ASG Blog
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: U.S. Plan in Afghanistan Still Unclear
Published: January 18th, 2013
Last week’s announcement that U.S. and allied forces will transition more quickly from a combat role to training and advising left many of the big questions on next steps unanswered. Afghan president Hamid Karzai said negotiations on immunity for U.S. troops are ongoing, with a decision expected this year. The immunity question is a factor in whether U.S. forces remain in Afghanistan after 2014.
From ASG
1/17/13
$28 Million Per Day for Afghanistan Reconstruction
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
Regardless of the final decision on troop levels, the U.S. financial commitment to Afghanistan will likely continue. Unfortunately, over the past eleven years “commitment” meant a steady stream of money but no effective strategy for spending it.ARTICLES
1/17/13
Military Hasn’t Pursued Afghan ‘Zero Option’
Wall Street Journal by Stephen Fidler
U.S. and NATO commanders have been asked to provide advice on what could be achieved with U.S. and allied troop numbers at various levels—but nothing on a complete drawdown, the officer said.1/14/13
Afghans want withdrawal of village police trainers
Washington Post by Kevin Sieff
Days after Afghan President Hamid Karzai and President Obama seemed to agree on the future role of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, a division has emerged over one of the American military’s most prized defense programs.1/14/13
Decision on immunity for U.S. troops by year-end: Karzai
Reuters by Hamid Shalizi
A decision on immunity for U.S. troops staying in Afghanistan after the 2014 planned withdrawal will be made by the end of the year, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said on Monday.1/5/13
US pushes to finish Afghan dam as challenges mount
AP by Heidi Vogt
In the approaching twilight of its war in Afghanistan, the U.S. is forging ahead with a giant infrastructure project long criticized as too costly in both blood and money.OPINION
1/15/13
Afghanistan in 2015
LA Times Editorial
[If] the U.S. is still able to mount an effective counter-terrorism effort without many boots on the ground, the light footprint strategy should be implemented.1/15/13
The Afghan pullout picks up
SF Gate Editorial
A costly war is coming to a close, just as the far larger Iraq conflict did. In Afghanistan’s case, the future remains uncertain and worrisome. -
$28 Million Per Day for Afghanistan Reconstruction
Published: January 17th, 2013
Afghan President Karzai’s meeting with President Obama last week ended with the announcement of an accelerated transition to from U.S. and allied troops to local security forces. Starting this spring, Afghan forces will take the lead role in security operations, while the 60,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan will move to a training and advising role.
Despite the announcement, most of the big questions about the war in Afghanistan are still unanswered, from the pace of the drawdown to post-2014 troop levels.
Perhaps the biggest question for American taxpayers, who have been financing the $600 billion-plus war for the past eleven years, is whether the U.S. will revise its ineffective Afghanistan aid strategy.
The U.S. spends about $28 million each day on relief and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan, according to accounting by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR). Congress has appropriated almost $90 billion in security and economic aid to Afghanistan, That’s more than the amount spent for reconstruction efforts in any other single county, including post-war Germany, SIGAR Inspector General John Sopko noted at a recent Stimson Center event.
How much of that $90 billion has been well spent and how much has been wasted is still unclear. But experts who have looked into Afghanistan reconstruction projects conclude that amount of wasteful spending is in the range of tens of billions of dollars.
The Commission on Wartime Contracting, established by Congress in 2008 in an effort to introduce some accountability to the Afghanistan aid process, determined that at least $31 billion and as much as $60 was lost due to wartime contracting fraud and abuse.
A former senior auditor for SIGAR estimated that only about 15 percent of aid, sometimes even less, makes it the intended recipient in Afghanistan. Another 15 percent is lost to waste and corruption, and a whopping 70 percent is eaten up in overhead costs.
One failed reconstruction project after another indicates an underlying problem. In fact, Inspector General Sopko points to five problems that explain the ineffectiveness of our aid strategy: inadequate planning, poor quality assurance, poor security, questionable sustainability, and corruption.
“[Simple logical, questions] aren’t being answered in Afghanistan,” Sopko said.
“Questions like, are these buildings needed? Have you asked the Afghans if they want them?…Have we designed them in such a way that they can be sustainable in the future? Quite often we find that the answer to these questions is no,” he added.
Regardless of the final decision on troop levels, the U.S. financial commitment to Afghanistan will likely continue. Unfortunately, over the past eleven years “commitment” meant a steady stream of money but no effective strategy for spending it. The result is $90 billion in aid and little to show for it.
Unless we start asking hard questions — SIGAR-type questions — about our aid strategy in Afghanistan, we could spend billions more over the coming years without advancing either Afghanistan or U.S. security interests.
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: Growing Support for Drawdown
Published: January 9th, 2013
Afghan President Hamid Karzai is in Washington this week for a meeting with President Obama that could determine the size of the U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan after 2014. The meeting comes one week after Pentagon leaders presented options for post-2014 troop levels ranging from 6,000 to 20,000. In the U.S., support for reducing the large, costly military presence is growing, as policymakers and the public question the wisdom of spending billions on the war.
From ASG
1/7/12
$7 Billion for Each Month of War in Afghanistan
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
The coming months will see many opportunities to develop a budget that eliminates wasteful programs. Policymakers need to take advantage of this opportunity now, rather than kicking the can down the road. Each month of delay means billions added to the national debt, billions of taxpayer dollars wasted, and billions spent on a war that most Americans no longer support.ARTICLES
1/8/13
U.S. Is Open to Withdraw Afghan Force After 2014
New York Times by Mark Landler and Michael R. Gordon
On the eve of a visit by President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, the Obama administration said Tuesday that it was open to a so-called zero option that would involve leaving no American troops in Afghanistan after 2014, when the NATO combat mission there comes to an end.1/7/12
A ‘Zero Option’ for Afghanistan
Foreign Policy by David W. Barno
Whether U.S. troops ultimately stay or leave Afghanistan after 2014 may now come down to just one week of tough bargaining. Each nation has a great deal at stake.1/7/12
The open question of Afghanistan
Washington Post by Walter Pincus
President Obama this week has a chance to explain to President Hamid Karzai, and hopefully to the American people, what will be our future role in Afghanistan…as the U.S. financial belt is being tightened, people want to know the financial cost, for how long and what will be accomplished.1/8/12
Some in administration push for only a few thousand U.S. troops in Afghanistan after 2014
Washington Post by Ernesto Londoño and Rajiv Chandrasekaran
As the debate over the size and scope of the post-2014 coalition mission nears its end, some in the administration are pressing for a force that could be as small as 2,500, arguing that a light touch would be the most constructive way to cap the costly, unpopular war.OPINION
1/6/12
Choices on Afghanistan
New York Times Editorial
If Mr. Obama cannot find a way to go to zero troops, he should approve only the minimum number needed, of mostly Special Operations commandos, to hunt down insurgents and serve as a deterrent against the Taliban retaking Kabul and Al Qaeda re-establishing a safe haven in Afghanistan.1/7/12
The Cost of a Post-2014 U.S. Force
TIME by Douglas A. Ollivant
Those promoting the extension of current force levels in Afghanistan talk about justification for these troops remaining here, here and here, but elide over the costs. And $60-ish billion is real money, even by DOD or Federal budget standards. -
$7 Billion for Each Month of War in Afghanistan
Published: January 7th, 2013
The fiscal cliff was averted by a last-minute deal that included some tax increases and delayed across-the-board spending cuts. But policymakers again avoided a long-term strategy for reining in government spending.
The budget deal, which included $70 billion in tax breaks for special interest groups like NASCAR race track owners and Hollywood producers, is just one sign that wasteful spending will continue in Washington.
The $633 billion fiscal 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, also signed into law last week, is another example. The bill includes $88.5 billion for ongoing war operations, largely in Afghanistan.
Ending war in Afghanistan should be the first priority for policymakers looking to cut government spending. Instead, the war continues to escape oversight, costing billions of taxpayer dollars each month.
This year, each month in Afghanistan will cost over $7 billion, down slightly from last year’s cost of $9 billion per month.
Although war costs will decline as Afghan security forces take the lead in counterinsurgency operations, the U.S. will continue to spend billions in Afghanistan even after its combat troops are withdrawn by the end of 2014.
But the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan could be significant even after 2014. The lowest of the troop level options recently presented to the administration by Pentagon leaders was 6,000. The second option is for 10,000 troops; the third and highest is 20,000.
Some members of Congress have consistently advocated keeping 20,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Some pundits have gone even farther, arguing that vital U.S. interests require force of about 30,000 troops in Afghanistan indefinitely after 2014.
Few supporters of a large military presence in Afghanistan consider the financial costs of such a policy. Sustaining 20,000 troops could cost $20 billion each year.
The coming months will see many opportunities to develop a budget that eliminates wasteful programs. Policymakers need to take advantage of this opportunity now, rather than kicking the can down the road. Each month of delay means billions added to the national debt, billions of taxpayer dollars wasted, and billions spent on a war that most Americans no longer support.
-
Afghanistan War Costs: the Year in Review
Published: December 31st, 2012
2012 saw some important milestones in the Afghanistan war. The last of the surge troops left Afghanistan in September. U.S. and Afghan officials met twice to discuss post-2014 plans. The international community emphasized its continued commitment to Afghanistan by pledging billions in economic aid.
But the past year also brought more questions about whether the billions the U.S. has spent in Afghanistan were an effective use of taxpayer money.
Below is a roundup of the top reports in 2012 that uncovered examples of wasteful spending and an ineffective strategy in Afghanistan:
Afghanistan’s National Power Utility: $12.8 million in DOD-purchased equipment sits unused, and USAID paid a contractor for work not done. (Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, December 2012)
Pentagon Says Afghan Forces Still Need Assistance (The New York Times on the Department of Defense annual Afghanistan assessment, December 2012)- “A bleak new Pentagon report has found that only one of the Afghan National Army’s 23 brigades is able to operate independently without air or other military support from the United States and NATO partners”
DOD Decision Makers Need Additional Analyses to Determine Costs and Benefits of Returning Excess Equipment (The Government Accountability Office, December 2012)
- “[The military’s equipment in Afghanistan] estimated to be worth more than $36 billion, has accumulated during a 10-year period. DOD officials also estimate that it could cost $5.7 billion to return or transfer equipment from Afghanistan.
Fiscal Year Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund Projects are behind schedule and lack adequate sustainment plans (SIGAR, July 2012)
- “Five of seven fiscal year 2011 AIF [Afghanistan infrastructure] projects are 6-15 months behind schedule, and most projects may not achieve desired COIN benefits for several years”
Afghan National Security Forces Facilities: Concerns with Funding, Oversight, and Sustainability for Operation and Maintenance (SIGAR, October 2012)
- “The Afghan government will likely be incapable of fully sustaining ANSF [Afghan National Security] facilities after the transition in 2014 and the expected decrease in U.S. and coalition support.”
- “The ANSF lacks personnel with the technical skills required to operate and maintain critical facilities, such as water supply, waste water treatment, and power generation.”
- “The Ministry of Defense’s procurement process is unable to provide the Afghan army with O&M supplies in a timely manner.”
U.S. probes reported record-shredding of fuel buys for Afghan army (Reuters on SIGAR letter, Interim Report on Afghan National Army Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricants, September 2012)
- “Investigators are probing reports of record-shredding by officials in the U.S.-led NATO command that trains the Afghan army after learning that records of fuel purchases for the Afghans totaling nearly $475 million are gone.”
Military’s Own Report Card Gives Afghan Surge an F (Wired on ISAF report on Enemy Initiated Attacks, September 2012)
- “The U.S. troop surge in Afghanistan ended last week. Conditions in Afghanistan are mostly worse than before it began. That conclusion doesn’t come from anti-war advocates. It relies on data recently released by the NATO command in Afghanistan.”
USAID has disbursed $9.5 billion for reconstruction and funded some financial audits as required, but many audits face significant delays, accountability limitations, and lack of resources (SIGAR, April 2012)
USAID spent almost $400 Million on an Afghan stabilization project despite uncertain results, but has taken steps to better assess similar Efforts (SIGAR, April 2012)
GAO: Military lowering bar to evaluate Afghan troop progress (CNN on GAO report, Long-standing Challenges May Affect Progress and Sustainment of Afghan National Security Forces)
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: Millions Wasted in Afghanistan Reconstruction Project
Published: December 27th, 2012
New reports released last week raise further questions about the costs of the Afghanistan war. An U.S. government watchdog audit finds that $13 million worth of electrical equipment “to meet urgent needs in support of the counterinsurgency strategy is sitting unused in storage…without a clear plan for installation.” A report by the Government Accountability Office questions the Pentagon’s plan to spend $5.7 billion transporting equipment from Afghanistan.
From ASG
12/24/12
Wasteful War Strategy Persists
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
An accelerated withdrawal of U.S. troops would be good first step, but it falls short of what is needed: a reevaluation of the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan.ARTICLES
12/18/12
Millions in DOD-funded electric equipment for Afghanistan collecting dust
Foreign Policy’s E-Ring by Kevin Baron
The United states hires a private contractor to complete a major infrastructure reconstruction project in a war zone, yet when the equipment goes unused and the project unfinished, the contractor is paid millions – in full – anyway.12/19/12
Bringing it all back home
Delaware Online by Bill McMichael
More than $36 billion worth of U.S. equipment has accumulated during the past decade in Afghanistan. With the administration currently planning to withdraw all combat troops by December 2014 and turn Afghanistan’s security completely over to its own forces, decisions have to be made. Does the U.S. bring the gear back, give it away or destroy it in place?12/18/12
No guarantee of troops in Afghanistan past 2014
Navy Times by Andrew Tilghman
A third option – a complete withdrawal leaving no troops – is also a potential outcome, as U.S. decision-makers consider legal protections for American forces, domestic budget pressures and mounting threats elsewhere, some experts say.12/19/12
Nearly half of UK forces to leave Afghanistan in 2013
Reuters by Peter Griffiths and Matt Falloon
Britain will withdraw nearly half its troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2013, the government said on Wednesday, as part of a security handover to Afghan forces more than a decade after the U.S.-led invasion.12/13/12
US uniforms, like those used in attacks on bases, still found in Kabul shops
Stars and Stripes by Heath Druzin
When a shopkeeper at a Kabul market was asked if he had any U.S. military uniforms for sale, he answered, “Which unit?”OPINION
12/18/12
No end in sight for Afghanistan war
World News Australia by Ian Bickerton
The main purpose of the attack on the Taliban and Afghanistan was to destroy the al-Qaeda network responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the US. Eleven years later it is still not clear how successful this war has been. -
Wasteful War Strategy Persists
Published: December 24th, 2012
The U.S. is looking to shift its military strategy in Afghanistan, moving from a combat role to training and advising the Afghan security forces. The Wall Street Journal reports that the shift could be implemented next year.
Despite being billed as a changed strategy, this move is really just a clarification of the current strategy. The U.S. plans to withdraw all combat troops by the end of 2014, letting Afghan security forces take the lead role for ongoing counterinsurgency operations.
If the transition from U.S. and allied forces to local forces begins next year, some of the 66,000 U.S. troops currently stationed in Afghanistan may be withdrawn earlier. If the transition is undertaken closer to the 2014 deadline, some troops may stay longer.
The “shift” in the U.S. strategy is less a shift than a hint at the drawdown timeline for the next two years. An accelerated withdrawal of U.S. troops would be good first step, but it falls short of what is needed: a reevaluation of the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan.
The current strategy relies on a heavy military footprint today and the capabilities of the Afghan security forces tomorrow. But reliance on military force hasn’t solved Afghanistan’s security problems. In fact, there is clear evidence that increasing troop levels actually contributes to an increase in the number of insurgent attacks.
As for the second piece of the strategy — the Afghan security forces, which are supposed take the lead in 2014 — U.S. training efforts seem to have fallen short. Congress has allocated over $50 billion in security aid to Afghanistan since 2002. The funds support programs to train and equip local Afghan forces.
Despite the billions invested in Afghanistan’s security forces, serious doubts about their capabilities remain. According to a Pentagon report released just last week, only one of the Afghan Army’s 23 brigades can operate without support from the U.S. and allies.
Focusing on the training mission in won’t solve the fundamental problems with the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan. After eleven years and more than $500 billion, it’s time for U.S. leaders to eliminate wasteful war spending and develop a strategy that works.
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: Officials Evade U.S. Anti-Corruption Efforts
Published: December 13th, 2012
Two U.S. government reports released this week paint a grim picture of security and anti-corruption efforts in Afghanistan. An investigation by the U.S. agency that oversees Afghanistan reconstruction found that Afghan officials are resisting efforts to track the billions of dollars in cash flown out of Afghanistan each year. Meanwhile, a Pentagon report determined that only one of the Afghan Army’s 23 brigades can operate without assistance from U.S. and allied troops. Congress has allocated over $50 billion in security aid to Afghanistan since 2001.
From ASG
12/10/12
Growing Momentum for Ending the War in Afghanistan
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
The momentum in Congress for ending the war is a good first step toward a more effective strategy in Afghanistan, and a better plan for spending taxpayer dollars.ARTICLES
12/11/12
Despite U.S. aid, little progress in monitoring Kabul airport cash flow
Reuters by Susan Cornwell
Afghan officials are stonewalling U.S. efforts to help regulate the billions of dollars in cash being flown out of Kabul airport every year, a U.S. watchdog said in a report on Tuesday.12/10/12
Pentagon Says Afghan Forces Still Need Assistance
New York Times by Elisabeth Bumiller
As President Obama considers how quickly to withdraw the remaining 68,000 American troops in Afghanistan and turn over the war to Afghan security forces, a bleak new Pentagon report has found that only one of the Afghan National Army’s 23 brigades is able to operate independently without air or other military support from the United States and NATO partners.12/11/12
Taliban Popular Where U.S. Fought Biggest Battle
AP by Kathy Gannon
Nearly three years after U.S.-led forces launched the biggest operation of the war to clear insurgents, foster economic growth and set a model for the rest of Afghanistan, angry residents of Helmand province say they are too afraid to go out after dark because of marauding bands of thieves.12/12/12
Panetta Visits Afghanistan to Discuss Troop Levels
New York Times by Thom Shanker
The president has made no decision, and a range of options are being prepared, officials said. The American counterterrorism force might number fewer than 1,000, part of an American military mission that would probably total no more than 10,000 troops, despite the desire of some officers for a larger force.OPINION
12/8/12
How Pentagon Employees Are Picking America’s Pocket – In Afghanistan
Politico’s The Arena by Michael Shank
We cannot forget, amid fiscal cliff fecklessness, that as taxpayers of this debt-funded fight we are sending nearly $10 billion every month to Afghanistan for the war (aka deconstruction) and post-war reconstruction efforts. Last year alone, American taxpayers accumulated well over $113.9 billion worth of debt so that this war could continue.12/11/12
In Afghanistan, fewer resources can be better
Washington Post Letter to the Editor by Adam Cohen
That the United States has neither the interest nor the funds for a large-footprint approach to diplomacy and development in Afghanistan need not be cause for alarm. Fewer resources do not necessarily spell disaster, and they might make such outreach more effective. -
Growing Momentum for Ending the War in Afghanistan
Published: December 10th, 2012
It’s no secret that public support for the war in Afghanistan is fading. According to a recent opinion poll, 66 percent think the costs of the war outweigh the benefits — up from 41 percent five years ago. 60 percent of Americans support withdrawing troops as soon as possible, according to an October Pew poll.
A new part of the debate over U.S. policy in Afghanistan is the growing support in Congress for ending the war.
Last week, the Senate approved an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act calling for an accelerated drawdown in Afghanistan. While the measure is nonbinding, it is a clear sign that Congress may be catching up to the public.
The Senate also passed a measure to improve oversight of wartime contracting. The amendment implements the recommendations of the Commission on Wartime Contracting, which determined that as much as $60 billion has been lost due to contract waste and fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Momentum for changing the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan is growing in the House too. Some former supporters of the war have recently spoken out in support of ending the war. Over 90 representatives, led by Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Congressman Walter Jones (R-NC), arguing that “there can be no military solution in Afghanistan.”
“We are writing to urge you [the president] to pursue a strategy in Afghanistan that best serves the interests of the American people and our brave troops on the ground.,” the letter reads. “That strategy is simple: an accelerated withdrawal to bring to an end the decade-long war as soon as can safely and responsibly be accomplished.”
Of course, despite the growing bipartisan consensus for a new strategy in Afghanistan, there are still some who support continuing the current strategy. The administration has committed to withdrawing the 68,000 combat troops over the next two years. Some administration officials are reportedly considering keeping about 10,000 troops to support ongoing counterterrorism operations.
Still others have called for keeping 30,000 troops in the country, a move that would cost over $30 billion each year.
The U.S. has already spent close to $600 billion and over ten years in Afghanistan — a clear sign that the current strategy isn’t working. Spending billions more to sustain a large military presence is not only unnecessary, it is fiscally irresponsible. The momentum in Congress for ending the war is a good first step toward a more effective strategy in Afghanistan, and a better plan for spending taxpayer dollars.
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: Senate Votes for Accelerated Drawdown
Published: December 5th, 2012
The U.S Senate approved a non-binding resolution calling for an accelerated transition to local security forces Afghanistan, withdrawing U.S combat forces earlier than the planned 2014 deadline. Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said ongoing counterterrorism efforts in Afghanistan will require an “enduring presence” post-2014.
From ASG
12/4/12
The Outpost: No Strategic Purpose for U.S. Efforts in Afghanistan
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
The story of Combat Outpost Keating is perhaps one of the most tragic of the Afghanistan war. The U.S. camp was located in a remote area of Afghanistan, near the Pakistan border, at the base of three mountains – a nearly indefensible position – defend the position, at great expense by U.S. forces, for over three years.ARTICLES
11/29/12
Majority in U.S. Senate Support Accelerated Afghanistan Transition Pace
Defense News by John Bennett
In a bipartisan vote of 62-33, the upper chamber approved what’s called a “sense of Congress” measure offered by Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., that formally stamps Senate approval on an “accelerated transition of United States combat and military and security operations to the government of Afghanistan,” according to a Senate summary of the provision.
11/29/12
Panetta: Post-2014 Afghan Effort To Be Substantial
Associated Press
The U.S. intends to wage a counterterrorism campaign inside Afghanistan even after the main U.S. combat force leaves in 2014 in order to prevent al-Qaida from fulfilling its ambition to re-establish a sanctuary there, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Thursday.12/4/12
New commander faces challenge of winding down Afghanistan war
Reuters by David Alexander
Marine Corps General Joseph Dunford, who takes over as head of international forces in Afghanistan next year, faces the challenge of winding down a war in a country where he has little experience using a strategy he did not devise.12/4/12
Differing Afghan, U.S. priorities could sabotage proposed security agreement
Washington Post by Pamela Constable and Craig Whitlock
When the two sides meet again this month for more substantive discussions, each will begin to lay out a competing set of military concerns, political constraints and legal priorities that could severely test their fledgling postwar partnership, possibly to the point of failure.OPINION
11/30/12
How to fight in Afghanistan with fewer U.S. troops
Washington Post by David Barno and Matthew Irvine
Protecting these [vital national security] interests after 2014 will require the United States to be able to launch precision military strikes from this region. But it will not require tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.11/27/12
The Pace of Leaving Afghanistan
New York Times Editorial
[The drawdown] should start now and should not take more than a year. We strongly supported the war in Afghanistan following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but after more than a decade of fighting and a cost upward of $500 billion it is time for a safe and orderly departure.
