Case in point:
As DID's past coverage has noted, the RESET process takes used vehicles apart, inspects the parts, then replaces any defective parts and refurbishes the equipment to like-new condition. Sometimes upgrades are also performed. RESET and related processes like remanufacture/upgrades are being performed on M1 Abrams tanks, Bradley IFV/CFVs, HMMWV jeeps, et. al., and even attack helicopters. It usually takes place when the vehicles return from the front lines in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations where sand damage and increased wear have taken their toll.
Many of these vehicles were also produced in the 1980s, and are reaching an age where this would be a wise measure regardless.
Refurbishing is necessary because the war causes wear and tear. The upgrades are good to have but are not a direct cost of the war. But that is how the ledgers are written up.
Oh, and also keep in mind that one of the reasons our casualties are so low in our campaigns in Iraq and Afghnistan is that we spend lavishly. It is far cheaper to send a new private into a room to check it out than to use all manner of technology to do so whenever possible or to equip the private with as much equipment as possible for him to survive that peek if a soldier or Marine must enter. But the human cost of saving money would be pretty high. So complain about casualties or complain about spending--but try not to do both in the same breath.
And we haven't even begun to explore the costs of retreating from Iraq.
UPDATE: Strategypage notes this cost of the war, too:
A lot of those billions are also going into research and development. Nothing sneaky here, the R&D is directly related to conditions in Iraq (dealing with roadside bombs and the special intelligence needs for running down terrorist groups.) The new techniques developed include lots of computers and cutting-edge sensors. This stuff will be useful in any kind of war, and the army is getting the money to develop and build this advanced gear years before they could expect it in peacetime. Moreover, they can take the new equipment and test it under combat conditions. So, while the war is expensive, the army is seeing to it that lots of the money goes to fund long range needs.
Given that this money is going to keeping troops alive in combat, I find it amusing (in a horrified sort of way, of course) that the people complaining about the cost of the war are generally the same people who ignorantly or maliciously charge that our troops have gone to war poorly equipped or trained.
