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 Status Quo Democrats Could Create Another Trump
September 10, 2026
Take Action Now A new study suggests Democrats’ broken promises won’t just cost them elections — they could fuel an even more dangerous MAGA…
The Pentagon Asked OpenAI for Artificial Intelligence Designed to Rarely Say No
September 9, 2026
Take Action Now The U.S. military’s desire for an AI tool with “minimal refusal rates” was revealed through a FOIA lawsuit filed by The Intercept.…
Real History: After 9/11, the ‘War on Terror’ Was a War of Terror
September 9, 2026
Take Action Now Through it all, the ongoing war effort that began in autumn 2001 had an implicit throughline in dominant media and politics: while…
Abolish the Board of Peace. Try the Table of Peace.
September 8, 2026
Take Action Now I asked people to pretend to be the United States Congress for 10 seconds. (Many of them were disgusted at the thought but I assured…




