ASG Blog
-
Congressman calls for accelerated drawdown
Published: September 25th, 2012
Representative C.W.Bill Young (R-FL) is the latest member of Congress to call for a speedy end to the war in Afghanistan.
“I think we should remove ourselves from Afghanistan as quickly as we can,” Rep. Young said in an interview with The Tampa Bay Times.
The congressman, a self-described “stay-the-course politician,” had previously been a strong supporter of continuing the war. He attributes his call for an accelerated drawdown to an email from a soldier in Afghanistan.
“I know the threat of casualties in war and am totally on board with sacrifice for my country, but what I do not agree with is the chain of command making us walk through — for lack of a better term — basically a minefield on a daily basis,” Staff Sergeant Matthew Sitton wrote in June, less than two months before he was killed by an improvised explosive device.
The letter was a personal reminder for Rep. Young of the costs of the war in Afghanistan. The congressman says he believes many of his Republican colleagues support his new stance on ending the war, though “they tend not to want to go public.”
In fact, a small but vocal group of lawmakers is working to speed up the Afghanistan drawdown. The bipartsan group includes Rep. Timothy Johnson (R-IL), Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), Rep. James McGovern, D-Mass., and Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA)”
The legislators point to the ongoing costs of the war — about $2 billion per week — and continuing instability in Afghanistan as evidence that the war is not worth the costs.
A majority of Americans agrees with this assessment of the war. According to a recent poll by the U.S. German Marshall Fund, 68% of American respondents favor either an immediate withdrawal or an immediate troop reduction.
However, some key members of Congress still argue that a faster drawdown “would be the worst possible course of action.” Others have called for keeping 20,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan after 2014, the planned withdrawal date for combat troops.
Experts say maintaining a military presence of this size in Afghanistan could cost $25 billion per year, an amount that the U.S., still recovering from an economic crisis, can ill afford.
Still, with staunch supporters in Congress, it seems that the war in Afghanistan will continue — backed by precious American taxpayer dollars.
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: Top Lawmakers Consider Accelerated Drawdown
Published: September 21st, 2012
The NATO training mission in Afghanistan is continuing, but new restrictions aimed at preventing insider attacks have scaled back operations. Pentagon leadership insists that the “fundamental strategy remains the same,” but U.S. policymakers aren’t so sure. The increase in insider attacks against NATO troops – 51 this year – has top leaders in Congress considering an accelerated drawdown.
From ASG
9/18/12
Borrowing to pay for war
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
The rising debt isn’t entirely due to the war in Afghanistan. But the war, which has cost over $500 billion to date, is a factor in America’s economic crisis.ARTICLES
9/18/12
Rep. C.W. Bill Young Drops Staunch Support Of Afghanistan War: ‘We’re Killing Kids That Don’t Need To Die’
The Huffington Post by Amanda Terkel
A Republican congressman who has long been a staunch supporter of sticking with the war in Afghanistan is now changing course, arguing that the United States needs to pull out as quickly as possible.9/19/12
Officer: Insider attacks aimed at Western resolve
Associated Press by Robert Burns
A series of “insider attacks” against U.S. and allied troops by Afghan forces are an attempt by the Taliban to drive a wedge between coalition and Afghan troops, a senior officer said Wednesday. But he said that while Western troops are now warier of Afghan partners, they are determined to avoid a full breakdown in trust.9/19/12
Afghanistan: Why don’t we leave now?
The Christian Science Monitor by Anna Mulrine
Why can’t we just leave Afghanistan now? It’s the unspoken question that top Pentagon officials are endeavoring to answer in their assurances that America must stay its course in the war-torn country.9/18/12
NATO scales back operations with Afghan forces after insider attacks, protests
Associated Press
NATO said Monday that it has scaled back operations with Afghan soldiers and policemen to lower the risk of insider attacks and reduce local tensions over an anti-Islam video that prompted protests in Afghanistan.OPINION
9/11/12
Afghanistan 11 Years Later
Reason.com by Ed Krayewski
Both Obama and Mitt Romney, each of whom toned down their campaign today out of respect for 9/11, appear committed to a long-term continued U.S. presence in Afghanistan despite overwhelmingly popular disapproval, suggesting the war will continue whether the American people want it to or not. -
Borrowing to pay for war
Published: September 18th, 2012
Earlier this month, the U.S. hit another economic low point: the national debt topped out at an astounding $16 trillion. The rising debt isn’t entirely due to the war in Afghanistan. But the war, which has cost over $500 billion to date, is a factor in America’s economic crisis.
In fact, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have raised deficits by about 1% of GDP each year since 2001. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities finds that the deficit-financed wars are one of the main drivers of the projected debt, totaling $20 trillion by 2019 if current policies continue.
The growing debt has serious consequences for the U.S. economy. Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf, listed some of these consequences in a recent talk: higher interest payments on the federal debt, a reduction in national saving, and increased chances of a fiscal crisis.
This has an effect on individual Americans too. The Costs of War Project, an initiative by Brown University’s Eisenhower Study Group, estimates that in 2010 the average homebuyer’s mortgage payment was $600 higher due to increased interest rates caused by war borrowing.
Some believe that all of the problems—strategic, economic—with the war in Afghanistan will go away when the U.S. withdraws its combat troops at the end of 2014. This is not true. U.S. taxpayers will continue to pay for the war long after it is officially over. And the problem will get worse if decisionmakers don’t come up with a smarter Afghanistan strategy.
If the U.S. sustains a military presence of 20,000 troops—an idea that some policymakers support—and continues to finance the Afghan security forces, war costs could exceed $25 billion each year.
$25 billion is much lower than the Afghanistan war budget for this year—over $110 billion. But $25 billion still a significant amount by any measure. Certainly it’s too much to spend on a war that many Americans want to end now.
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: Questions Surround $1.1 Billion Afghan Aid Fund
Published: September 13th, 2012
The U.S. government watchdog that oversees reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan has raised concerns about the $1.1 billion program for supplying fuel to the Afghan National Army. A report the watchdog agency highlighted several accountability issues, chief among them that financial records covering $475 million in fuel payments have been shredded.
Meanwhile, a new poll finds that public support for the Afghanistan war is declining, with large majorities of U.S. and European respondents favoring withdrawal or an immediate troop reduction.From ASG
9/11/12
$1.1 Billion Aid Program Questioned
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
Despite serious concerns about the $1.1 billion fuel program, the Pentagon plans to increase funding, from $466 million in 2013 to $555 million in 2014 and beyond.ARTICLES
9/9/12
US watchdog questions spending for Afghan army
Associated Press by Pauline Jelinek
The watchdog for U.S. spending in Afghanistan says lax accountability in a $1.1 billion program supplying fuel to the Afghan National Army needs “immediate attention” before control of the program is turned over to the Kabul government in less than four months.9/12/12
Western support for Afghanistan war collapsing, survey shows
The Guardian by Simon Tisdall
Public support for the war in Afghanistan is collapsing in western and Nato member countries, with 53% of Europeans and 44% of Americans favouring the immediate withdrawal of all troops, an international survey shows.9/9/12
U.S. Puts Transfer of Detainees to Afghans on Hold
The New York Times by Graham Bowley
One of the centerpieces of the hand-over of American control to Afghan authority encountered a last-minute unexpected obstacle on Sunday when the United States paused the transfer of the final couple of dozen Afghan detainees at the Parwan detention facility.OPINION
9/13/12
A Long View of Afghanistan’s Wars
The New York Times by Richard Oppel
Both Afghanistan’s current throes and any educated guess about its future can only be appreciated by considering not just the course of the American-led occupation but three other distinct periods over the past
quarter-century as well. -
$1.1 Billion Aid Program Questioned
Published: September 11th, 2012
On the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, Defense Secretary Panetta calls on Americans to remember the troops who are fighting and dying in Afghanistan.
With so many policymakers conveniently forgetting the war in Afghanistan, Secretary Panetta’s reminder is welcome. Today, almost eleven years after the war began, there are some 77,000 still serving in Afghanistan.
Eleven years and $500 billion later, it’s not clear what threat Afghanistan poses that requires this continued expenditure.
Few would deny that dismantling al Qaeda was a worthy goal. But has the nation-building mission that this war turned into made us safer? Americans think the answer is no. According to a recent poll from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, 51% of respondents said the war in Afghanistan had made no difference in the war on terror, with 18% saying the war made us less safe.
What does this imply about the $90 billion allocated for Afghanistan aid? Have those billions of taxpayer dollars been well-spent?
The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction was established in 2008 to oversee the effectiveness of Afghan aid. Their reports are essential reading for anyone concerned about waste in government spending.
Most recently SIGAR has raised concerns about the $1.1. billion program to provide fuel for the Afghan National Army.
The interim SIGAR report found that The Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan [CSTC-A] does not have accurate or supportable information on how much in U.S. funds are needed for ANA fuel, where and how the fuel is used, or how much fuel has been lost or stolen.”
Despite serious questions about the program, CTSC-A plans to increase funding, from $466 million in 2013 to $555 million in 2014 and beyond.
With so little accountability, it’s no wonder this extraordinarily expensive war ($500 billion) has not made us safer. The only question is when policymakers will start reining in the out-of-control war budget.
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: The $50 Billion Afghan Security Force
Published: September 6th, 2012
Looking for ways to address recent attacks by Afghan troops on their ISAF trainers, the U.S.military suspended training for some 1,000 Afghan forces this weekend while it conducts more extensive background checks. Afghan officials, who had attributed the attacks to infiltration by foreign spies, said more recently that inadequate vetting and links to insurgents may be the cause. In light of the high costs of the war – the U.S. has spent approximately $50 billion on the Afghan security forces alone – some are wondering how long U.S. policymakers will stay silent on Afghanistan.
From ASG
9/4/12
Still the forgotten war
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
90,000 U.S. troops are still in Afghanistan. The war costs U.S. taxpayers $2 billion each week. Policymakers’ silence on Afghanistan is inexcusable.ARTICLES
9/2/12
U.S Halts Training Of Some Afghanistan Forces In Light Of Green-On-Blue Violence
AP by Heidi Vogt
The move only puts about 1,000 Afghan trainees into limbo, a small fraction of the country’s security forces. But it shows how these attacks have the potential to derail the U.S.-Afghan handover of security so essential to the international drawdown strategy.9/5/12
Afghanistan acknowledges wider causes of ‘insider’ attacks on NATO troops
The Washington Post by Richard Leiby
As fatal attacks on U.S. and NATO troops by their Afghan partners kept up at an alarming rate this year, Afghan officials largely blamed infiltrators they said had been sent by foreign spy agencies. But on Wednesday, the Afghan army acknowledged far wider causes, saying hundreds of its soldiers have been expelled or arrested because of deficient vetting and links to insurgents.OPINION
9/3/12
No Way Out? Fear of Dying Among Afghanistan’s Professional Class
The Washington Note by Steve Clemons
President Obama’s decision to surge troop levels in Afghanistan was a strategic mistake and only deepened the black hole of costs in blood and treasure that the US had already invested and raised expectations in Afghanistan of an equilibrium in their lives that that would tilt more toward jobs and hope than toward despair and political disappointment.8/31/12
COIN’s Failure in Afghanistan
The National Interest by Oleg Svet
The political decision to implement the COIN strategy failed to recognize that more people with more guns on foreign territory cannot win the battle for hearts and minds.9/5/12
Afghanistan’s Base Bonanza
Guernica by Nick Turse
Afghanistan may turn out to be one of the great misbegotten “stimulus packages” of the modern era, a construction boom in the middle of nowhere with materials largely shipped in at enormous expense to no lasting purpose whatsoever. -
Still the Forgotten War
Published: September 4th, 2012
The forgotten war in Afghanistan was finally made an appearance in comments from policymakers on both sides of the aisle this the past week. However, the brief mentions fell short of the serious debate the $500-billion war deserves.
Some 90,000 U.S. troops are still fighting in Afghanistan. President Obama, in Ohio for a campaign event this weekend, pledged to “have them all out of there by 2014.” This promise was a slip of the tongue, later clarified—the administration plans to withdraw all combat troops by the end of 2014, but thousands of trainers and special operations forces will remain after 2014.
The lack of a strategy for 2015 and beyond hasn’t stopped the administration from trying to sell its Afghanistan plan to the American public. “Because of my plan, 33,000 of them [U.S. troops] will have come home by the end of this month,” Obama said at the campaign event.
What the president didn’t mention is that those troops are in Afghanistan because of the his own policy. Almost three years ago the administration announced plans to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. Even with extra manpower, the U.S. didn’t make much headway in southern Afghanistan.
By the end of the summer we’ll be back to where we were in November 2009—with 68,000 troops still in Afghanistan and little to show for it. Many experts, like ASG’s Steve Clemons, describe the surge as a “strategic mistake and only deepened the black hole of costs in blood and treasure that the U.S. had already invested.”
If the current administration’s Afghanistan policy leaves a lot to be desired, the other side hasn’t offered a real alternative. At the Republican National Convention neither the the presidential nor the vice presidential candidate addressed the unpopular war.
In fact, Afghanistan was mentioned only four times during the convention, which lasted three days. One mention was from Sen. John McCain, who argued that “by committing to withdraw from Afghanistan before peace can be achieved and sustained, the president has discouraged our friends and emboldened our enemies.” Another was from Clint Eastwood, who faulted the president first for thinking the invasion of Afghanistan “was something worth doing,” then for setting a target date for the drawdown.
The way policymakers and opinion leaders on both sides of the aisle refer to Afghanistan shows that the war is still forgotten. Neither side has laid out a clear strategy. Neither side wants to have a serious debate.
90,000 U.S. troops are still in Afghanistan. The war costs U.S. taxpayers $2 billion each week. Policymakers’ silence on Afghanistan is inexcusable.
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: Poll Respondents Say the War Has Not Made the U.S. Safer
Published: August 30th, 2012
Three Australian soldiers were killed by a gunman in an Afghan army uniform this Wednesday, bringing the total number of fatalities from insider attacks this year to over 40. Compared to a total of 35 in 2011, this shows a sharp increase in green-on-blue attacks. The political shake-up in Afghanistan continues, as President Karzai reportedly intends to nominate some controversial picks to lead the Defense, Interior, and intelligence agencies. Meanwhile, the latest public opinion poll from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs shows that 51% of Americans believe the war in Afghanistan, which has cost over $500 billion, has made “no difference” in reducing the threat of terrorism, with 18% saying the war has made the U.S. less safe.
From ASG
8/27/12
Don’t Forget Afghanistan
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
The Afghanistan war hasn’t played a major role in either of the presidential candidates’ campaigns. Whether the candidates believe voters aren’t interested, or whether they are simply avoiding a thorny foreign policy problem, here are the three big reasons why Afghanistan should not be forgotten.ARTICLES
8/30/12
Most Americans See Afghan War as Not Reducing Threat of Terrorism
WorldPublicOpinion.org
A majority of Americans do not think the war in Afghanistan has reduced the threat of terrorism. However, this does not lead Americans to want to withdraw immediately, nor to persist indefinitely in the effort.8/29/12
Karzai Is Said to Consider Divisive Figures for Top Cabinet Posts
The New York Times by Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Graham Bowley
President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan has broadened a top-level cabinet shake-up, firing the country’s spy chief on Wednesday and, according to Western officials, lining up replacements for that post and the vacant Defense and Interior Ministries, at least one of which seemed likely to heighten tensions between Parliament and the presidential palace.OPINION
8/27/12
The Best Laid Plans
The Nation by Tom Engelhardt
The message is certainly clear enough, however unprepared those in Washington and in the field are to hear it: forget our enemies; a rising number of those Afghans closest to us want us out in the worst way possible, and their message on the subject has been horrifically blunt.
8/27/12
Afghanistan: a ragged retreat threatens to turn into a slow-motion rout
The Guardian by Simon Tisdall
When they return from their holidays, western leaders urgently need to refocus attention on Afghanistan – before the situation spins fatally out of their control.8/30/12
Wars? What Wars?
Time’s Battleland by Mark Thompson
It is amazing that after more than a decade of war, and 6,593 American dead (2,107 in Afghanistan and Operation Enduring Freedom; 4,487 in Iraq), the political party that spearheaded both wars is so silent on them now. -
Don’t Forget Afghanistan
Published: August 27th, 2012
The Afghanistan war hasn’t played a major role in either of the presidential candidates’ campaigns. Whether the candidates believe voters aren’t interested, or whether they are simply avoiding a thorny foreign policy problem, here are the three big reasons why Afghanistan should not be forgotten:
The war isn’t over.
U.S. troops are still fighting and dying in Afghanistan. By the end of the summer, the rest of the surge troops will come home — leaving 68,000 U.S. troops still in Afghanistan. The U.S. death toll recently topped 2,000; more than half of those deaths occurred in the past three years.Sustaining the war effort costs U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars each year. Since 2001 the U.S. has spent over $500 billion in direct war costs. (That doesn’t include costs hidden in the base Pentagon budget or future costs, like caring for veterans).
In 2012, one week in Afghanistan cost U.S. taxpayers about $2 billion. In 2013, (assuming Congress approves the 2013), the price of war will drop slightly, to $1.7 billion per week.
The plan for 2013 and beyond is still unclear.
Contrary to what many believe, the Afghanistan war isn’t ending in 2014. In fact, what happens next in Afghanistan is still very unclear.The drawdown timeline is still to be determined. Will the 68,000 U.S. troops leave gradually in 2013 and 2014, or will the bulk of them stay, to be withdrawn quickly near the end of 2014?
In 2015 and beyond the picture is even more unclear. The U.S. has committed to withdrawing its combat troops by the end of 2014, but thousands of U.S. trainers, advisers, and special operations forces will stay behind.
War costs will continue.
Even after the U.S. withdraws combat troops in 2014, the Afghanistan war will continue to cost U.S. taxpayers billions each year. Experts estimate that sustaining thousands of U.S. trainers and special operations forces, plus the costs of maintaining the Afghan security forces, and contributing economic and humanitarian aid, could add up to about $30 billion per year.U.S. policymakers can’t afford to ignore an issue that costs billions of taxpayer dollars each year. The presidential candidates should be taking the lead by debating how to end wasteful government spending, starting with the war in Afghanistan.
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: Insider Attacks Evidence of Failed U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan
Published: August 24th, 2012
A sharp increase in the number of attacks by Afghan security forces against their NATO trainers has raised serious questions about the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan. By the end of 2014, local forces are supposed to take over the combat mission in Afghanistan, but the recent insider attacks have experts wondering if the Afghan forces are ready. The war has already cost the U.S. over $500 billion, including more than $50 billion in security aid. Even after U.S. combat troops leave in 2014, U.S. policymakers may continue to spend billions each year to sustain the war effort.
From ASG
8/23/12
Billions of aid dollars, no solution to Afghanistan’s security problems
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
The uptick in insider attacks is just the most recent sign that U.S. efforts to build local security forces in Afghanistan – efforts that cost U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars each year – are foundering.ARTICLES
8/21/12
In Toll of 2,000, New Portrait of Afghan War
The New York Times by James Dao and Andrew W. Lehren
With the death of Specialist James A. Justice of the Army at a military hospital in Germany, the United States military reached 2,000 dead in the nearly 11-year-old conflict.8/23/12
Afghanistan is America’s ‘forgotten war’
Associated Press
Even though more than 80,000 American troops are still fighting in Afghanistan and dying at a rate of one a day, the conflict generates barely a whisper on the US presidential campaign trail.OPINION
8/23/12
‘Green-On-Blue’ Attacks Challenge Afghan Security
NPR’s Tom Bowman and The New Yorker’s Dexter Filkins
Insider attacks by Afghan forces have killed 40 coalition troops so far in 2012, including ten Americans. That surpasses the number of so-called green-on-blue attacks in 2011, and raises serious questions about Afghan readiness as American forces prepare for a withdrawal that could begin in 2013.8/22/12
Gloomy Prognosis for Afghanistan
CFR Interview with Stephen Biddle
The war is going to be in a condition of long-term stalemate as of 2014, and what that means is that the U.S. Congress is going to be asked to write multi-billion-dollar-a-year checks to keep this war going for a long, long time.8/18/12
Afghan training mission losing ground
SF Gate by Joel Brinkley
After 11 years, more than 2,000 U.S. military fatalities and at least $1 trillion in expenses, what are the United States and NATO leaving behind?
The answer is bleak: Afghan security forces totally incapable of operating on their own, as the U.S. military quietly acknowledges. And a government so corrupt and ineffectual that, as the Army said in that report to Congress, it “bolsters insurgent messaging.” In others words, great PR for the Taliban.
