ASG Blog
-
The Outpost: No Strategic Purpose for U.S. Efforts in Afghanistan
Published: December 4th, 2012
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.
In October 2009, Taliban forces attacked Outpost Keating. U.S. troops, outnumbered seven to one, defended the post, but sustained heavy casualties. Of 53, 8 died and 22 were wounded, making the battle one of the deadliest for U.S. forces in the Afghanistan war.
Combat Outpost Keating is the subject of ABC White House correspondent Jake Tapper’s recent book, The Outpost: An Untold Story of American Valor. Tapper recently discussed the book on The Colbert Report.
The real tragedy, he said, is that “Despite some successes in three and a half years of the camp, by the end its only purpose really was its own self-defense.” American forces withdrew from Combat Outpost Keating shortly after that deadly battle in 2009; the war continued. A Pentagon investigation later concluded there was “no strategic purpose” for the camp.
Outpost Keating was the direct result of the flawed U.S. strategy in Afghanistan. In fact, The way the U.S. has carried out the war may have created more problems than it solved.
Take the surge strategy for example. In late 2009 the administration announced a plan to send an additional 33,000 troops to support the 68,000 already stationed in Afghanistan. Over the next several years U.S. troop levels increased, then the additional forces were gradually withdrawn. The last of the surge troop left Afghanistan two months ago, bringing us back to the 2009 level.
The Afghanistan surge was supposed to help eliminate and suppress the insurgency. Instead, the opposite happened. From 2009 to 2012, the number of enemy initiated attacks increased, according to the military’s own figures.
The limits of a strategy that relies too much on troop levels has been clear to the American public for some time. Opinion polls show support for the at all-time lows. According to a recent Washington Post/ABC poll, 66 percent think the costs of the war in Afghanistan outweigh the benefits. 60 percent of respondents support withdrawing troops as soon as possible, according to an October Pew poll.
Some members of Congress are starting to catch up to the public. Former supporters of the war have come out in favor of ending it. Last week 62 Senators voted in support of an accelerated drawdown.
Of course, there are still some holdouts, some who refuse to see that ten years, $500 billion, and little progress adds up to a bad strategy. A recent op-ed called for keeping 30,000 troops in Afghanistan after 2014.
Maintaining a military presence of that size would likely cost over $30 billion per year, based on expert estimates. With a national debt of over $16 trillion, the U.S. can’t afford to continue a war most Americans don’t support.
Instead of spending billions in Afghanistan, we should be focusing on building the U.S. economy. $30 billion would go a long way towards repairing decaying infrastructure or rebuilding after Hurricane Sandy.
Better yet, instead of prolonging the war, maybe we should be investing in programs to care for the veterans who served in places like Outpost Camp Keating.
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: U.S. Considers Keeping 10,000 Troops in Afghanistan
Published: November 28th, 2012
Pentagon officials say a recommendation on post-2014 troop levels is coming within weeks, although the specific number of troops is still undecided. The administration reportedly favors keeping 10,000 troops in Afghanistan. Some political pundits are calling for a heavy military footprint of 30,000, while other experts ask why the U.S. still has 66,000 combat troops in the country.
From ASG
11/26/12
Al Qaeda Decimated, but US Considers Heavy Military Footprint in Afghanistan
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
Despite official U.S. assessments that al Qaeda leadership has been “decimated,” some experts are insisting that the U.S. maintain a heavy military footprint in Afghanistan — a strategy that will cost billions of dollars each year.ARTICLES
11/26/12
Pentagon: Discussion of troop numbers remaining in Afghanistan ‘premature’
Stars and Stripes by Chris Carroll
The Pentagon says it plans to tell the White House within weeks how many American troops military leaders believe will be needed in Afghanistan after 2014 to train local forces and continue to target al-Qaida.11/20/12
Afghanistan Opium Fields Still Growing Despite Efforts
Wall Street Journal by Maria Abi-Habib
Land under opium cultivation in Afghanistan increased 18% this year, despite a decade of efforts by the international community to get Afghan farmers to switch to legal, though less lucrative, crops, a survey released Tuesday said.11/26/12
Audit Says Kabul Bank Began as ‘Ponzi Scheme’
New York Times by Matthew Rosenberg
Kabul Bank became Afghanistan’s largest financial institution by offering the promise of modern banking to people who had never had a saving or checking account. What it really dealt in was modern theft: “From its very beginning,” according to a confidential forensic audit of Kabul Bank, “the bank was a well-concealed Ponzi scheme.”11/26/12
For Obama, could 10,000 troops in Afghanistan be too many?
Reuters by Phil Stewart
President Barack Obama publicly scoffed at the idea of keeping 10,000 troops in Iraq. So could he really be persuaded to keep that many in Afghanistan after the war formally ends in 2014?OPINION
11/26/12
How Long Will it Take to Leave Afghanistan?
New York Times Editorial Blog by Andrew Rosenthal
Why not just start now? If all it takes is a year, then the United States could plausibly be out of Afghanistan by this time next year…it would mean one less year of American casualties on the battlefield – and one less year spent trying to make the Afghan army into a real fighting force. -
Al Qaeda Decimated, but US Considers Heavy Military Footprint in Afghanistan
Published: November 26th, 2012
Despite official U.S. assessments that al Qaeda leadership has been “decimated,” some experts are insisting that the U.S. maintain a heavy military footprint in Afghanistan — a strategy that will cost billions of dollars each year.
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta recently addressed the success of U.S. efforts against al Qaeda, saying “al-Qaeda has been significantly weakened in Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Its most effective leaders are gone. Its command, and control have been degraded, and its safe haven is shrinking….we have decimated core al-Qaeda.”
The U.S. must still “finish the job” in Afghanistan, Secretary Panetta added, calling for continued commitment on both military and diplomatic fronts.
Of course, Sec. Panetta’s stance on the Afghanistan war is representative of the Pentagon establishment perspective, and therefore flawed. He says that the administration of sending an additional 33,000 troops to Afghanistan was a success. But the number of enemy attacks actually increased during years of the troop surge.
Similarly, Secretary Panetta insists that “we are at a turning point after 10 years of war.” But that’s what officials and experts have been saying about the war for years. But every year since 2002 has been a “turning point” in the Afghanistan war, according to officials and experts.
More disturbing than the Pentagon’s take on the war is the fact that some pundits still support a sustained military presence in Afghanistan. The latest defense of this flawed strategy is a Washington Post op-ed by Kimberly Kagan and Frederick W. Kagan.
The authors are known supporters of continuing the current strategy in Afghanistan, despite the mounting evidence that the strategy isn’t working. In this latest piece they call for keeping 68,000 troops in Afghanistan through 2014 and about 30,000 after 2014.
The authors don’t say how long these 30,000 will stay, but they compare the troop level to the number of U.S. troops stationed in Korea, perhaps a hint that they would like to see U.S. troops in Afghanistan for decades to come.
Interestingly, the authors are completely silent how much their plan for Afghanistan will cost. This should be a red flag for taxpayers.
The Kagans’ plan is essentially this: keeping tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan has worked so well over the past ten years that we should continue the same strategy for the foreseeable future.
But not only has the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan failed, it has cost close to $600 billion. Continuing the current strategy will not strengthen U.S. national security; it will only add billions to the costs of the war.
Maintaining a military footprint on the scale envisioned by the Kagans would likely cost about $35 billion per year, based on expert estimates. That doesn’t include the billions of dollars for security and economic aid that the U.S. and allies have committed to Afghanistan over the next several years.
With a national debt of over $16 trillion, policymakers are debating the best way to cut back on government spending. In the midst of the fiscal crisis, spending billions on a war that most Americans want to end is a waste of taxpayer dollars.
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: New Commander Sees U.S. Role Extending Past 2014
Published: November 21st, 2012
In Afghanistan this week, proceedings began in the long-stalled trial of some two dozen people accused of corruption leading to the collapse of the Kabul Bank in 2010. Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress confirmed Gen. Joseph Dunford as the new commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Asked about the post-2014 U.S. presence in Afghanistan at his confirmation hearing, Gen. Dunford indicated his belief “that advise-and-assist role is an enduring role and would extend past December 2014,” and that a force of 1,000 would be insufficient for this mission.
From ASG
11/20/12
U.S. Taxpayers Pay the Price for Wasteful War Strategy
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
With so much attention on the Petraeus scandal and Benghazi investigation, the war in Afghanistan will likely continue to go unnoticed. Overlooking the war in Afghanistan is a mistake, and one that will cost U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars.ARTICLES
11/15/12
Obama pick for Afghanistan commander describes US role beyond 2014
Associated Press
President Barack Obama’s choice to be the top commander in Afghanistan said Thursday he envisions a U.S. presence in the country after American combat forces leave at the end of 2014, despite a national war-weariness reflected in Congress.11/17/12
Fraud Trial Begins in Multimillion-Dollar Afghan Bank Scandal
New York Times by Alissa J. Rubin
A major step toward resolving the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars from Kabul Bank began last week with the trial of nearly two dozen people, including the bank’s former chairman and former chief executive, who are accused of being the main architects of a colossal fraud.11/20/12
France ends combat mission in Afghanistan
AFP by Joris Fioriti
France ended its combat mission in Afghanistan on Tuesday, withdrawing troops from a strategic province northeast of Kabul as part of a quickened departure from the war-torn country.OPINION
11/16/12
Get out of Afghanistan now
The Augusta Chronicle by Timothy Monroe Bledsoe
I am not angry at the U.S. troops who fought in this war – but then, as now, I am angry and frustrated by the ignorance that pervades Washington, D.C., to continue, yet again, to put U.S. troops in harm’s way for absolutely nothing!11/18/12
Obama should now adjust foreign policy
Times Leader by Sarah Chayes
Obama should use this one to reverse one of the most dysfunctional elements of U.S. foreign policy over the last decade: an infatuation with military solutions to problems that are fundamentally political.11/14/12
Focus on the Tragedy of the Afghan War, Not on the Farce
Huffington Post by William Astore
The real story is not the farce but the ongoing military tragedy of Afghanistan. The United States still has 68,000 troops in Afghanistan, with plans for a sizable training force to remain well past the troop withdrawal deadline set for the end of 2014. -
U.S. Taxpayers Pay the Price for Wasteful War Strategy
Published: November 20th, 2012
The U.S. and Afghanistan began talks last week over the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan after 2014, news sources report. The talks, which will tackle thorny questions like immunity for U.S. troops and the number of that will remain in the country, could last up to a year.
These talks are have important implications for the winding down of U.S. combat operations and the beginning of the next phase of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan. But the U.S.-Afghanistan negotiations are unlikely to make the front page. With so much attention on the Petraeus scandal and Benghazi investigation, the war in Afghanistan will likely continue to go unnoticed.
Overlooking the war in Afghanistan is a mistake, and one that will cost U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars.
Many Americans seem to believe that the war in Afghanistan is over. This is an understandable mistake; most policymakers don’t talk about the fact that 68,000 U.S. troops are still fighting in Afghanistan.
Many also forget about the war because they believe it will end soon. In fact, the U.S. has committed to withdrawing its 68,000 combat troops by the end of 2014, over two years from now. The pace of the drawdown is still undecided, as is the number of U.S. military trainers and special operations forces that will remain after 2014.
The large U.S. military presence has come at a high price: $13.2 billion per month in 2011, $10.5 billion per month billion in 2012, and an estimated $8.1 billion per month in 2013, according to administration budget figures.
Experts say sustaining 20,000 troops could cost $25 billion per year. Adding several billion each year for security and economic aid, and annual war costs could reach $30 billion. War costs, already nearing $600 billion, will continue to add up over the next several years.
Congress will play a key role in reining in wasteful spending in Afghanistan. Already some who previously supported continuing the war have recognized the ineffectiveness of the current strategy and called for an accelerated drawdown.
Other members of Congress, however, continue to believe that a large military presence will solve Afghanistan’s problems. They equate withdrawal with retreat, believing that more troops and more money will somehow lead to victory.
In fact, the past eleven years have shown that the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan has been counterproductive. When the U.S. increased troop levels, insurgent attacks increased. When the U.S. poured billions of dollars into unsustainable projects, it created an aid bubble that will burst when international funding dries up.
If U.S. policymakers don’t step up and fix the wasteful strategy in Afghanistan, U.S. taxpayers will end up paying the price.
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: U.S. Nearing Decision On Post-2014 Troop Numbers
Published: November 14th, 2012
A recent insurgent attack brings the total number of fatalities of international forces in Afghanistan to 10 this month. The attack follows a spate of attacks last week that left 20 dead. Meanwhile,officials are discussing the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan after 2014, with a decision on troop numbers expected within weeks, according to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.
From ASG
11/13/12
Costs of Nation Building
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
Nation-building is expensive. And with the a national debt of over $16 trillion, the U.S. cannot afford to spend billions more on the war in Afghanistan.ARTICLES
11/13/12
Decision on Afghanistan Deployment Nearing, Panetta Says
New York Times by Elisabeth Bumiller
White House and Pentagon officials hope to determine within weeks the number of American troops that will remain for the long term in Afghanistan after the bulk of United States forces come home in 2014, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said Monday.11/12/12
Deficit cutters look to Defense Dept. budget
Associated Press by Donna Cassata
The days of staunch defense hawks in Congress easily turning back efforts to cut military spending are gone as war fatigue even has reached the fiercest guardians of military spending.11/5/12
Afghan corruption, and how the U.S. facilitates it
Washington Post by Walter Pincus
When it comes to corruption in Afghanistan, the time may be now for the United States to look in the mirror and see what lessons can be learned from contracting out parts of that war.11/9/12
The carnage of war
CT Post by Robert Stokes
As we pause to honor our veterans this Nov. 11, it is imperative that all Americans be reminded of the terrible human price that has been paid – and will continue to be paid in the future – by U.S. troops who fought in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.10/31/12
As America’s longest war drags on, costs mount for Alabamians
AL.com by Jon Solomon
Aside from the human toll, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have carried financial costs. By one measure, the share of war spending since the beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom borne by the state’s residents and businesses exceeds $11.7 billion. -
Costs of Nation Building
Published: November 13th, 2012
The resignation of CIA Director General David Petraeus as head of the CIA last Friday led many to reflect on the legacy of the man who led U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan from 2010 to 2011.
Bing West, assistant Secretary of Defense for President Reagan, had this to say about Gen. Petraeus and Afghanistan:
“Gen. Petraeus’s concept of nation building as a military mission probably will not endure. Our military can train the armed forces of others (if they are willing) and, in Afghanistan, we can leave behind a cadre to destroy nascent terrorist havens. But American soldiers don’t know how to build Minneapolis or Memphis, let alone Muslim nations.”
West pinpointed one of the fundamental flaws of nation-building. U.S. troops are most capable in the world, but they are trained for combat, not building roads and distributing food aid.
There’s another big problem with nation-building in Afghanistan: it is very expensive. And with the a national debt of over $16 trillion, the U.S. cannot afford to spend billions more on the war in Afghanistan.
War costs ramped up significantly as the U.S. mission in Afghanistan expanded. From 2001 to 2006, spending on the war did not exceed $20 billion per year. In 2010, 2011, and 2012, war costs were over $100 billion per year.
As U.S. combat troops leave Afghanistan, war funding will decline, but not as much as you might expect. The Pentagon’s request for operations in Afghanistan in 2013 is $85.6 billion, or $1.6 billion per week.
The U.S. military presence in Afghanistan after 2014 is still unclear. But if 20,000 troops remain, a plan that some members of Congress support, war costs could top $25 billion per year for years to come.
Meanwhile, the U.S. is facing a fierce budget debate at home. With a national debt of over $16 trillion, finding ways to cut back government spending is critical. The Pentagon is already facing significant budget reductions of $487 billion over the next ten years, plus another $500 billion in automatic, across-the-board cuts if Congress fails to agree on a budget deal before January.
The war has already cost over $580 billion. Spending billions more on nation-building in Afghanistan, while the U.S. economy is still recovering, doesn’t make sense.
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: $580 Billion and Counting
Published: November 9th, 2012
The U.S. elections came and went with little mention of the war in Afghanistan. The status quo is unchanged. Violence and instability continue, as do questions about the capability of the Afghan security forces. 68,000 U.S. troops are still in Afghanistan; thousands of trainers and special operations forces may remain after 2014. And war costs, which exceeded $580 billion, continue to add up.
From ASG
11/6/12
Afghanistan War More Expensive Than The Top Ten Costliest Storms
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
The economic damage cause by Sandy is estimated at $30 billion to $50 billion, a staggering amount on its own, but tiny compared to the amounts the U.S. has spent on the war in Afghanistan.ARTICLES
11/4/12
As NATO Nears Exit, Construction Dries Up
New York Times by Rod Norland and Sangar Rahimi
Jalalabad Road, the heart of what might be called the Afghan capital’s military-industrial complex, has also become the place where heavy construction equipment comes to die.11/7/12
War-weary Afghans shrug off Obama re-election
AFP by Lawrence Bartlett
Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Wednesday congratulated US President Barack Obama on his re-election, but many in the war-weary nation shrugged off the news as foreign forces prepare to withdraw.OPINION
11/5/12
Afghanistan’s Karzai back to antagonizing the US and attacking free speech
Christian Science Monitor by Dan Murphy
The so-called “fighting season” is over and an Afghan leader’s fancy can turn to antagonizing his American patrons for amusement over the cold winter months.11/4/12
The Permanent Militarization of America
New York Times by Aaron B. O’Connell
Were Eisenhower alive, he’d be aghast at our debt, deficits and still expanding military-industrial complex. -
Afghanistan War More Expensive Than The Top Ten Costliest Storms
Published: November 6th, 2012
A week after Hurricane Sandy hit the East Coast, many are struggling to cope with the devastation left behind. In New York, freezing temperatures and fuel shortages combined to create a housing crisis leaving devastation in its wake. Some 1.4 million homes and businesses are still without power.
The economic damage cause by Sandy is estimated at $30 billion to $50 billion, a staggering amount on its own, but tiny compared to the amounts the U.S. has spent on the war in Afghanistan.
In fact, for the past three years the annual costs of the war in Afghanistan have been more than double the estimated cost of Sandy, $107 billion in 2010, $122 billion in 2011, and $111 billion in 2012.
Only Hurricane Katrina, the most expensive storm on record at over $100 billion, comes close to the costs of one year of war in Afghanistan.
Cumulatively, the comparison is even more incredible. According to a recent report by the National Hurricane Center, economic costs from the top ten most expensive storms
from 1900 to 2010 totals $283 billion – about $300 billion less than the amount the U.S. has spent in Afghanistan since 2001.Unfortunately, the $580 billion invested in the war effort hasn’t seen a national security return. Over the past three years an additional 30,000 U.S. troops were sent to Afghanistan – yet the number of insurgent attacks is higher today than it was in 2009. The U.S. has allocated over $50 billion to train and equip the Afghan security forces, yet no Afghan Army unit can operate independently and accusations of corruption and abuse in the Afghan police force are widespread. Billions more have been spent on construction projects that Afghanistan’s economy will not be able to sustain.
As Hurricane Sandy has made all too clear, taxpayer dollars would be better spent on rebuilding U.S. cities than on wasteful projects in Afghanistan.
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: Watchdog Questions Plan for Afghan Security
Published: November 1st, 2012
A new report by the U.S. government watchdog that oversees reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan has called into question the ability of the Afghan government to sustain U.S.-funded security forces and facilities after 2014. Afghanistan’s challenges, the report says, include a lack of skilled personnel and undeveloped processes. Since 2002 the U.S. has allocated over $50 billion in security aid for Afghanistan.
From ASG
10/30/12
How much will “victory” in Afghanistan cost?
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
Maybe the nation-building experiment in Afghanistan will succeed, but only at an unacceptable price. The U.S. cannot afford to spend another eleven years and another $570 billion.ARTICLES
10/31/12
Afghan Called Ill-Prepared to Maintain Bases on Their Own
Bloomberg by David Lerman
The Afghan government probably will prove incapable of operating and maintaining U.S.-funded army and police facilities when coalition combat troops leave in 2014, a U.S. government watchdog said.10/31/12
Afghans will hold presidential election in spring
USA Today by Carmen Gentile
Analysts and others worry that a fair election will not be possible, especially in light of fraud and corruption complaints that marred the last presidential election in 2009.
Afghans will hold presidential election in spring10/27/12
New Afghan War Phase, With No Decisive End Seen
Associated Press
A new chapter of the Afghanistan war is opening with a slimmed-down Western force doing more advising than fighting, a resilient Taliban showing little interest in peace talks, and Americans tempted to pull the plug on a conflict now in its 12th year.
A decisive end seems nowhere in sight.10/28/12
Afghan Army Seeks Better Equipment, But Lacks Basic Skills
NPR by Sean Carberry
One of the most common complaints from Afghan forces and officials is that they don’t have the equipment they need to lead the fight in Afghanistan…But, U.S. troops more often than not say that the Afghans don’t need all the high-tech gear.OPINION
10/25/12
Let’s get out of Afghanistan
Philadelphia Daily News Editorial Board
Despite what the presidential candidates say or don’t say, it’s time for an orderly and safe withdrawal of our troops. And once we get out of Afghanistan, we need to take a hard look at the political system that allows our leaders to wage a war that most Americans don’t want.
10/29/12
NATO ‘on message’ on Afghanistan – but what does the message mean?
Left Foot Forward by Patrick Bury
Despite the best efforts of NATO, the West’s wider security and stability mission in Afghanistan is heading for strategic failure. This is due to both our own hubris and the pervasive corruption and incompetence of those we chose to ally ourselves with in Afghanistan.
