ASG Blog
-
How much will “victory” in Afghanistan cost?
Published: October 30th, 2012
After eleven years, more than $570 billion, and no end in sight, it seems clear that the U.S. needs a new strategy for Afghanistan. But some are still arguing that we are winning the war in Afghanistan, and that all we need to achieve our goals is stay the course.
Of course, from one perspective, the U.S. has already won in Afghanistan. The original goal was to disrupt and dismantle the al Qaeda network. The U.S. achieve this goal relatively quickly. In 2010, then CIA Director Leon Panetta estimated that the number of al Qaeda in Afghanistan totaled “maybe 50 to 100, maybe less.”
Since 2010, the U.S. has spent over $300 billion on the war in Afghanistan. In 2012 the war cost $110 billion. That’s about $2 billion per week, or over $1 billion for each member of al Qaeda that may still be in Afghanistan.
We stayed in Afghanistan long after our original goals had been accomplished. The mission changed.
We went to Afghanistan to protect U.S. national security. We stayed to nation-build.
The nation-building plan was deeply flawed. Its architects lacked a basic understanding of the region’s historical and cultural background, the key actors and dynamics at play. The idea that the counterinsurgency campaign could root out the Taliban, establish an effective central government and competent security forces, and stabilize the economy was overly ambitious.
Tactically, the U.S. plan also missed the mark. The cornerstone of the U.S. plan for Afghanistan is the Afghan national security forces, who will take the lead in the counterinsurgency after coalition forces withdraw. Military planners focused on the rapid expansion of the force. Today, the Afghan army and police have almost achieved their target number — but their capabilities remain in serious doubt.
The “quantity over quality” strategy left Afghans with a massive, but corrupt and incompetent security force. It also cost U.S. taxpayers over $50 billion.
When it comes to the war in Afghanistan, the question isn’t whether we are winning. The question is what we’re trying to achieve, and whether the goal is worth the costs.
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.
With a national debt of over $16 trillion, spending billions on the war in Afghanistan doesn’t make sense. It’s time to bring that money home and build the U.S. economy, rather than nation-building halfway around the world.
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: An Expensive, Ineffective Strategy
Published: October 26th, 2012
The U.S. has almost met its target number for Afghanistan’s security forces. But the limited capabilities of the Afghan army and police have many wondering why the U.S. spent billions pursuing a “quantity over quality” strategy. Meanwhile, NATO allies are seeing signs that costs of shipping equipment home from Afghanistan may be much higher than original estimates.
From ASG
The Exploding Defense Budget
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
More than ten years of war helped to foster an aura of sacredness around the defense budget. Policymakers, unwilling to exercise oversight, turned a blind eye to budget gimmicks.ARTICLES
10/20/12
Afghan security force’s rapid expansion comes at a cost as readiness lags
Washington Post by Rajiv Chandrasekaran
The U.S. military has nearly met its growth target for the Afghan forces, but they are nowhere near ready to assume control of the country.10/15/12
Price Rises On NATO Drawdown From Afghanistan
Aviation Week & Space Technology by Francis Tusa
In 2015 or later, a logistician will place a customs seal on a container or a pallet of equipment, and it will be loaded onto a truck or an aircraft for movement to an Afghan location where it can be aggregated for shipment back to Europe or the U.S.
Signs are already emerging that the costs of this operation could well be far higher than had been expected.10/19/12
Afghanistan Police School Tries To Fix Struggling Force
Associated Press by Kathy Gannon
The academy’s new commander wants to help turn around a 146,000-strong national police force long riddled with corruption, incompetence and factional rivalries.10/24/12
Reporting a Fearful Rift Between Afghans and Americans
New York Time’s At War by Alissa J. Rubin
What I did learn was how much distrust has poisoned the relationship between Afghans and Americans — so much so that I realized it didn’t matter anymore that I was a civilian.OPINION
10/24/12
Reasons are many to quickly leave Afghanistan
The Olympian Editorial Board
After nearly 11 years, the expenditure of $500 billion in taxpayer dollars and the deaths of more than 2,000 American soldiers, it’s time to end this war. -
War Costs Part 3: The Exploding Defense Budget
Published: October 22nd, 2012
Note: This is the third in a three-part series on the economic costs of the war in Afghanistan. Part one, $570 Billion and Counting, can be found here. Part two, The War That Won’t End, can be found here.
An Exploding Defense Budget: One Result of Afghan War
According to official accounts, the war in Afghanistan has cost the United States over $570 billion to date. However, the actual cost of the war has been much greater. A blank check for the war budget allowed the broader defense budget to spiral out of control.
Today, policymakers struggle to rein in Pentagon spending, which has taken an almost sacred status over a decade with little accountability.
The way we budgeted for the war in Afghanistan directly contributed to the spike in defense spending over the past decade. Funding for the war was separated from other defense spending into its own account. The “overseas contingency operations” account, as it was called, was supposed to include all the costs of the war; other defense spending, called the base defense budget, was in the traditional accounts.
The goal of the separate war account was to ensure that combat operations received adequate support, without forcing tradeoffs with base defense costs.
What actually happened was that both the base and the war budget exploded. Policymakers were hesitant to scrutinize spending labeled “for the war.” As a result, the war budget account was the perfect safety valve—a hiding place for defense costs that couldn’t fit into the base defense budget.
Policymakers weren’t eager to trim the base defense budget either. From 2001 to 2011, the amount appropriated for the base defense budget totals $5.2 trillion, an increase of $670 billion over the pre-2001 defense budget plan.
More than ten years of war helped to foster an aura of sacredness around the defense budget. Policymakers, unwilling to exercise oversight, turned a blind eye to budget gimmicks and signed off on the Pentagon’s requests each year.
Today, we’re starting to feel the the results going ten years without taking a hard look at defense spending. With the national debt at $16 trillion and counting, policymakers are trying to rein in out-of-control spending. Reintroducing fiscal responsibility to the Pentagon budget is proving difficult, but eliminating unnecessary defense programs is the key to a more effective and efficient defense strategy.
Ending the war in Afghanistan is a good place to start. Fiscally responsible policymakers know that much of the $570 billion allocated for the war in Afghanistan was spent unnecessarily. Eliminating waste in the war budget is one step towards a smarter, more sustainable defense strategy.
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: Negotiating to Keep Troops in Afghanistan
Published: October 19th, 2012
Negotiations to extend the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan will begin soon, according to a State Department official. The U.S. combat mission is scheduled to end in 2014, but some troops may stay for counterterrorism operations and train and advise the Afghan security forces, the official said. The Secretary General of NATO, meanwhile, confirmed that allied forces are committed to the 2014 timeline, despite calls for an accelerated drawdown.
From ASG
10/19/12
The War That Won’t End
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
But even after combat operations end, U.S. operations in Afghanistan will continue to cost taxpayers billions each year.ARTICLES
10/16/12
State Department official: Negotiations to extend U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan starting soon
Foreign Policy’s The Cable by Josh Rogin
Despite statements by Vice President Joe Biden, the State Department is about to begin formal negotiations over the extension of U.S. troops past 2014, a top State Department official said Tuesday.10/17/12
US at a crossroads deep in an Afghan no-man’s land
The LA Times by Ned Parker
The daily fight right beyond the wire is bitter and unwelcome evidence of the stalemate that exists in southern and eastern Afghanistan.10/18/12
Hamid Karzai: Afghanistan ready if NATO accelerates its troop withdrawal plan
The Hill’s DEFCON Hill by Jeremy Herb
Afghan President Hamid Karzai said Thursday that his government would be ready and willing to take over security if the United States and NATO quickened their withdrawal plan.OPINION
10/13/12
Time to Pack Up
The New York Times Editorial Board
It is time for United States forces to leave Afghanistan on a schedule dictated only by the security of the troops. It should not take more than a year. The United States will not achieve even President Obama’s narrowing goals, and prolonging the war will only do more harm.10/17/12
Afghanistan’s Fiscal Cliff
Foreign Policy by Matthieu Aikins
The future stability of the country has less to do with Afghan troop levels than it does with whether Afghan powerbrokers can forge a more stable, indigenous order after the international money dries up. -
War Costs, Part 2: The War That Won’t End
Published: October 19th, 2012
Note: This is the second in a three-part series on the economic costs of the war in Afghanistan. Part one can be found here. Part three is forthcoming.
The War That Won’t End
After eleven years of war in Afghanistan, the U.S. is planning to withdraw its combat troops by the end of 2014 — two years from now. But even after combat operations end, the U.S. policy towards Afghanistan war will continue to cost taxpayers billions each year.
Afghanistan has become the forgotten war. It has been largely ignored by both presidential candidates. If you listened only to what policymakers are saying about Afghanistan, you might think the war was already over.
But 68,000 U.S. troops are stationed in Afghanistan today. To sustain the war effort in 2013, the Pentagon has requested over $80 billion. War costs will decline by a lot or a little in 2014 depending on the pace of the drawdown. Still, going by the trend for the past decades of wars, we can expect costs for the next two years to push the total cost of the war in Afghanistan close to $700 billion.
But the costs of U.S. operations in Afghanistan won’t end in 2014. While the U.S. maintains that it will not seek permanent military bases in Afghanistan, some policymakers have called for leaving a sizeable military force – up to 20,000 troops – in Afghanistan after 2014. Experts estimate that maintaining military presence on this scale could cost $25 billion per year.
In addition to the possibility of supporting a continued U.S. military presence, the U.S. will likely continue to spend billions on Afghanistan aid each year. Congress has allocated $50 billion in security aid to Afghanistan over the past 10 years. U.S. officials have said its future contribution for Afghan security aid will be around $2 billion per year.
The Afghan security forces will likely be dependent on foreign donors for quite some time, as the International Monetary Fund estimates that Afghanistan’s economy will not be able to sustain the country’s security operations until 2023.
In addition to the ongoing costs of operations in Afghanistan, the war has led to indirect costs that will continue for decades. Studies show that caring for the veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan could cost $600 billion to $1 trillion over the next forty years.
The financial cost of Afghanistan war have already taken a toll on the U.S. economy, and it will continue to do so unless we realign our Afghanistan strategy with U.S. national security interests. A reevaluation of the U.S. policy towards Afghanistan will save billions and support a more effective national security strategy.
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: Contractor Fraud Puts U.S. Troops at Risk
Published: October 12th, 2012
For the 68,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan today, the war is far from over. Yesterday the government watchdog that oversees reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan alerted U.S. commanders of “potentially significant contract fraud” in the installation of systems to prevent insurgent attacks. This week also saw the 11 year anniversary of the war in Afghanistan. With war costs at $570 billion and counting, some are questioning official statements of progress.
From ASG
10/9/12
War Costs: $570 Billion and Counting
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
After eleven years and $570 billion, Americans are ready to move on from the war in Afghanistan. But will policymakers finally make the smart choice? Or will they quietly continue to write blank checks for the war?ARTICLES
10/11/12
SIGAR: U.S. Troops In Afghanistan At Greater Risk Of IED Attacks Due To Contractor Fraud
The Huffington Post by Amanda Terkel
U.S. troops in Afghanistan are facing a greater threat from roadside bombs due to shoddy and incomplete work on a major highway by contractors, according to the official responsible for providing independent oversight of the reconstruction effort there.10/9/12
How the U.S. Quietly Lost the IED War in Afghanistan
Inter Press Service by Gareth Porter
Although the surge of “insider attacks” on U.S.-NATO forces has dominated coverage of the war in Afghanistan in 2012, an even more important story has been quietly unfolding: the U.S. loss of the pivotal war of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) to the Taliban.10/9/12
Kabul Prepares for U.S. Talks
The Wall Street Journal by Yaroslav Trofimov and Nathan Hodge
Afghanistan’s demands to curtail immunity for U.S. forces will be a main stumbling block in negotiations over the long-term American military presence here, Afghan National Security Adviser Rangin Dadfar Spanta said, highlighting the issue that derailed similar U.S. talks with Iraq a year ago.10/9/12
The Afghan war: Do the numbers add up to success?
McClatchy Newspapers by Matthew Schofield
for all the American blood and treasure invested in the war, some experts who’ve studied it contend that the problem with the military’s claims of success is that the numbers don’t add up. Using them alone, the Taliban is overmatched, and attacks since the surge are down. Yet, they have become more brazen.OPINION
10/9/12
No Light at End of Afghan Tunnel
The Wall Street Journal, Letter to the Editor by J.M. Simpson
There is no clear path to America achieving its security objectives. It is time to end the wishful thinking about the so-called efficacy of the Afghans and bring our service members home. -
War Costs, Part One: $570 Billion and Counting
Published: October 9th, 2012
Introduction
The U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001. Today, 68,000 U.S. troops are still in Afghanistan.Eleven years of war have cost U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars. The exact amount is still unclear, and no one knows how much the war will cost in the future. This three part blog series takes an in-depth look at the fiscal costs of war.
Part 1 on the costs of war to date is below.
Part 2, The War That Won’t End, is available here. Part 3, The Exploding Defense Budget, is available here.
War Costs, Part One: $570 Billion and Counting
The U.S. has spent some $570 billion on the war in Afghanistan since it began eleven years ago. In the early years, the war budget was relatively small — not more than $20 billion per year through 2006. At the end of 2009, however, the U.S. announced plans to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, in addition to the 68,000 already stationed there. The troop surge led to a spike in war costs — over $100 billion per year for the last three years.
The largest portion of the war budget goes to sustaining military operations in Afghanistan. In 2012, for example, war operations cost $60 billion.
However, the war budget includes funds for other activities as well. Each year the Department of Defense spends billions on repairing and upgrading equipment used in contingency operations. Equipment “reset,” as it’s called, cost $13 billion in 2012.
Humanitarian and economic aid programs account for billions each year, for a total of about $30 billion since 2001. $50 billion has been allocated for Afghanistan security aid since 2001.
The return on a $570 billion investment should be clear. Unfortunately it’s far from clear what Americans have gained from the eleven-year war. In 2010 Leon Panetta, then Director of the CIA, said there were likely less than 100 members of al Qaeda in Afghanistan. From 2010 through 2012 the U.S. spent over $300 billion on the war — that’s $3 billion for each member of al Qeada that might still be in Afghanistan.
For the past two years the U.S. sustained a massive military footprint in Afghanistan in the hope of stamping out the insurgency. The last of the surge troops recently returned, bringing the number of U.S. troops still in Afghanistan back to 2009 levels. Yet violence in Afghanistan has actually increased — meaning the multibillion dollar surge strategy actually made the situation worse.
With little to show for the billions spent in Afghanistan, public support for the war is at all-time lows. According to a recent poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, 69 percent of respondents believe the war in Afghanistan has made no difference in reducing the risk of terrorism, or has even made the danger worse. Two-thirds said the costs of the war outweigh the benefits. “Despite a continuing concern about international terrorism, after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan many Americans want to put this chapter of American foreign policy behind them,” the poll report concludes.
It’s hardly surprising that most Americans are ready to end the Afghanistan war. The 2012 Afghanistan war budget was about $110 billion, or about $200,000 per minute. That means that in 2012 the U.S. spent more for one minute of war than the average American household earns in four years.
After eleven years and $570 billion, Americans are ready to move on from the war in Afghanistan. But will policymakers finally make the smart choice? Or will they quietly continue to write blank checks for the war, while ignoring growing calls to end wasteful spending?
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: NATO Considers a Faster Drawdown
Published: October 5th, 2012
At the start of the U.S.-Afghanistan Bilateral Commission on Wednesday, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton said that the transition to local security force in Afghanistan is on track. U.S. allies may not be so sure, however. The British ambassador to Afghanistan suggested in an interview that Western allies must shift “from hand-holding to…offering support as needed and required.” Meanwhile, the Secretary General of NATO has hinted that options for accelerating the drawdown are being considered. The possibility of a faster drawdown comes as the number of U.S. fatalities in Afghanistan reaches 2,000, a reminder of the blood and treasure spent on eleven years of war.
From ASG
10/2/12
Hiding in the war budget: billions for weapons upgrades
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
Bringing home and refurbishing or replacing equipment used in Afghanistan, a process known as “reset,” has been factored into the war budget for years. But the billions of dollars allocated for funding the reset have allowed the military to do much than transport equipment back from Afghanistan.ARTICLES
10/1/12
Nato withdrawal from Afghanistan could be speeded up, says Rasmussen
The Guardian by Ian Traynor
The retreat of western forces from Afghanistan could come sooner than expected, the head of Nato has said as he conceded that the recent Taliban strategy of “green on blue” killings had been successful in sapping morale.10/2/12
Afghanistan should be left ‘to get on with things’ – British ambassador
The Guardian by Nick Hopkins
The international community has been hand-holding Afghanistan for long enough and Kabul should now be left to get on with running the country without the west’s constant interference, the British ambassador in Kabul has said.10/1/12
U.S. Abandoning Hopes for Taliban Peace Deal
The New York Times by Matthew Rosenberg and Rod Nordland
With the surge of American troops over and the Taliban still a potent threat, American generals and civilian officials acknowledge that they have all but written off what was once one of the cornerstones of their strategy to end the war here: battering the Taliban into a peace deal.10/1/12
$3 billion task: Getting gear home
The Marine Corps Times by Bethany Crudele
The task of transporting equipment out of Afghanistan is colossal, and the ground reset process is expected to cost the Corps an estimated $3.2 billion.OPINION
10/2/12
Afghanistan: We’re Out of Reasons
The Huffington Post by Joseph Blady
The only thing wrong with the departure date is that it is so far in the future. No one who supports the war can give a clear picture of what Afghanistan might look like in three to five years if we stayed, but I suspect we know anyway.10/4/12
A framework to end the Afghan war
The Washington Post by David Ignatius
Given the dead end in Afghanistan, you might think that the war there — and strategies for ending it — would be a big topic in the U.S. presidential campaign. But sadly, soldiers and diplomats continue to operate in a political vacuum, and the candidates act as if the brutal Afghanistan conflict will somehow solve itself.10/4/12
Withdraw from Afghanistan
NorthJersey.com by Madelyn Hoffman
So have eight years of drone strikes, $570 billion for 11 years in Afghanistan and more than 2,000 casualties been worth it? We say “No.” Public opinion in the United States is strong for immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan. -
Hiding in the war budget: billions for weapons upgrades
Published: October 2nd, 2012
Sustaining combat operations in Afghanistan costs billions of dollars each year. The costs of other operations associated with warfighting have driven the war budget even higher.
Take this small piece of the Afghanistan drawdown, for example. Over the next couple of years, the U.S. Marine Corps will ship tens of thousands of weapons, vehicles, and pieces of gear back from Afghanistan. The costs of transporting and repairing that equipment is an estimated $3.2 billion.
Bringing home and refurbishing or replacing equipment used in Afghanistan, a process known as “reset,” has been factored into the war budget for years. In fiscal year 2012 the Pentagon’s war budget included $13 billion for equipment reset. The request for 2013 is $9.3 billion.
The billions of dollars allocated for funding the reset have allowed the military to do much than transport equipment back from Afghanistan and patch it up.
In fact, according to analysis from the Stimson Center, war funding “significantly enhanced” funding available for weapons procurement, accounting for over $230 billion, or 22 percent of procurement funding from 2001 to 2010.
“Over the last decade, we spent roughly $1 trillion on defense procurement and the military services used that funding, including that provided in the supplemental war funding, to modernize their forces,” the Stimson report concludes.
How much of the war funds labeled “reset” actually go towards refurbishing equipment used for the war? Less than 60 percent, according to a 2007 report by the Congressional Budget Office.
“More than 40 percent of the requested funds have been designated for activities other than replacing lost equipment or repairing returned systems,” the CBO report reads. “Those activities include upgrading systems to make them more capable and buying new equipment to eliminate shortfalls in the Army’s inventories, some of which are long-standing.”
The war budget may have been a useful loophole for the Pentagon, looking to upgrade its weapons systems, but the resulting expansion of war costs has had serious repercussions for the U.S. economy.
According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, the costs of the wars are a driving factor of projected budget deficits over the next ten years.
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: After the Surge, 68,000 U.S. Troops in Afghanistan
Published: September 27th, 2012
The last of the U.S. troops sent to Afghanistan almost three years ago as part of the “surge” strategy left Afghanistan this week. With the surge troops gone, 68,000 U.S. troops are still stationed in Afghanistan. Also this week, NATO’s International Security Assistance Force released its monthly report on the insurgency. The data shows that, while insurgent attacks decreased slightly compared to last year, “the overall level of violence in Afghanistan, as measured by ISAF, remains worse than prior to the 2010 surge of American forces.”
From ASG
9/25/12
Congressman calls for accelerated drawdown
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
“I think we should remove ourselves from Afghanistan as quickly as we can,” Rep. C.W. Bill Young (R-FL) Young said in an interview with The Tampa Bay Times.ARTICLES
9/20/12
Final ‘surge’ troops leave Afghanistan
The Washington Post by Craig Whitlock
The last of the 33,000 “surge” troops President Obama ordered to Afghanistan in December 2009 have left the country, the Pentagon announced Friday, just ahead of a Sept. 30 deadline.9/27/12
Military’s Own Report Card Gives Afghan Surge an F
Wired’s Danger Room by Spencer Ackerman
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.9/25/12
ISAF data show insurgent attacks down, civilian casualties up
The Long War Journal by Thomas Joscelyn
ISAF’s data show that while the number of enemy-initiated attacks (EIAs) thus far this year has decreased slightly, as compared to the first eight months of 2011, the number of civilian casualties increased dramatically.OPINION
9/25/12
Get out of Afghanistan – today
Slate by Fred Kaplan
The latest news from Afghanistan only underscores what’s been clear for quite some time: that there is no light at the end of the tunnel in this war, no noble way out, not much point to staying in.9/20/12
Payoff? Assessing the Afghan Surge
CNN’s Security Clearance by Mike Mount
The surge of U.S. forces into Afghanistan is all but over. Within days, the last several hundred troops will have left the country, according to U.S. military officials, ending an almost three-year operation to quash what was widely viewed as Taliban resurgence.
