ASG Blog
-
2010 average American weekly income: $1,200. Weekly war costs: $1,800,000,000
Published: January 31st, 2012
Mary Kaszynski
Afghanistan Study GroupPublic support for the Afghanistan war is at an all-time low. According to the most recent PEW poll, a majority of Americans (56%) want to bring the troops home as soon as possible. Only 38% want to maintain troop levels “until the situation has stabilized”.
When the poll was conducted back in June 2011, the numbers were virtually the same. A year earlier, however, the outlook was very different – 53% wanted to keep troops in Afghanistan, while 40% wanted to remove them. Going back even further, we see that support for the war has declined steadily decline over time.
Americans now see that the few benefits of the war in Afghanistan are not worth the enormous costs. At a time when many American families are struggling, the amount of money spent on the war in Afghanistan doesn’t make sense.
Consider these numbers. In 2010 the average American household income was about $1,200 per week. That same year the US spent $1,800,000,000 per week on the Afghanistan war. Household food costs average about $120 per week. In 2010 we spent $520,000 per week on food aid to Afghanistan. The average American student graduating from college in 2010 had over $25,000 in loans. That year the US spent $11.6 billion to train and equip some 300,000 Afghan security forces – that’s $38,000 per troop.
Over the past ten years we have spent over $500 billion in direct war costs alone. Well spent or not, we cannot get it back. What we can do is consider seriously what we should spend going forward. In a couple of weeks the administration will request $88 billion for next year’s war costs. Aren’t there better uses for taxpayer dollars?
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: Afghanistan war shipping costs $104 million per month
Published: January 26th, 2012
It’s been almost eight weeks since Pakistan closed its borders to coalition forces in retaliation for a NATO airstrike that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers. With the borders remaining closed the shipping costs for war supplies are adding up. NATO redirected its Pakistan supply routes through Russia and central Asia, at great expense – $104 million per month, according to the AP. That’s six times more than it would be to utilize the Pakistan supply routes. We are spending millions in shipping costs for a war that should have ended long ago. And we thought the price of a stamp was exorbitant.
From ASG
1/24/12
$500 billion for a stalemate
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
Between reports of violence on the one hand, and optimistic assessments of US war efforts on the other, the American public receives contradictory and incomplete assessments on the war in Afghanistan. Case in point: the classified National Intelligence Estimate on Afghanistan.ARTICLES
1/23/12
Taliban leader’s grip on insurgency weakens
USA Today by Jim Michaels
Taliban leader Mullah Omar’s grip on the insurgency is loosening as coalition battlefield successes in southern Afghanistan help sow discord among the Taliban top ranks and weaken the organization, a top U.S. commander said.OPINION
1/20/12
Obama’s only way out of Afghanistan is to talk
The Guardian by Tariq Ali
In essence both sides confront a stalemate. The insurgents cannot win militarily, but they have made a Nato victory impossible. The US could only win the “just war” by destroying the country and wiping out a million or two Afghans – but that is politically unfeasible. Negotiations are the only possible route to a settlement and US withdrawal from the country.1/23/12
Afghanistan, An Indecent Silence
Huffington Post by Anne Nivat
Enter the discussion, and draw conclusions about this military engagement — it has cost us many lives, and yet it is still neither approved of or understood by the public. After ten years, we still lack clear and convincing answers.1/24/12
The Afghan War: Cause and Effect
Time’s Battleland by Mark Thompson
Wars are a tough sell to any nation. Long wars are a tougher sell. Long wars in a democracy are tougher still. And long wars with rising casualties in a democracy are the toughest sell of all. -
$500 billion for a stalemate
Published: January 24th, 2012
Mary KaszynskiAfghanistan Study Group
Between reports of violence on the one hand, and optimistic assessments of US war efforts on the other, the American public receives contradictory and incomplete assessments on the war in Afghanistan. Case in point: the classified National Intelligence Estimate on Afghanistan.Everyone seems to agree that the report indicates a divide between the intelligence community and the Pentagon – an understandable divide, as expert Robert Farley explains, that can be attributed to different metrics for success and different institutional interests. Beyond that, however, there is little agreement on the implications of the new NIE. In fact, because the document is classified, it has reinforced both sides of the debate, rather than resolve it.
The LA Times, which first broke the story, says the NIE concludes that the war is “mired in stalemate,” and that progress from the surge is “undercut by pervasive corruption, incompetent governance and Taliban fighters operating from neighboring Pakistan.” This seems to contradict what military leaders and some defense experts have been saying. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, for example, insists that we have made“substantial progress” in the war. ”We’re moving in the right direction and we’re winning this very tough conflict,” Panetta said in December. His optimism is shared by some defense experts. “Many Americans may still see Afghanistan as a quagmire, but there really is a strategy. And it’s beginning to work,” Michael O’Hanlon and John Nagl wrote last month.
After the NIE, the debate is the same. Some say that the document confirms what they’ve been saying all along: the administration’s 2014 deadline is too soon, and that what we need to break the stalemate is more troops. Others say that report’s conclusion – that military gains will likely erode after the withdrawal – will speed up the timeline.
Representatives Jim McGovern and Walter Jones have made that case for declassifying the NIE, arguing that greater transparency would help resolve the debate on the drawdown. “The American public and its elected representatives deserve to have a full understanding of the situation in and outlook for Afghanistan as understood by our government,” they wrote in a letter to the president. “Too many families of our service members are sacrificing too greatly to allow for anything else.”
Declassifying the NIE would be a good step towards clarifying the Afghanistan debate. Even if the report stays classified, however, we can still look to the numbers for the real story. Over $500 billion taxpayer dollars has been spent on the war. As much as $60 billion has been lost to waste and corruption. Even as troops are withdrawn, costs continue to soar – shipping costs, for example, are six times higher now that Pakistan has closed its border crossing to NATO convoys.
And that’s just the economic side. Let’s not forget about the lives lost: some 12,500 Afghan civilians and almost 2,000 US troops killed, plus 15,000 wounded in action.
That’s a high price to pay for a stalemate.
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: Afghan Security Forces Cost Americans $12 Billion in 2011
Published: January 20th, 2012
The deaths of eight U.S. troops at the hands of an Afghan Air Force officer last April highlights the many questions surrounding the Afghan national security forces. The incident was just one of many. Since 2005 more than 50 NATO troops have been killed by their Afghan counterparts, calling into question the capability of the force that the U.S. has spent years and billions of dollars to train and equip. The sustainability of the force is also doubtful – the US and allies are planning on cutting their contributions, leaving Afghanistan, a country a with domestic revenue of less than $2 billion, with security forces that cost $10 billion per year.
Capability, cost, sustainability. With so many questions about the future of Afgan security, there’s really only one question left: why haven’t we moved on to a smarter strategy?
From ASG
$83 Billion In Projected War Costs For 2013
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
$83 billion may not seem like a lot compared to last year, but it is still too much. The war is supposed to be wrapping up and the troops coming home. The Defense Department is making some tough choices about where to cut back. Why aren’t they cutting back war costs?ARTICLES
1/13/12
Afghan opium profits up 133% in 2011, U.N. says
Associated Press
Revenue from opium production in Afghanistan soared by 133 percent last year to about $1.4 billion, or about one-tenth of the country’s GDP, according to a United Nations report.
1/18/12
NATO trains Afghan air force to fly aircraft _ and fix them so history doesn’t repeat itself
Associated Press
When the [Afghan air] corps was reformed in 2005, it had to start from scratch. Thousands of different specialists — including crew chiefs, engine and airframe technicians, avionics and communications experts, loadmasters and air base firefighters — had to be recruited and trained. The force currently has about 5,000 members and 86 aircraft.
OPINION
1/9/12
How to Talk to the Taliban
Foreign Affairs by Michael Semple
Afghan Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid’s announcement last week that the group will open a political office in Qatar is part of a process that could bring a peaceful end to the war in Afghanistan. To be sure, naysayers abound both in the region and in Washington. But, conditions in 2012, unlike those in years past, offer a realistic, if difficult, opening for a way forward.
1/11/12
Was $73B of Afghan aid wasted?
Politico by James Petersen
Our leaders ought to have good reasons for giving this aid. Maybe they do. Taxpayers, however, whether they support our efforts or not, still deserve answers…The money isn’t going where we think it is — and $73 billion is a ton of treasure to waste.
1/13/12
The U.S. has to make up its mind now on Afghanistan
Washington Post by Anthony Cordesman
Now is the time to debate these issues and the future level of the U.S. commitment in money and forces. We do not need more good intentions and vague promises from the Obama administration. We do not need a vacuous set of positions from Republican presidential candidates who either do not understand the issues or fear addressing their cost. If the United States is to make this commitment we need to start making it now in every part of our posture and spending in Afghanistan — and be clear that we will do so through 2025. -
$83 billion in projected war costs for 2013
Published: January 17th, 2012
Mary Kaszynski
Afghanistan Study GroupThe president’s budget request for fiscal year 2013, starting October 1 of this year, will be released next week. Bloomberg reports the request is expected to include $83 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The final number for Defense Department war costs in fiscal year 2012 is projected to be $115 billion, so $83 billion doesn’t look too bad by comparison – that’s a decrease of $32 billion, or 28%. $83 billion is still a lot of money, however, especially when money is tight. So it’s worth taking a closer look.
What’s immediately clear that there’s something funny with this number. In its most recent scenario for the drawdown timeline, the Congressional Budget Office estimated $83 billion for fiscal year 2013, the same as the expected request. CBO’s estimate, however, was based on an assumed troop level of 100,000 in 2013. The president’s plan is to bring back the rest of the 30,000 “surge” troops in 2012, leaving about 68,000 at the beginning of 2013. (The timeline for 2013 and beyond is still unclear, though 2014 is still the official deadline for the transition to local security forces).So, to recap: CBO says 100,000 troops in 2013. The administration says 68,000 at the beginning of 2013, and something lower than that by the end. Both say this will cost $83 billion.
What explains the discrepancy? The Congressional Research Service’s latest report Amy Belasco offers a couple of explanations.First, the way CBO makes these estimates cannot take into account policy decisions, like the decision about how much to contribute to the Afghan National Security forces. (This particular example doesn’t explain why the administration estimate is higher, since the US is planning to cut back on aid to the Afghan security forces).
A second explanation is in the different ways in which CBO and DOD develop these estimates. CBO bases its estimate on previous cost trends. DOD, on the other hand, uses “a model to estimate the costs of deploying specific types of units in each service.” CRS notes that “It does not appear that DOD uses per previous annual per troop costs as a general check of the validity of its model.” The end result is that CBO’s estimates are usually much lower than the request for the same number of troops.
Finally, the CRS report concludes with a fascinating line: “There is some evidence in recently reported obligations that DOD’s war requests may be overstated.” CRS has documented and discussed at length the differences between DOD requests and CBO estimates (see, for example, pages 20-24 of this report). But the bottom line is this: DOD consistently requests more for war costs than CBO estimates, and there is no entirely satisfactory reason.
The 2013 request is unlikely to be an exception to this trend. $83 billion may not seem like a lot compared to last year, but it is still too much. The war is supposed to be wrapping up and the troops coming home. The Defense Department is making some tough choices about where to cut back. Why aren’t they cutting back war costs? -
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: U.S. Spends More on Military Than Medicare
Published: January 12th, 2012
The budget debate is heating up in Washington. With a national debt of over $15 trillion, the question is not whether to cut government spending, but where to make those cuts. The Department of Defense budget is a logical target. Military spending came close to $700 billion last year – that’s $200 billion more than the amount spent on Medicare and more than ten times the Department of State’s budget. The Pentagon has committed to finding $500 billion in savings over the next ten years, but defense analysts say they could cut another $500 billion without risking national security.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been a big factor in defense spending increases. Last year we spent $120 in Afghanistan alone; this year’s budget request of $110 billion is only slightly lower.
Ending the war in Afghanistan won’t solve the fiscal crisis. But it is a good place to start. And it’s certainly preferable to cutting spending in other areas.
From ASG
1/8/12
New Strategy Looks Forward, But We’re Still Stuck In Afghanistan
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
The new defense strategy guidance takes a step in the right direction by acknowledging that Afghanistan and similar conflicts should not be a part of future US strategy. Whether this strategic reality translates into a more disciplined budget remains to be seen.ARTICLES
1/11/12
Panetta Said Ready to Release First Budget Numbers Jan. 26
Bloomberg by Tony Cappacio
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is scheduled Jan. 26 to release the first details of the Obama administration’s fiscal 2013 defense budget…The administration plans $82.54 billion in funding for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars for 2013, according to OMB.1/8/12
Security transition in Afghanistan ongoing
Army Times by Michelle Tan
As it looks to bring all U.S. forces home, the military continues to apply the Iraq playbook to operations in Afghanistan.
Beginning this spring, elements of four brigade combat teams will deploy and organize — not as combat units, but to advise and assist Afghan army and police units as the U.S. looks to withdraw its forces after more than 10 years.Karzai’s Ultimatum Complicates U.S. Exit Strategy
New York Times by Matthew Rosenberg
President Hamid Karzai’s denunciation last week of abuses at the main American prison in Afghanistan — and his abrupt demand that Americans cede control of the site within a month — surprised many here. The prison, at Bagram Air Base, is one of the few in the country where Afghan and Western rights advocates say that conditions are relatively humane.OPINION
1/3/12
How to Save the Global Economy: Cut Defense Spending
Foreign Policy by Barney Frank
One major change that can reverse this: a substantial reduction in America’s military spending. In the current fiscal year, the United States is spending upwards of $650 billion on its military, including the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is far more than it spends on Medicare and, more importantly, considerably in excess of what is required for America’s legitimate national security needs.1/9/12
Why the new Defense Guidance is still interventionist
Foreign Policy by Stephen Walt
These changes do not herald a philosophical shift away from a highly interventionist outlook. The new DG [defense guidance] says the United States will still “take an active approach to countering [terrorist] threats,” meaning continued drone strikes, night raids, and various forms of covert action. The decision to “invest as required to ensure [our] ability to operate in anti-access and area denial environments” tells you that the U.S. intends to retain the capability to use force just about anywhere it decides it wants to. And although it declares that the U.S. “will continue to promote a rules-based international order,” we will undoubtedly reserve the right to ignore any of those rules if they prove to be inconvenient.1/10/12
Beaufort: Why We Must Leave Afghanistan Now, Not End 2014
Atlantic Council blog by Julian Lindley–French
Afghanistan was always a risk but the essential failing from the outset was to equate ridding the space quickly of Al Qaeda (achieved relatively quickly) with ‘doing good’ by Western liberal criteria and then to organise poorly both the effort and the resources. -
New strategy looks forward, but we’re still stuck in Afghanistan
Published: January 9th, 2012
Image Credit: Brennan Linsley, The Associated Press
Mary Kaszynski
Afghanistan Study Group BloggerThe much-anticipated defense strategic guidance, the result of an eight-month review of U.S. military strategy, was released last week. One of the big changes from the defense review of two years ago is that “prevail in today’s wars” is no longer a top priority. Indeed, the new strategic guidance “transitions our Defense enterprise from an emphasis on today’s wars to preparing for future challenges.”
That the war in Afghanistan is no longer an important factor in shaping US strategy was made even more explicit in Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter’s remarks following the unveiling of the new strategy: “We will not retain force structure in the ground forces for large and prolonged stability operations as have been required in Iraq and Afghanistan,” he said. “This does not mean abandoning COIN [counter insurgency operations] or any such thing, but we do not see the U.S. conducting such operations on its own as likely in the future.”
President Obama calls this “turning the page on a decade of war.” The Washington Post describes it as “declaring success in Iraq and Afghanistan and taking a forward-looking stance on the how to preserve U.S. military pre-eminence.” Even Republican presidential candidates agree that there are more pressing national security threats than Afghanistan.
There is a good reason for the lack of focus on Afghanistan. After al Qaeda, Afghanistan has little strategic importance. As a national security threat Afghanistan pales in comparison to concerns like Iran. Political rhetoric and the new strategy guidance notwithstanding, the war in Afghanistan is still a major part of our foreign policy. The number of US troops in Afghanistan peaked at about 100,000 in 2011; 90,000 troops remain today. This translates into: about $120 billion for the just war in Afghanistan in 2011, and $110 billion in 2012. We’ll find out more about how far that amount may fall in 2013 with the president’s budget request, to be released in February.
Of course, war costs will go down as the drawdown progresses. But the pace of the drawdown, and the meaning of the 2014 deadline, has never been more unclear. U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker recently admitted that the US presence in Afghanistan after 2014 may include some combat forces, not just trainers and advisers. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michèle Fluornoy followed up with “2014 is not a withdrawal date–it’s an inflection point.” And the commander of allied forces in Afghanistan General John Allen was even more blunt. “If you been waiting for us to go, we’re not leaving,” he said.
The one thing missing from arguments for keeping troops in Afghanistan is any consideration of how much this would cost. Leaving cost of out the picture may be deliberate – after all, those who argue for prolonging the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the same ones who criticize the strategic guidance for being “budget-driven.” The implication is that strategy should be made in a vacuum – ignoring fiscal realities. Afghanistan is a perfect example. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that keeping 45,000 troops in Afghanistan till 2021 would cost almost $500 billion, bringing the total costs of both wars to almost $2 trillion. This would have a direct effect on our national security – diverting resources from more important threats – and an indirect effect, weakening our already weak economy.
Admiral Mike Mullen once called the national debt our greatest national security threat; out-of-control war spending contributed to this crisis and will continue as long as the war in Afghanistan continues. The new strategy guidance takes a step in the right direction by acknowledging that Afghanistan and similar conflicts should not be a part of future US strategy. Whether this strategic reality translates into a more disciplined budget remains to be seen.
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: Perspectives on the Peace Process
Published: January 5th, 2012
The announcement that the Taliban will open a political office in Qatar in exchange for the release of Taliban officials from Guantanamo Bay has been alternately hailed as a dramatic breakthough and criticized as a surrender. Whatever the spin, this development indicates that the process for a negotiated settlement in Afghanistan is moving forward. Unfortunately, U.S. military involvement in the region is far from over and strong support still remains for maintaining troop levels through 2014 and after. Although U.S. troops are expected to shift to an advisory role over the next year, peace negotiations are progressing slowly as the cost of war continues to increase.
From ASG
1/4/12
Withdraw Troops From Afghanistan But Stay Engaged
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
Bringing the troops home is not retreat, and it is not abandonment. It is simply the first step towards a more effective Afghanistan policy and a smarter, more responsible defense budget.ARTICLES
1/3/12
US army’s new Afghan nightmare – how to ship $30bn of kit
The Guardian by Jon Boone
The US army has begun the massive task of withdrawing $30bn (£19bn) worth of military equipment from Afghanistan three years before most Nato troops leave, with logisticians warning of complications from the lack of decent roads and the nightmarish geography of a landlocked country surrounded by states that are either fickle American allies or outright enemies.OPINION
12/22/11
A long goodbye to Afghanistan
LA Times by Doyle MacManus
The Afghanistan withdrawal won’t be anywhere near as final as the one we just saw [in Iraq]. U.S. military leaders are working on a new slimmed-down strategy that would keep some American troops in combat against the Taliban for years to come, long after 2014.12/27/11
Military Advice and Policy Decisions
National Interest by Paul Pillar
If General Allen understands his mission to be stabilization of Afghanistan and the continuation in power of the Afghan government of the day, he should provide his best advice as to what forces are needed to accomplish that mission. And if whoever is the U.S. president in 2014 determines that accomplishing that mission is not sufficiently critical to U.S. interests to warrant extending a U.S. military expedition that would have already gone on for thirteen years, he should overrule the general’s advice.1/2/12
2011 Reflections: What happened to the US debate on Afghanistan?
CS Monitor by Ben Arnoldy
Should the war run for three more Christmases? That question can be answered in various ways. But as someone who has just returned to the US, I simply want it to be asked here.
As I enjoy the peace of this holiday season, so removed from the conflict zone I recently experienced, I remind myself that we should spare a few thoughts for those who won’t be home for the holidays – and consider why exactly that is. -
Withdraw Troops from Afghanistan but Stay Engaged
Published: January 4th, 2012
Mary Kaszynski
Afghanistan Study Group BloggerThe war in Afghanistan has cost a lot. In terms of dollars, it has cost $570 billion since 2001, including over $120 billion budgeted for 2012. Caring for the veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan could cost an additional $700 billion. Afghanistan alone has cost the lives of 1,800 US troops, as well as at least 12,000 Afghan civilians.
Having spent so much on the war, naturally the American public would like to ensure that we’ve gotten something out of it. This is a favorite refrain of those who oppose an accelerated drawdown. If we withdraw troops now, they say, we might as well be abandoning all our achievements and goals in Afghanistan.
This argument is deeply flawed, and also dangerous. The flaw is in equating withdrawing troops with ending our engagement with Afghanistan. The danger is in the underlying assumption that the only kind of engagement is military engagement, and the only way to ensure that our troops have not died in vain is by sending more troops.
Developing a successful strategy for Afghanistan means getting past this idea that “engagement” means “maintain a military presence”. As the Senate Foreign Relations Committee noted in its most recent report, “The U.S. role in Afghanistan is changing, but Washington should repeatedly stress that its engagement is not ending…[after the transition to local security forces] the United States will remain vigorously engaged on security, governance, and economic and social development.”
Adapting to this new role and developing a new strategy for Afghanistan will not be easy. It will require a realistic assessment of US interests in the region, as well as capabilities and limitations. It will require building the economy, not just providing aid. It will require some kind of near-term political reconciliation and long-term investment in improving governance. It will require commitment from the international community, and it will require working with regional actors.
The alternative to this approach – continuing to rely on military engagement – is a strategic and economic quagmire. By relying too much on the military arm our foreign policy, we have allowed it to grow too large – larger, and not necessarily more effective. The result is a military footprint that reflects old security interests, but does not address current threats. Lack of strategic discipline has had fiscal consequences as well. US military spending has grown out of control – a staggering 81% since 2001 according to SIPRI. The costs of the two wars alone, at over one trillion, were a main driver of the current deficit.
Bringing the troops home is not retreat, and it is not abandonment. It is simply the first step towards a more effective Afghanistan policy and a smarter, more responsible defense budget.
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: Drawdown Deadline Still Unclear
Published: December 21st, 2011
The last US troops left Iraq this week, an encouraging sign toward the restoration of fiscal propriety in the Defense Department. The encouragement ends, however, when we turn our eye toward Afghanistan. If we are winning, as Secretary Panetta says we are, why aren’t we leaving?
General John Allen, commander of the International Security Assistance Force, dispelled any misperceptions about the US presence in Afghanistan after 2014. “If you been waiting for us to go, we’re not leaving,” he said. Afghan President Hamid Karzai has confirmed that the Strategic Partnership Agreement currently under negotiation “may bring about the presence of some U.S. troops in Afghanistan for the duration of the agreement.”
Congress just passed a defense spending bill that provides over $100 billion for war costs. If the drawdown slows down, the final price tag of the Afghanistan war is anyone’s guess.
From ASG
Priorities And Perspective: Are We Reasonably Allocating Our Resources In The Af-Pak Region
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
If Pakistan and Iran are truly our most important foreign policy challenges, why do we continue to invest in the Afghanistan war?ARTICLES
12-18-11
The IED: The $30-Bombs That Cost The U.S. Billions
NPR by Rachel Martin
The IED, which is essentially a homemade bomb, became the weapon of choice for the insurgency in Iraq. The U.S. has officially declared the end of the war there, but one lasting legacy will be the IED and how it changed the way the U.S. thinks about warfare.OPINION
12-14-11
The National Defense Authorization Gesture
National Interest by Paul Pillar
A defense-authorization act is supposed to set the limits for appropriations for national defense and update the rules and standards by which the Department of Defense is to operate. This bill has become a Christmas tree of topics on which members of Congress want to make gestures.12-15-11
Running Out of Time for Afghan Governance Reform
Foreign Affairs by Stephen Biddle
Reasonable people can differ on whether a tolerable result is worth the sacrifice in Afghanistan. But no one can justify continued sacrifice for an unsustainable result.
Administration Bait and Switch in Afghanistan?
National Interest by Doug Bandow
If the president plans on keeping U.S. troops in Afghanistan beyond the promised 2014, he should ‘fess up. Then the American people can make their views known. And, more important, they can take appropriate action in next year’s presidential election.12-19-11
This isn’t the COIN you’re looking for
Foreign Policy’s AfPak Channel by Michael Few
COIN as a strategy cannot work in today’s world, given the current limitations in available resources, time, and national will. It was a collection of tactics and operational arts developed for twentieth century wars of nationalism and communism. Strategy, defined as the ends, ways, and means of American policy, must rise above a collection of disjointed tactics that have no proven cumulative effect.
