualty tallies for conflicts including operations against ISIS and campaigns in Afghanistan have been referenced alongside counts from the International Committee of the Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, and the Amnesty International reports. Financial totals published by the project have been compared with projections from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the Council on Foreign Relations, and academic analyses in journals like International Security and Foreign Affairs.

Funding and Organizational Structure

The initiative is based at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs and collaborates with scholars at institutions such as Columbia University, Tufts University, and Harvard University. Funding has come from foundations and donors with histories of supporting policy research, comparable to grant relationships seen at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Ford Foundation, and the Open Society Foundations. Project staff include academics, researchers, and fellows who have served at or consulted with bodies like the U.S. Department of Defense, the United Nations Development Programme, and the International Rescue Committee.

Criticism and Controversies

Scholars and commentators from venues such as The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and The Washington Post have critiqued specific methodological choices, disputing estimates of excess mortality or the apportionment of indirect costs, akin to debates seen over studies published in The Lancet and critiques by analysts at the Heritage Foundation and the Hoover Institution. Critics argue about counterfactual baselines similar to disputes in literature on the Vietnam War and methodological transparency debated in forums like the American Political Science Association and the American Economic Association. Supporters counter with comparisons to peer-reviewed work from the Journal of Conflict Resolution and policy briefs from the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Impact and Policy Influence

The project’s reports have informed congressional hearings in the United States Congress, testimony before committees such as the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and briefings for staff at the Department of Defense and the Department of State. Its findings are cited by advocacy organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and think tanks like the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft in debates over appropriations, withdrawal timelines used in discussions about Operation Enduring Freedom, and veteran benefits administered under laws like the GI Bill. The project’s data have been used in media reporting by outlets such as BBC News, The Guardian, and Al Jazeera to contextualize the long-term consequences of post-9/11 interventions.

Category:Research projects