Once again, the invaluable McClatchy rules. Here is a Q &A session with Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes on their book, The Three Trillion Dollar War. These two passages caught my eye:

Q: You’d also have to put $3T into context. Over the 70 or so years these costs will be incurred, the cumulative US GDP will be roughly $2,000 – 4,000 trillion (quadrillions!). The Federal budget is usually about 20% of GDP. So that’s $400 – 800 trillion in Federal revenue. Entitlements (Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, etc.) will consume over 50% of the budget. That’s $200 – 400 trillion. So, next to that, $3T isn’t so shocking—especially when the majority of this money is recirculated into the US economy. Again, I’m not advocating the war or spending $3T to “win” it. I’m just questioning, given the proper context, if the amount is so over the top.
Submitted by Dave from Washington DC

A: No, the money is not recirculated into the economy. It mostly goes to pay Filipino and Nepali contractors in Iraq to do laundry, cook meals, drive trucks and buses, clean dormitories, repair the 42,000 light vehicles stationed there and of course to pay world oil prices for fuel to keep our vehcicles,tanks, humvees, MRAPs, helicopters and aircraft fueled. The US is a wealthy country, but even we cannot afford to squander $3 trillion into a war that has very little benefit for the US economy. If we were spending that money in the US - building our infrastructure, for example, then it would have a net positive multiplier for the US.

And this on contractors:

Q: How much money could we have saved if we did not have "contractors" doing the jobs that used to be done by our military? (i.e. security, food & laundry services, construction, etc.)
Submitted by dave from anaheim, ca

A: It is hard to get a precise number. It appears that, at least in many case, using contractors at least doubles the cost. Part of the reason that it is difficult to get a precise number is explained in the book: the government appears to be financing both the insurance premia for death and disability and much of the benefits (as strange as that may seem.) There is no full accounting. The overall cost of using the contractors is, however, far greater. We have created competition for our military--contractors doing the same work as soldiers are paid far more. This is bad for morale, but it also means that when their service time is over, many leave to work for the better paying contractors. In response, the military is force to pay big re-enlistment bonuses. But the contractors have cost us in other ways: they focus on minimizing costs and maximizing profits, and those objectives are often not consistent with our broader strategic objectives, as we explain in our book.

It's just the same as the bailout: The point, and the only point, is to rip off the taxpayers for this or that set of golfing buddies. It's called a kleptocracy because it klepts.