There were three primary drivers of the Ghost Budget: unusual economic conditions, congressional budget dysfunction, and military assertiveness.
By Linda Bilmes, Just Security
Editor’s Note: This article is part of our Ending Perpetual War Symposium. The article derives from a chapter in Brianna Rosen, ed., Perpetual War and International Law: Legacies of the War on Terror (Oxford University Press, forthcoming 2024).
The post-9/11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were enabled by a historically unprecedented combination of budgetary procedures and financing methods. Unlike all previous U.S. wars, the post-9/11 wars were funded without higher taxes or non-war budget cuts, and through a separate budget. This set of circumstances – one that I have termed the “Ghost Budget” – enabled successive administrations to prosecute the wars with limited congressional oversight and minimal transparency and public debate. I adopted the name “Ghost Budget” because the term “ghost” appeared frequently in post-9/11 government reports in reference to funds allocated to people, places, or projects that turned out to be phantoms.

The Ghost Budget was the result of an interplay between changes in the U.S. budgetary process, a more assertive military establishment, and the conditions in global capital markets. It has had far-reaching implications for the conduct and course of the post-9/11 wars and for defense policy today.
Funding the Post-9/11 Wars
The “Ghost Budget” was the biggest budgetary anomaly in U.S. history. Prior to 9/11, U.S. wars were financed through a mixture of higher taxes and budget cuts, and funded mostly through the regular defense budget. One third of the costs of World War I and half the costs of World War II were met through higher taxes. During World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt described paying taxes as a “patriotic duty” as he raised taxes on business, imposed a “wealth tax,” raised inheritance taxes, and expanded the number of income taxpayers to roughly 80 percent of the workforce by 1945. Wars in Korea and Vietnam largely followed a similar pattern, with President Harry Truman pledging to make the country “pay as you go” for the Korean War. War funding was also a central issue in the Vietnam War, which ended when Congress refused to appropriate money for the South Vietnamese military.
Recent Posts
How Many People Do You Have to Kill to Get a Peace Prize?
November 7, 2025
Take Action Now The Nobel Peace Prize is going to a Venezuelan advocate for deadly sanctions against — and an invasion of — Venezuela.By David…
New York’s Largest ICE Prison Dogged By Allegations Of Shoddy Medical Care
November 6, 2025
Take Action Now “I shouldn’t have lost my fingers,” one detainee said of ICE guards’ failure to get him the care a doctor prescribed.By J. Dale…
Zohran’s Victory Proves That Public Campaign Financing Works
November 6, 2025
Take Action Now Zohran Mamdani’s mayoral victory shows that we don’t just need better candidates and stronger messaging. We need public campaign…
How To Build On Zohran Mamdani’s Win In Congress
November 5, 2025
Take Action Now Mamdani’s victory isn’t just a tactical blueprint; it’s a strategic mandate for 2026 and beyond.By Geoff Simpson, Zeteo The…




