ASG Blog
-
Time for a New Strategy in Afghanistan
Published: May 11th, 2012
Pentagon officials and pundits enjoy telling us that if we stay the course we can still win the war in Afghanistan. This argument directly contradicts the facts. Ten years and over $500 billion later, the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan isn’t working. This strategy doesn’t require more patience – or more blood and treasure. It needs to be changed.
However, Defense Department officials are sticking to the company line. Every year DOD reports to Congress on progress in Afghanistan. This year’s report, released last week, was largely overlooked, partly because of media flurry surrounding the US-Afghan Strategic Agreement, and partly because there’s really no news here – the new report sounds very similar to previous reports.
“We continue to build on that progress [made since last year’s report]. Challenges remain.” said Assistant Secretary of Defense Captain John Kirby. In other words, DOD says that the strategy is working – if we keep funding the war, we just might win.
Defense officials are backed up by analysts who argue that “with patience on all sides, we can still reach a tolerable outcome.” Of course, supporters of extending the war rarely mention that their policy recommendations will cost billions of dollars and the lives of U.S. soldiers.
The current strategy isn’t just expensive; it’s also ineffective. IED attacks set a record high last year. Millions of dollars are being wasted on unsustainable reconstruction projects. Afghan soldiers are turning on NATO counterparts. Most disturbingly, the real news about the Afghanistan war doesn’t make it back to the American public.
Despite efforts to hide the fact that there’s been no real progress, Americans know a failed strategy when they see one. The latest public opinion poll shows that two-thirds of respondents disapprove of the US-Afghan Strategic Agreement, which commits billions of aid dollars to Afghanistan and allows for a U.S. military presence in Afghanistan for the next ten years.
Ten years is long enough. Rather than wasting another $500 billion on an unnecessary war, we should be investing in programs that really matter.
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: $80 Million Wasted on Poorly Planned Project
Published: May 10th, 2012
This week The Washington Post reported on another multi-million dollar boondoggle in U.S. aid to Afghanistan. The $80 million project, envisioned as the center of U.S. diplomatic efforts in Afghanistan, was cancelled due to significant security concerns that had been overlooked as officials pushed the project through.
This comes as no surprise; it’s just one of many failed reconstruction projects that have cost U.S. taxpayers millions. And this reckless spending seems likely to continue. The House of Representatives is on track to fully fund the Pentagon’s war budget request of $90 billion for 2012. Included in that request is billions for the Afghan security forces, ongoing U.S. military operations, and questionable Afghanistan infrastructure projects.
ARTICLES
5/9/12
Poll: Support for Afghan war at new low
AP by Anne Gearan
Support for the war in Afghanistan has reached a new low, with only 27 percent of Americans saying they back the effort and about half of those who oppose the war saying the continued presence of American troops in Afghanistan is doing more harm than good.5/5/12
Obama: End Afghanistan war, rebuild USA
USA Today by David Jackson
Pledging to have U.S. troops out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014, President Obama said Saturday that money used to finance that long war can help rebuild the USA and pay down its debt.5/7/12
Afghanistan commander: ‘My sound bite is, we’re being successful’
National Journal by Michael Hirsh
Gen. John Allen, commander of U.S. and international forces in Afghanistan, on Monday rejected statements made by the heads of the House and Senate Intelligence committees that the Taliban has grown stronger since President Obama’s surge of additional U.S. troops, and he suggested that “sound bites” from Washington were not helping.OPINION
5/3/12
Why are we in Afghanistan for the long haul?
Washington Post by Eugene Robinson
The United States has agreed to support Afghanistan’s social and economic development and its security institutions through 2024. Does this sound like nation-building to you? Because that’s what it sounds like to me.5/2/12
More questions than answers on Afghanistan
CNN by Richard Haass
Past sacrifice is a poor justification for continued sacrifice unless it is warranted. The truth is that while the United Sates still has interests in Afghanistan, none of them, other than opposing al-Qaeda, rises to the level of vital. And this vital interest can be addressed with a modest commitment of troops and dollars. -
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: Agreement Allows 10-Year Extension of US Presence in Afghanistan
Published: May 4th, 2012
President Obama made headlines this week with a surprise trip to Kabul to sign the US-Afghanistan Strategic Partnership Agreement. The agreement made explicit what has been understood all along: the US commitment to Afghanistan will continue after 2014. What the agreement fails to do, however, is define what that commitment will look like. In particular, while restating that the US does not seek permanent bases in Afghanistan, the agreement does not specify how many US troops will stay to advise and assist the Afghan security forces after 2014. The US has already accomplished its strategic goals in Afghanistan. Leaving troops there is unnecessary, a waste of taxpayer dollars. The US public knows this; some members of Congress do too. Other policymakers should take note.
From ASG
4/30/12
USAID Spent $400 Million In Afghanistan “Despite Uncertain Results”
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
When a boondoggle like this is allowed to continue unchecked, it makes us wonder about other Afghanistan reconstruction projects. The Local Governance and Community Development program accounted for about one-third of total amount – $1.1 billion – that USAID has spent on Afghanistan reconstruction. What happened to the other $700 million? Were other aid projects just as ineffective as this one?ARTICLES
5/3/12
US-Afghanistan 10-year security compact has loopholes for both nations
Fox News
The 10-year security agreement signed this week by President Obama and Afghan President Hamid Karzai is filled with fuzzy language and loopholes — and stands as more of a guide than a contract for the U.S.-Afghan relationship in the post-war years.5/3/12
In Afghanistan, Obama says wars of 9/11 nearing an end
McClatchy Newspapers
President Barack Obama told Americans Tuesday that after a decade of post-September 11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, “we can see the light of a new day” – hours after signing an agreement that extended the U.S. commitment to Afghanistan.OPINION
5/3/12
Rebuild America, not Afghanistan
USA Today by Sen. Jeff Merkley
There is no question that al-Qaeda is dangerous and that we need to stay on the offensive. That, after all, was the mission that brought us to Afghanistan in the first place. But trying to craft a modern nation-state in Afghanistan does not further that mission. It’s time to bring our troops home.4/30/12
Finish Off Al Qaeda. Stop Trying to Fix Afghanistan
The New York Time by Eric Greitens
Because many Qaeda fighters were based and sheltered in Afghanistan in 2001, some Americans argued that to make victory permanent we had to not just oust the Taliban government, but also build a democracy, a modern economy and an effective national security apparatus for Afghanistan. It was like arguing that to put out a forest fire, we had to pave the forest.5/1/12
Get U.S. troops out of Afghanistan
CNN by Rep. Keith Ellison
But with our core mission of decimating al Qaeda in Afghanistan accomplished, is the continuing military presence until 2014 worth the cost? More than 1,900 Americans have died in Afghanistan, and more than 15,000 have been wounded…Instead of spending billions on a war that is not making us safer, we could better advance U.S. national security by providing greater support to people in Middle Eastern countries fighting for freedom and democracy.5/1/12
Obama Visits Afghanistan, Perpetuates Misguided Policy
The Cato Institute by Chris Preble
A majority of Americans want all U.S. troops out of Afghanistan within a year, and a large-scale military presence isn’t needed to continue to hunt al Qaeda. The organization is a shadow of its former self, and has shifted its operations and tactics to many other places. We are still spending tens of billions of dollars in a desperate nation-building mission; this money could be spent much more effectively elsewhere, including here in the United States. -
USAID spent $400 million in Afghanistan “despite uncertain results”
Published: April 30th, 2012
Australian troops in Oruzgan Province, Afghanistan. Source: militaryphotos.net
The title of this audit report, the latest from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, says it all: USAID spent almost $400 million on an Afghanistan reconstruction project despite uncertain results.
The Local Governance and Community Development program, first approved in 2006,
was intended to help the Afghan government reach out into remote districts, encourage local communities to participate in development projects, and “create incentives for stability in critical border provinces.”The program was supposed to last for three years and had a budget of no more than $150 million. However, USAID extended the program for two years past the deadline, and the total costs came close to $400 million – more than two and a half times the original amount.
The Local Governance and Community Development program wasn’t extended because it was an astonishing success. In fact, assessments by USAID and others indicated that the program produced mixed results. And an independent evaluation concluded that “although the project had pockets of success, it had not met its overarching goal of extending the legitimacy of the Afghan government.”
The program was also beset by delays and cost increases. SIGAR found that less than half of the amounts awarded to contractors by USAID went to reconstruction projects; the rest was eaten up by overhead costs.
Despite these concerns, and despite difficulty USAID encountered in determining if the program was effective or not, USAID continued to extend the program and increase its budget.
When a boondoggle like this is allowed to continue unchecked, it makes us wonder about other Afghanistan reconstruction projects. The Local Governance and Community Development program accounted for about one-third of total amount – $1.1 billion – that USAID has spent on Afghanistan reconstruction. What happened to the other $700 million? Were other aid projects just as ineffective as this one?
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: Afghanistan Price Tag for U.S.: Over $550 Billion Since 2001
Published: April 27th, 2012
Policymakers are in the middle of intense debates over next year’s budget. Topics of contention include $100 million for a missile defense system on the East coast and $6 billion to avoid a hike in student loan interest rates. However, no one in Washington is questioning the amount spent on the Afghanistan war. In 2013 alone plan to spend over $90 billion. The total price tag since 2001: over $550 billion. Ending the war in Afghanistan would free up billions that could be spent on more important priorities. What are our elected officials waiting for?
From ASG
4/23/12
How Much Will the Strategic Pact Cost US Taxpayers?
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
The end of the US combat mission does not mean the end of our relationship with Afghanistan. However, we need a new roadmap for engagement—not just a downsized version of the current strategy, but a strategy that is effective, efficient, and sustainable.ARTICLES
4/26/12
Thousands of US Troops Likely in Afghanistan Beyond 2014 Withdrawal Date
US News by John Bennett
A former NATO commander this week offered a snapshot into the Pentagon’s thinking about just what kinds of troops and hardware will be kept in Afghanistan, offering a window into how many American boots will still be on the ground after a formal withdrawal.4/23/12
Clinton, Panetta ask congressman to stay out of Afghanistan
CNN
A top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs committee was asked by the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense not to go to Afghanistan because President Hamid Karzai objected to the visit.4/26/12
Congressman calls Afghan president ‘corrupt prima donna’
CNN
A U.S. congressman barred from visiting Afghanistan over the weekend minced no words when characterizing the incident. Afghan president Hamid Karzai is a “corrupt prima donna,” House Foreign Affairs Committee member Dana Rohrabacher of California said in an interview WednesdayOPINION
4/25/12
Are we deluding ourselves about Afghanistan?
Reuters by Daniel Davis
After more than a decade of warfare, we have to look ourselves in the mirror and admit that we have lost the battle for the hearts and minds of the Afghan people.
Still, even at this 11th hour there are ways the mission could be salvaged. There is, for example, broad consensus among a number of key constituencies for a cease-fire. The best chance for a viable and lasting end to the war could be conducted in the absence of fighting, not during it.4/26/12
Insurmountable Obstacles in Afghanistan
The National Interest by James Joyner
While coalition forces have indeed made tremendous strides on the security front, the all-important political and economic pictures are, if anything, less encouraging than they were before the surge began.
4/19/12
An Afghanistan Reality Check for Max Boot
The National Interest Editorial Board
The realities are these: A pro-Western government may survive in Kabul, but it will not maintain strong influence over the Taliban strongholds of the south and east. Western influence will wane severely in Afghanistan irrespective of America’s military strategy there. Influence in the region will flow to neighboring states—Pakistan, India and Iran—with much more powerful interests there than the United States has. -
How much will the strategic pact cost US taxpayers?
Published: April 23rd, 2012
The US and Afghanistan have completed an outline of the US commitment to Afghanistan for the next ten years, the New York Times reports. The specifics haven’t been worked out yet, but if we continue down the same path, the deal could end up costing US taxpayers billions of dollars.
Funding for the Afghan security forces alone promises to be costly. The US is reportedly considering a commitment of anywhere from $2.3 billion to $4.1 billion per year, for a ten year total of $20 billion to $40 billion. Add to that the cost of maintaining US advisors for the Afghan.s The Congressional Budget Office estimates that going down to 45,000 troops by 2015 will bring war costs close to $500 billion through 2022.
Pouring billions of dollars into an unpopular war just doesn’t make sense. The US is about to make a multi-billion dollar commitment to the war in Afghanistan; at the same time we are cutting back spending on important defense and domestic programs. This level of spending is clearly unsustainable. How is Afghanistan, with domestic revenues of less than $2 billion per year, supposed to pay for security forces that cost more than $2 billion after the US leaves? They are not; we are.
Of course, there’s something to be said for making an explicit long-term commitment to Afghanistan. After all, the end of the US combat mission does not mean the end of our relationship with Afghanistan. However, we need a new roadmap for engagement—not just a downsized version of the current strategy, but a strategy that is effective, efficient, and sustainable.
-
Karzai Demands $2 Billion More Per Year From Americans for Afghanistan Security
Published: April 19th, 2012
The US combat role in Afghanistan will end in 2014, but it seems as if the US commitment to Afghanistan will go on. We’re starting to get some idea of how expensive that commitment will be.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai is asking for the US and NATO allies to spell out how much aid they are willing to contribute. In particular, Karzai has asked for the U.S. to commit to at least $2 billion per year for the Afghan Security Forces after 2014. This is in line with the $2.3 billion minimum that American officials have said is under discussion. Bottom line: The Afghan security forces will cost the U.S. at least $20 billion over the next ten years. Adding the $50 billion that we have already spent, and the total is $70 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars for security forces of dubious capability.
From ASG
4/17/12
Majority of Americans Believe the War Is Not Worth the Costs
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
Public support for the war in Afghanistan is at an all-time low. According to a recent Washington Post poll, 66% of respondents say the war has not been worth the costs, compared to only 30% who say it has. This represents a significant change from 2007, when 56% said the war has been worth fighting, and 41% said the opposite.ARTICLES
4/17/12
Afghanistan wants firmer US commitment on funding
Associated Press
Afghanistan’s president raised another condition Tuesday for a long-awaited strategic partnership with the United States: The accord must spell out the yearly U.S. commitment to pay billions of dollars for the cash-strapped Afghan security forces.4/16/12
The U.S. Spends $14K Per Afghan Troop Per Year, But Each Earns $1,872
Yochi Dreazen
A close look at U.S. military statistics shows that Afghan soldiers and police officers are far more expensive than you’d expect. They are paid an average of just $1,872 a year, but the overall cost of training and fielding a police officer is roughly $30,000 per year, while the cost of each soldier is nearly $46,000 per year. the United States bears virtually all of those costs, adding up to more than $3.5 billion a year.4/17/12
War-zone contractors subject to more suspensions, debarments
Federal Times by Sarah Chacko
Government officials say they have gotten more aggressive in suspending and debarring companies that misbehave or perform poorly on overseas warzone contracts, such as for reconstruction and military support.4/12/12
U.S. maps out special ops-heavy Afghan war plan
Associated Press
Adm. Bill McRaven, the head of U.S. special operations, is mapping out a potential Afghanistan war plan that would replace thousands of U.S. troops with small special operations teams paired with Afghans to help an inexperienced Afghan force withstand a Taliban onslaught as U.S. troops withdrawOPINION
4/16/12
What do the attacks in Afghanistan mean?
Foreign Policy by Stephen Walt
Even a fairly rosy interpretation of the event raises questions about how well the war is ultimately going…The real question is whether trying to win is worth the cost, including the opportunity costs. Yesterday’s events may have some bearing on that larger issue, but do not provide a definitive answer one way or the other. It is good news that the Taliban attacks mostly failed, but by itself, that news does not tell you that “staying the course” is the right thing to do.4/17/12
Taking Uncle Sam for a Ride: How Pakistan Makes Washington Pay for the Afghan War
TomDispatch by Dilip Hiro
As your planet-wide activities become ever more diverse, frenzied, and even contradictory, you expose yourself to exploitation by lesser powers otherwise seemingly tied to your apron strings.
Pakistan, twice during America’s 33-year-long involvement in Afghanistan made a frontline state, is a classic example of that. Current policymakers in Washington should take note: it’s a strategy for disaster. -
Majority of Americans Believe the War Is Not Worth the Costs
Published: April 17th, 2012
The Taliban launched a series of attacks yesterday on embassies and the Afghan Parliament in Kabul. The offensive is reportedly “among the most audacious coordinated terrorist attacks here in recent years,” yet US officials say they are determined to stay the course. The American public is less confident, however.
In fact, public support for the war in Afghanistan is at an all-time low. According to a recent Washington Post poll, 66% of respondents say the war has not been worth the costs, compared to only 30% who say it has. This represents a significant change from 2007, when 56% said the war has been worth fighting, and 41% said the opposite.
The downward trend is especially interesting because war costs have actually started to decrease. U.S. casualties, on the rise since 2005, dropped 18% over the last year. The Department of Defense request for next year’s war costs, $88.5 billion, is a 26% decrease from last year.Still, we are spending too much in Afghanistan, and getting too little for it. The American public knows this. After spending over half a trillion dollars to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan, 62% of Americans say most Afghans oppose what the U.S. is trying to do in Afghanistan.
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: Over $4 Billion per Year for the Afghan Security Forces
Published: April 12th, 2012
The recent spate of violence in Afghanistan – two NATO servicemembers died just yesterday in two bomb explosions and an insurgent attack – have everyone wondering if the Afghan security forces are up to the task ahead. Just a few weeks ago, Lt. Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, the deputy commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, estimated that only about 1% of Afghan units can operate independently.
The US has spent over $50 billion training and equipping the Afghan National Security Forces since 2001. A recently announced cut in force size will lower future costs. But the US and allies can still expect to pay billions for Afghan security well into the future. Anticipated costs: a total of more than $40 billion over the next ten years.
From ASG
4/10/12
$300 Million Taxpayer Dollars For A Broken Power Plant
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
Boondoggles like the Kabul Power Plant are a sign of where the U.S. strategy Afghanistan went wrong. Surely we could have used those funds for United States infrastructure projects.ARTICLES
May/June 2012
When America Leaves: Asia after the Afghan War
The American Interest by Rajan Menon
The United States retains various means to help Afghans and shape competition in Afghanistan. Hence post-American Afghanistan need not become non-American Afghanistan. Yet the United States cannot determine how the states of Greater Central Asia conduct themselves in the competition to shape Afghanistan: it will be but one player among many—and a distant one at that.4/7/12
Lynch reverses field on Afghan mission
The Boston Globe by Bryan Bender
Lynch, frustrated by a lack of progress, is now breaking with the Obama administrationand calling on the president to speed up American withdrawal from Afghanistan by at least a year.4/11/12
Broke Afghans Will Cut Their Military — And Obama’s War Plan
Wired by Spencer Ackerman
The U.S. will still provide some funding for the Afghans it will continue to train after 2014. But if the U.S. isn’t going to pay for a super-sized Afghan security force, then the cash-strapped NATO allies, who are even wearier of the Afghanistan war than the U.S. is, definitely won’t…But the looming cuts pose a deeper question: why did the U.S. spend billions of dollars building the Afghan soldiers and cops to an unsustainable size?OPINION
4/10/12
5 steps to better politics in Afghanistan
Foreign Policy by Paul Miller
The United States and United Nations should work with the Afghans instead to push for a grand political bargain that could actually make a difference in the counterinsurgency against the Taliban: a new Loya Jirga to amend the constitution, devolve power, adjust the electoral calendar, change the voting system, and invite the Taliban to form a political party.4/4/12
Time to let Hamid Karzai kick us out of Afghanistan
Politico by Lawrence Korb
We have achieved our primary objectives of killing Osama bin Laden and decimating the leadership of Al Qaeda. No matter how long we stay, we cannot control the future of Afghanistan. -
$300 Million Taxpayer Dollars for a Broken Power Plant
Published: April 10th, 2012
The deaths of 16 Afghan civilians at the hands of a US soldier raised a number of questions about the psychological effects of war on the men and women of our armed forces, and whether the military is doing enough to care for them. The tragedy also points to a more fundamental problem: after more than ten years of war, the US forces are worn out.
It didn’t have to be this way. We could have employed a smarter, more efficient strategy, relying on intelligence assets and special operations forces, like Seal Team Six. Instead, the US pursued a strategy of dedicated nation-building. The burden for executing that strategy fell on a small percentage of deployable troops. According to the Defense Business Board, 30% of active duty troops have deployed two or more times, while 40% have never deployed.
Nation-building requires significant investments. It eats up decades, dollars, and lives, and gives little in return.
The nation-building experiment in Afghanistan has been a disaster for armed forces, and a fiscal disaster as well. Military spending has grown out of control. For Afghanistan alone, war costs total more than $550 billion since 2001. In that same time frame the base defense budget grew almost $700 billion over the pre-war plan.
The decade of war was an excuse to pour money into the Department of Defense. But there was no incentive to spend wisely. Overhead costs ballooned, totaling at least $200 billion in 2010, according to the Defense Business Board. While costs for new programs like the F-35 soared, funds for vital programs like the Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle, designed to protects troops from IEDs, were delayed. Billions of dollars were invested in unsustainable Afghanistan reconstruction projects—like the $300 million Kabul Power Plant that is seldom used because the government cannot afford to operate and maintain it.
Boondoggles like the Kabul Power Plant are a sign of where the U.S. strategy Afghanistan went wrong. Surely we could have used those funds for United States infrastructure projects.
