ASG Blog
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: $2 Billion per Week for a War No One Wants
Published: April 6th, 2012
“The last couple months have been trying,” General John Allen, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, admitted in a recent congressional hearing. But, he added, “I am confident that we will prevail in this endeavor.”
Few share Gen. Allen’s optimism. Experts agree that the current U.S. strategy is failing, that we no longer have vital interests in Afghanistan, and that continuing the war is a waste of blood and treasure. The U.S. public also agrees. According to a recent CNN poll, more than 70% of Americans want to withdraw all U.S. troops in 2014 or earlier. Only 22% support keeping troops in Afghanistan after 2014.
This position is easy to understand. Almost 2,000 U.S. troops have lost their lives in the Afghanistan war—3 more died in a suicide bombing yesterday. The financial costs are also huge. In 2011 alone the U.S. spent $120 billion in direct war costs. In 2012 we continue to spend about $2 billion per week, for a war no one wants.
From ASG
4/4
Consensus On Afghanistan: Transitioning To The Afghan Public Protection Force Will Cost More
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
Each year billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars are spent in Afghanistan, and we still do not effectively track where, or how much is spent. The latest Afghanistan oversight breakdown is the fracas over Afghanistan USAID security contractor costs.
ARTICLES
4/4
Details Emerge on Coming U.S. Offensive in Eastern Afghanistan
National Journal by Yochi Dreazen
A campaign that will likely be the last major U.S. offensive of the Afghan War is set to begin later this year in eastern Afghanistan, the region where the conflict began and where senior NATO officials hope their involvement will effectively come to an end.3/31
Afghanistan presses for answers on long-term U.S. military bases
Reuters by By Sanjeev Miglani and Hamid Shalizi
Afghanistan wants the United States to clearly spell out what sort of military presence it will leave behind once most of its combat troops leave by the end of 2014…It is also pressing Washington in talks over future cooperation to detail to be more forthcoming on what will be on offer for Afghan forces as they ready to take over responsibility security in the country that is still at war.OPINION
4/3
Don’t Prolong the Inevitable
New York Times Room for Debate by Stephen Walt
The United States should send soldiers in harm’s way only when vital interests are at stake. The outcome in Afghanistan will have little impact on United States security and it makes no sense to squander more blood and treasure there. Our NATO allies have figured this out and are heading for the exits. We should join them.4/3
Ask the Experts: Will America ‘Win’ in Afghanistan?
Council on Foreign Relations Experts Roundtable
The consensus among civilian and military staffers and officials was that while roughly half thought the U.S. military could win in Afghanistan, almost nobody believed that it would. This disconnect has created an uncomfortable situation where some of the people who design, refine, and implement U.S. strategy in Afghanistan simply do not believe it will ultimately succeed. -
Consensus on Afghanistan: Transitioning to the Afghan Public Protection Force Will Cost More
Published: April 4th, 2012
The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) was established in 2008 to provide independent and objective oversight of Afghanistan reconstruction projects. Since then, SIGAR has published 49 audits, received 675 hotline complaints, and recovered $51 million in fiscal year 2011 alone. Still, each year billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars are spent in Afghanistan, and we still do not effectively track where, or how much is spent. The latest Afghanistan oversight breakdown is the fracas over Afghanistan USAID security contractor costs.
In August 2010 Afghan President Karzai, responding to fears over the corruption and unchecked power of private security firms, ordered that private security contractors be phased out and replaced by the newly-formed Afghan Public Protection Force (APPF) by March 20, 2012. In preparation for this transition, SIGAR began an investigation into the associated costs.
SIGAR’s initial findings were reported in a March 9th 2012 letter to the USAID Mission Director in Afghanistan. In them they estimated that transitioning to the state-run APPF could cause Afghan labor costs to rise by up to 46%, and expatriate costs by 200%. This brings the potential total expenditure for USAIDs 13 largest reconstruction projects, to $55 million for the first year of transition.
In addition to the concern over cost increases, SIGAR noted that APPF is unprepared to take over. By March of this year, the force was supposed to number 25,000, but only has 6,000. Given APPF’s state of unreadiness, SIGAR estimates that USAID projects valued at nearly $900 million may have to be cancelled because APPF cannot provide adequate security.
USAID, of course, took exception to SIGAR’s findings rejecting “the SIGAR management letter in its entirety due to the inadequate comparisons, speculative assumptions and inaccurate statements.” The result of the dispute was a congressional hearing of the House Committee Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security.
Unfortunately, the hearing failed to resolve the dispute, but it did provide some important insight on accountability. According to Acting Inspector General Stephen Trent, “Although AID disagreed with our alert letter, neither AID nor any of the U.S. government agencies involved in Afghanistan’s reconstruction systematically track security costs. No one knows how much the transition to the APPF is going to cost, but all agree it will cost more. ” SIGAR says the increase is anywhere from 25% to 46%. USAID, based on an analysis of 15 projects that have already transitioned, says the number is more like 16%.
The real story here is not about the exact costs. It’s about the fact that no one, from federal agencies to Congress, knows what the costs are.
SIGAR’s original letter explains why pinpointing security costs for Afghanistan reconstruction projects is so difficult:
“Determining security costs is extremely challenging because, as the Government Accountability Office (GAO) pointed out last year, the tracking systems that U.S. government agencies are using do not reliably distinguish security personnel from other contract personnel. USAID does not track security costs…Neither USAID nor its prime contractors have full visibility of the security costs incurred by subcontractors….some implementing partners also hired security guards internally. Their salaries are not included in reported security costs. Consequently, SIGAR’s cost analysis represents the minimum spent on security. Total costs are likely higher.”
Going back to GAO’s assessment, it seems tracking security costs is a long-standing issue. In fact, GAO’s 2011 report was unchanged from 2009, because the agencies had made no progress.
As far as how much we are spending in Afghanistan, and how much is being wasted, we are unlikely to get satisfactory answers anytime soon. Members of Congress like Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), and Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) have called for greater oversight, but little has been done to improve accountability of wartime spending. While Congress holds hearings, agencies continue to spend taxpayer dollars in Afghanistan without keeping track of it.
Rep. Chaffetz, chair of the Oversight Subcommittee on National Security, put it best:
“The federal government appears to be incapable, at least thus far, of tracking its expenditures. Time and again, it cannot readily provide data – simple data, such as the amount of money spent; the number of projects completed, the number of projects ongoing; and whether projects are on time, on budget; and whether they were actually completed…
The failure to track this data in real-time demonstrates an extreme lack of oversight. It also tells this Congress that bureaucrats in Washington have little visibility or control (of) the billions of dollars spent overseas.
The American people have little patience for government waste and lack of progress in Afghanistan. After 10 years, we are no closer to defining and achieving success, and Congress and the Obama administration should reassess our future in Afghanistan.”
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: Public Support for Afghanistan at an All Time Low
Published: March 29th, 2012
Public support for the Afghanistan war continues to decline. According to a new CBS News/New York Times poll, 69% of Americans believe the U.S. should not be fighting in Afghanistan. 47% want to speed up the drawdown timeline.
The consistent drop in support for the war is certainly related to the troubling news of the situation in Afghanistan. Last year the U.S. and allies provided almost $16 billion in aid to Afghanistan. Also last year some $8 billion in cash was smuggled out of the country. Since 2002 the U.S. has spent over $50 billion training and equipping the Afghan National Security Forces. Yet the deputy commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan estimates that only about 1% of Afghan units can operate independently.
From ASG
3/27
Wars End, But War Costs Continue
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
The Afghanistan War will end eventually, the troops will come home, and the United States taxpayer will start saving billions a week. However, U.S. operations in Afghanistan will continue to be a significant expense long after the troops come home.ARTICLES
3/26
Poll: Support for war in Afghanistan hits all-time low
CBS News by Lucy Madison
According to the CBS News/New York Times survey, many Americans would like to get troops home sooner. Forty-seven percent of Americans said they would like to see the timetable for the departure of U.S. troops moved up. Thirty-three percent think the schedule for withdrawal should remain as is, and 17 percent think the U.S. should stay in Afghanistan for as long as it takes.3/26
Billions in cash smuggled out of Afghanistan every year
CNN by Sara Sidner and Mitra Mobasherat
It is estimated $8 billion in cash was lugged out of the country last year by car, private jets and border crossings. That is almost double the entire country’s budget for 2011…Foreign aid is propping up Afghanistan’s economy. The question on every potential investor’s mind is whether Afghanistan will be able to sustain itself when the war is finally over.3/21
Neighboring Countries Scramble To Be NATO’s Exit Route From Afghanistan
Radio Free Europe by Charles Recknagel
The United States today pays $500 million a year in transit fees to send military materiel through Central Asian states to Afghanistan.
Now, that amount will rise as Washington and other members of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) repatriate what has accumulated in Afghanistan over the past decade.OPINION
3/27
US has still not defeated the ‘al-Qaeda mentality’
Financial Times by Gideon Rachman
The killing of Osama bin Laden last year has given the US government all the “closure” it needs to justify a withdrawal from Afghanistan. Nato’s goals for the country are now minimal and focused entirely on security.3/27
We Can’t Drone Our Way to Victory in Afghanistan
Foreign Policy by Micah Zenko
It’s time for U.S. officials to stop trying to swim against the tide of the public opinion of sovereign governments in Southwest Asia, and start developing a strategy for combating terrorism that does not overwhelmingly rely on unending Special Forces night raids and CIA drone strikes. -
Wars End, but War Costs Continue
Published: March 27th, 2012
The Afghanistan War will end eventually, the troops will come home, and the United States taxpayer will start saving billions a week. However, U.S. operations in Afghanistan will continue to be a significant expense long after the troops come home.
We can look to Iraq as an example. The last U.S. troops left Iraq in December 2011, three months into fiscal year 2012. In FY12, we budgeted over $14 billion for operations in Iraq—that includes Department of Defense funding ($9.6 billion) as well as Department of State and foreign aid ($4.8 billion).
The fiscal year 2013 request is much less than that, but still significant—about $7.6 billion. $2.9 billion is for DOD’s “reset of equipment from deploying in Iraq.” Assuming reset costs decline steadily, that still leaves over $5 billion for State and foreign aid. Further, assuming we continue to maintain a diplomatic presence in Iraq, that $5 billion per year will likely continue.
There’s every reason to believe that the transition from DOD to State,soldiers to civilians, in Afghanistan will be at least as expensive. For one, Afghanistan already gets more in foreign aid than Iraq—$2.3 billion in 2012. Assuming the civilian presence expands as U.S. diplomats replace soldiers, the Department of State in Afghanistan will increase too.
On top of diplomatic operations and State-funded foreign aid, Afghanistan gets a big chunk of change through the Department of Defense. The Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund and the Commander’s Emergency Response Program came to $800 million in 2012. Since these funds are for Afghanistan reconstruction projects, they may continue after U.S. troops leave.
Then there is the small matter of training and equipping the Afghanistan Security Forces. The 2013 DOD request is $5.7 billion, a big drop from $11.2 in 2012. Considering Afghanistan’s financial situation, local security forces will likely rely on foreign funds for many years—meaning $5 billion per year is about what we can expect to pay for the next several years to support Afghan’s security forces.
We still haven’t even gotten to the one big question: what about U.S. troops? If you thought that all U.S. troops will be leaving Afghanistan by 2014, think again. The administration has consistently emphasized 2014 deadline, the date agreed to at the Lisbon summit, as the deadline for transitioning to a training role, meaning local forces will take the lead in combat. By and large U.S. officials have stuck to that date, with a few hints of starting to transition early and ending by 2013.
Here’s the catch: the U.S. combat mission may end in 2014, but that doesn’t mean all troops will leave. The majority of the 68,000 left may come home by 2014. However there is considerable support for leaving anywhere from 10,000 to 35,000 troops to serve as trainers and advisors to the Afghan National Security Forces. The costs associated with maintaining a military presence after 2014 are unclear, but it won’t be cheap.
There are good arguments to be made for leaving military advisors and for maintaining a diplomatic presence in Afghanistan. But that argument must be made in a budget context, because whatever we decide, we’ll have to pay for it.
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: $33 Billion for Afghanistan Aid
Published: March 22nd, 2012
Recent events in Afghanistan have made the American public, and many members of Congress as well, wonder if it isn’t time for a new strategy. The administration however, is sticking with the plan, and negotiations with Afghanistan over the U.S. presence after 2014 are ongoing.
Whatever the strategic agreement between the two countries ends up looking like, the U.S. will certainly continue to have a relationship with Afghanistan. And that means an ongoing financial commitment.
Since 2002, the U.S. has spent $33 billion on governance improvement, economic development, and humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. Whether that money has been spent effectively is debatable. What’s not debatable is that we need a better strategy going forward—and better oversight and accountability for how U.S. taxpayer dollars are spent.
From ASG
3/19/12
Steady Decline In Public Support For The War
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
A recent ABC/Washington Post poll highlighted that public support for the war in Afghanistan is flagging. The release of the poll around the same time as the killing of 16 Afghan civilians may seem coincidental. However, decrese support for the war is not just a knee-jerk reaction to recent events. In fact, Americans’ support for the war in Afghanistan has declined steadily over time.3/21/12
$12 Million Per Day Lost On Wartime Contracting
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
Despite dwindling public support, the war in Afghanistan continues. Billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars are wasted at a time when Congress is considering cuts to other vital programs. Another $12,000,000 per week for Afghanistan contracting is fiscally irresponsible.ARTICLES
3/20/12
U.S. General Sees No Sudden Afghan Drawdown
New York Times by Thom Shanker and John Cushman
The top allied commander in Afghanistan told Congress on Tuesday that he would not be recommending further American troop reductions until late this year, after the departure of the current “surge” forces and the end of the summer fighting season.3/21/12
U.S. on track for Afghan deal by NATO summit: Clinton
Reuters
The United States said on Wednesday it appears to be on track to sign a strategic partnership agreement with Afghanistan charting their future relations during or before a late May NATO summit.OPINION
3/15/12
A Plan C for Afghanistan
LA Times By Doyle McManus
Plan A — turning Afghanistan into a smoothly functioning democracy — didn’t work. Plan B — handing the war over to an Afghan army with U.S. advisors, is under siege. Reassessing a major foreign policy effort in the middle of an election year won’t be a welcome idea for a president seeking to project an image of calm and steady leadership. But election year or not, it’s time to come up with Plan C.3/19/12
Afghanistan and the Long War
Stratfor by George Friedman
To continue with the long war with the forces available puts in motion processes that threaten the republic without securing U.S. interests. Leaving aside the threat to the republic, a force at its limits and left to fight a war on the margins of national consciousness will not be effective. -
$12 Million per Day Lost on Wartime Contracting
Published: March 21st, 2012
Mary Kaszynski
Afghanistan Study GroupTo a war-weary American public, the killing of 16 Afghan civilians by a U.S. soldier is another sign that the Afghanistan War needs to end. Whether policymakers agree is another story. The latest reports say that President Obama, some members of Congress, and U.S. allies are determined to stick to the current drawdown plan. That plan, developed at the 2010 Lisbon conference, is for Afghan forces to take on the primary combat role by 2014.
Even as the number of U.S. troops decreases, the U.S. presence in Afghanistan is still considerable and thus the costs of sustaining that presence.
As U.S. troops come home the remaining war duties will shift to contractors. As of January 2012, there are over 25,000 U.S. defense contractors in Afghanistan, according to Pentagon figures. Exactly how much these contractors cost U.S. taxpayers is unknown, but we do know that DOD contractors’ salaries are second to none: on average, Pentagon contractors make $10,000 per year more than DOD civilians, and $36,000 more than the average non-federal employee.
When it comes to wartime contracting, the numbers are even more damning. The Commission on Wartime Contracting found that of the $206 billion the U.S. spent on contracts since 2002. As much as $60 billion of that total was lost to waste and fraud. That averages out to about $12 million per week over the last ten years.
Some members of Congress are trying to implement increased oversight of wartime contracting, as the Commission recommends. But it’s an uphill battle against congressional inertia and Pentagon incompetence (this is, after all, the agency that still cannot pass a financial audit).
Despite dwindling public support, the war in Afghanistan continues. Billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars are wasted at a time when Congress is considering cuts to other vital programs. Another $12,000,000 per week for Afghanistan contracting is fiscally irresponsible. Let’s keep that money at home.
-
Steady Decline in Public Support for the War
Published: March 19th, 2012
Mary Kasynski
Afghanistan Study GroupA recent ABC/Washington Post poll highlighted that public support for the war in Afghanistan is flagging. The release of the poll around the same time as the killing of 16 Afghan civilians may seem coincidental. However, decrese support for the war is not just a knee-jerk reaction to recent events. In fact, Americans’ support for the war in Afghanistan has declined steadily over time.
The change is striking. Just five years ago, when respondents were asked if the war in Afghanistan was worth fighting, 56% said yes. Now, the situation is reversed: 60% say the war is not worth the costs, compared to only 35% who say it is.
Supporters of the current drawdown plan argue that we shouldn’t let these isolated incidents stop us from staying the course. What they forget is that the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan has been broken for a long time, and the American people know it. The only question is whether policymakers will realize it as well and develop a smarter strategy before it’s too late.
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: $1 Billion per Week for Ten Years of War
Published: March 15th, 2012
Yesterday President Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron confirmed their commitment to winding down the Afghanistan war by the end of 2014. Next year U.S. and allied forces will transition to an advisory role, leaving local forces in charge of Afghanistan’s security. Critics call this hasty and irresponsible. But after ten years it’s hard to see how a war could wind down more slowly.
A large majority of the American public believes the Afghanistan war is not worth fighting, and it’s not hard to see why. Over the past ten years the U.S. has spent more than $550 billion in Afghanistan alone. That averages out to over $1 billion per week. Compared to the average U.S. household income of less than $1,000 per week, $1 billion is simply staggering.
$1 billion per week for the past ten years. There are better ways to spend taxpayer dollars than a war that should have ended years ago.From ASG
3/12/12
One Civilian, One Year In Afghanistan: $570,000
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
Soldiers aren’t the only Americans serving in Afghanistan. Some 1,142 U.S. civilians from the Department of State and other non-defense agencies are currently in Afghanistan. Deploying a civilian is cheaper than deploying a soldier, but it is still expensive: up to $570,000 per year, according to the most recent estimate from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction.ARTICLES
3/7/12
Intractable Afghan Graft Hampering U.S. Strategy
The New York Times by Matthew Rosenberg and Graham Bowley
The United States is leaving behind a problem it underwrote over the past decade with tens of billions of dollars of aid and logistical support: a narrow business and political elite defined by its corruption, and despised by most Afghans for it.3/12/12
Afghanistan Massacre Blows Hole in GOP War Support
Wired by Spencer Ackerman
The recent downward turn taken by the longest war in American history, capped by a massacre of children allegedly committed by a U.S. sergeant on Sunday, has unmoored support from even ordinarily-bellicose politicians. Surprisingly, they’ve gotten to the left of President Obama, whose administration is downplaying the significance of the massacre. They also sound more reality-based than an administration that’s investing significant blood and treasure in a deteriorating war with unreliable local allies in a part of the world with dubious strategic significance.3/13/12
Billions in cash flees Afghanistan, economy threatened
Reuters by Michael Georgy and Hamid Shalizi
Wealthy Afghans are carrying about $8 billion — almost double the state budget — in suitcases out of the country each year, an amount likely to rise as the exit of foreign troops nears and threatening to ruin the fragile economyOPINION
3/13/12
Too many wars, too few U.S. soldiers
The Washington Post by Robert H. Scales
The media is trying to make some association between the terrible crime of this sergeant and the Army’s inability to treat post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury. Perhaps the Army could have done more. But I think…the real institutional culprit is the decade-long exploitation and cynical overuse of one of our most precious and irreplaceable national assets: our close combat soldiers and Marines.3/13/12
New U.S. strategy needed in Afghanistan
CNN by Anthony Cordesman
We need to face the fact that the tragic killing of Afghan civilians by a U.S. soldier only highlights the growing problem the United States faces in creating any kind of strategy for Afghanistan that can survive engagement with reality. -
One civilian, one year in Afghanistan: $570,000
Published: March 12th, 2012
Mary Kaszynski
Afghanistan Study GroupLess than 24 hours ago, a U.S. soldier went on a killing spree in southern Afghanistan, leaving 16 dead. The shooting will certainly shake Americans’ confidence in the U.S. strategy for Afghanistan—and public support for the war is already at record lows.
In fact, according to a recent poll, 60 percent of U.S. citizens believe the war in Afghanistan is not worth the costs. This is hardly surprising. At the same time that incidents like yesterday’s shooting and the recent Quran burnings highlight the failure of the current strategy, we are starting to get a better understanding of the real, long-term costs of the war.
Last week, Department of Defense Comptroller Robert Hale made headlines for pegging the cost of deploying one soldier to Afghanistan for one year at $850,000. The high price tag, which is a 40 percent increase over last year’s estimate, generated a lot of media attention.
One thing escaped everyone’s notice: soldiers aren’t the only Americans serving in Afghanistan. According to the Government Accountability Office, 1,142 U.S. civilians from the Department of State and other non-defense agencies are currently in Afghanistan.
Deploying a civilian is cheaper than deploying a soldier, but it is still expensive: up to $570,000 per year, according to the most recent estimate from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction.
$570,000 is a high price to pay, especially in a struggling economy. It’s more than ten times what the average American household makes in one week. Unfortunately there is no reason to expect that costs will go down any time soon. As the transition to local security forces progresses, the civilian presence in Afghanistan is ramping up. The number of U.S. civilians in Afghanistan has tripled over the past two years, at a cost of $2 billion.
U.S. troops may be leaving Afghanistan, however slowly, leaving local forces in charge of Afghan security by 2014. But U.S. taxpayers will still be footing the bill for another nation’s security. Let’s concentrate on our own.
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: Billions of Taxpayer Dollars at Stake in Afghanistan
Published: March 12th, 2012
Last December, Defense Secretary Panetta said the Afghanistan war was at a turning point and theAmerican people agree.
It’s no wonder that the public is war-weary. Ten years of war and over $500 billion dollars, and we have little to show for it. And yet the costs of war continue. Pentagon officials say that the cost of deploying one solider to Afghanistan for one year is $850,000 and rising. Looking ahead, budget gimmicks and the lack of restraint in government spending may keep the war budget high for years to come.From ASG
3/6/12
DOD Comptroller: Fielding One Soldier In Afghanistan Costs Taxpayers $850,000
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
Recent violence in Afghanistan has led to the deaths of six U.S. troops. Despite this clear sign that the U.S. strategy isn’t working, politicians and pundits are insisting that the war is still “winnable.” Their solution is to leave twenty or thirty thousand troops behind—but how much will it cost?ARTICLES
3/7/12
US commanders: No plan to cede Afghan war to CIA
Associated Press
U.S. military commanders said Wednesday there are no plans to turn the Afghan war over to CIA control after 2014, with special operations answering to American intelligence officials.OPINION
2/29/12
Leave Afghanistan now
Washington Examiner by Cal Thomas
Can Afghanistan be stabilized so as not to pose a threat to America and American interests? Probably not, if the surge forces pull out on schedule and America continues to fight under restrictive and self-imposed rules of war while the enemy does not…If our troops are coming out anyway and if the administration can’t define victory, or commit the resources necessary to achieve it, waiting longer only ensures more casualties.3/6/12
How to Pay for Wars
The National Interest by Benjamin Friedman and Charles Knight
Done right, spending caps would improve national decision making about war. Because American wars have broadly distributed and often obscured costs, the public and Congress have little incentive to carefully consider their consequences. Leaving aside the volunteer military, the only cost of war for most Americans is marginally higher taxes. And deficits subsidize war costs, diluting their effects on current voters.
