"Operation Iraqi Freedom" Vs. WWII

In the news recently there was a controversy about estimates that we will have spent 2.4 trillion dollars on the Iraq war before it's over. I did some research into WW2 and found one estimate that stated in today's dollars, America spent about 3 trillion total.
Obviously this perplexed me how we can have spent nearly the same amount on two conflicts whose scale was so obviously disproportionate.

The purpose of this thread was to entertain anyone's thoughts/opinions on this subject and if you've done more in depth research, or found better sources to post them up.

I understand that it is expensive, but how have we spent so much on a conflict against one country that has neither an organized military nor an established infrastructure remotely comparable to the forces we fought in WW2? It doesn't add up for me. Where is all the money going?

Technology, we didn't have those big expensive missiles and stealth jets and satelite equipment back in WWII.....

Does it cost more to send a stealth bomber loaded with armaments to strike a target today than it did back in the 40's to organize an entire regiment of soldiers/tanks/support aircraft to launch the same level of assault?

.

But the cost of transporting and outfitting an entire regimen, compared to firing a cruise missile?

I dunno, doesn't seem proportional in the way your describing it. How can you so easily accept the fact that a "conflict" against ONE country which doesn't even possess a respectable military can compare to a WORLD WAR? I don't see it.

a "conflict" against ONE country which doesn't even possess a respectable military can compare to a WORLD WAR?

I did factor inflation :dunno:

Do you think it's acceptable that:


Even if it IS significantly more expensive, the scale of those two conflicts is hardly comparable, save the apparent cost to execute.

I understand that it is expensive, but how have we spent so much on a conflict against one country that has neither an organized military nor an established infrastructure remotely comparable to the forces we fought in WW2? It doesn't add up for me. Where is all the money going?

I understand that it is expensive, but how have we spent so much on a conflict against one country that has neither an organized military nor an established infrastructure remotely comparable to the forces we fought in WW2? It doesn't add up for me. Where is all the money going?

Private civilian contractors. We are spending billions a day paying them to do the exact same thing that in the past the military would do themselves.

It's a counter-insurgency. THEY ARE ALL MESSY. And they've been fought almost since the beginning of human history. :dunno:

he was just saying that money was being wasted, i have no idea how what you just said has anything to do with what he was talking about!

Your analysis is interesting, but a bit skewed. Consider VIETNAM, its cost in life and treasure, duration, outcome for the US, and outcome for the Vietnamese who helped America. Counter-insurgencies are costly, unpopular, and indecisive. Yet they must be fought, from time to time.