ASG Blog
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: Congress Backs Spending Billions on Afghanistan War
Published: July 20th, 2012
For a brief time, the war in Afghanistan took center stage this week as the U.S. House of Representatives started debate on next year’s defense spending levels. A number of amendments to the defense spending bill call for speeding up the drawdown and scaling back war costs. On both sides of the aisle members are making the case for ending this unnecessary, expensive war. Unfortunately policymakers with a reasonable position on Afghanistan are still in the minority. Until members of Congress start listening to the American people, most of whom believe the war in Afghanistan is not worth fighting, the war is likely to continue, to the tune of $2 billion taxpayer dollars per week.
From ASG
7/17/12
Money as a Weapons System
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
Condolence payments are just one example of the flawed U.S. strategy in Afghanistan – a strategy based on the idea that we can buy our way to victory. Pouring money into the Afghan economy hasn’t won us many friends, but it has created an aid bubble that will burst as international donors realize the current path of Afghan aid is unsustainable.ARTICLES
7/18/12
Afghanistan war protested by GOP, Dems to start debate on DOD spending bill
The Hill’s Floor Action by Pete Kasperowicz
Several House Democrats and Republicans started debate on a 2013 Department of Defense spending bill by protesting the ongoing war in Afghanistan, and calling on members to support amendments over the next several days aimed at reducing funding for the war.7/16/12
Top Senators Can’t Explain Romney’s Afghanistan Policy
Foreign Policy’s The Cable by Josh Rogin
Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s policy on the future of U.S.-led war in Afghanistan war is unclear and confusing, complicating attempts to either support or criticize it during the campaign, according to leading senators from both parties.7/13/12
GOP Congressman on Afghanistan: ‘There Is Not One Thing That We’re Going to Accomplish Over There’
Huffington Post by Bob Geiger
Republican Representative Walter Jones took to the floor of the House of Representatives Tuesday to again announce his dismay at continued U.S. presence in Afghanistan, saying that people in his district have turned against the war and told him again over the Independence Day holiday that they want all American troops to come home.OPINION
7/19/12
Five lessons we should have learned in Afghanistan
PBS by Joshua Foust
As the war in Afghanistan reaches its 2014 transition, when the major combat mission ends and U.S. troops take on a more sedate training role, we should take the chance to look back on what lessons we’ve learned there. With the war shifting from outright combat to maintaining the Afghan government and security forces; can we apply lessons from the last 11 years of warfare to what comes next?7/16/12
Q&A with CFR’s Richard Haass: 2012 elections, Afghanistan and why corporations are important in foreign policy
The Washington Post by Allen McDuffee
It’s not likely that additional investment on our part will produce results that are commensurate with greater investment…we need to be realistic about what we can accomplish given the nature of Afghan society, the continued existence of a sanctuary for hostile forces in Pakistan and the agenda and commitment of the Taliban. -
Money as a Weapons System
Published: July 17th, 2012
In the war in Afghanistan, money, the good ol’ American greenback, is used as a primary tool in the U.S. arsenal — a means to winning the hearts and minds of the people of Afghanistan and buying our frenemies’ “loyalty”. This practice is laid out in “Money as a Weapon System – Afghanistan,” a handbook for U.S. aid projects in Afghanistan.
Money hasn’t been a particularly effective weapon system, but the aid flow hasn’t slowed either. Over the past ten years U.S. aid to Afghanistan has topped $30 billion, according to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction ($22.3 billion for governance and development, $6 billion for counter-narcotics, and $2.3 billion for humanitarian aid).
The billion-dollar attempt to buy stability has yet to yield results. Violence in Afghanistan continues, and the ability of the Afghan forces to take over for U.S. and allied troops in 2014 remains uncertain. On the development side, Afghanistan remains dependent on the international community, with 97% of its GDP coming from foreign aid and military spending.
Condolence payments are a particularly interesting piece of the Afghan aid puzzle. “The Money as a Weapons System” guidance caps condolence payments — payments to individual civilians for the death or physical injury resulting from specific U.S., coalition, or supporting military operations — at $5,000. The U.S. spent close to $700,000 in condolence payments in 2011, according to the Pentagon.
From 2007, the first year the U.N. began tracking Afghan civilian casualties, to the end of 2011 close to 12,000 civilians were killed in the Afghanistan conflict. (A new CRS report has more on casualties of the war in Afghanistan). At that level, it’s hard to see that U.S. aid dollars, even in the millions, could repair the damage.
Condolence payments are just one example of the flawed U.S. strategy in Afghanistan — a strategy based on the idea that we can buy our way to victory. But hearts and minds can’t be bought. Pouring money into the Afghan economy hasn’t won us many friends, but it has created an aid bubble that will burst as international donors realize the current path of Afghan aid is unsustainable.
Worse, the war in Afghanistan has siphoned off funds that would have been better spent on domestic programs. Now, the U.S. is in the midst of a fiscal crisis. Spending is out of control, but some members of Congress are looking at raising taxes rather than getting defense spending under control. They should start by ending the war in Afghanistan — a war that is still costing us $2 billion per week.
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: Afghanistan Drawdown Will Cost Billions
Published: July 12th, 2012
While there are still a lot of unanswered questions about what the U.S. presence to Afghanistan will look like after 2014, the U.S. took a step towards clarifying its commitment this week by designating Afghanistan a major non-NATO ally. International donors also committed to $16 billion in development aid to Afghanistan over the next four years at the international aid conference in Tokyo this Sunday. Both announcements ensure that the U.S. will be sending billions of taxpayer dollars to Afghanistan even as troop levels go down. And the drawdown itself will come at a high price. According to Pentagon officials, moving U.S. troops and equipment out of Afghanistan will cost billions of dollars, on top of more than $500 billion already spent on the Afghanistan war.
From ASG
7/9/12
U.S. Commits to Billions in Afghanistan Aid
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
The U.S. seems to be making a feeble attempt – very feeble; only in Afghanistan could $16 billion over four years be considered a cut – to stem the flow of aid dollars to Afghanistan. But what’s missing is an attempt to improve accountability in Afghanistan aid.ARTICLES
7/10/12
Afghan exit will cost U.S. billions, Pentagon’s No. 2 says
USA Today by Tom Vanden Brook
Moving the mountain of U.S. military gear out of Afghanistan after more than a decade of war will cost billions of dollars and prove far more difficult than last year’s withdrawal from Iraq.7/7/12
Pentagon cuts $1 billion from funding for Afghanistan’s national security forces
The Hill’s Defcon by Carlo Munoz
The Defense Department has decided to siphon off $1 billion from Pentagon accounts dedicated to building up Afghanistan’s national security forces and shift those dollars to other military priorities.7/11/12
Why Building Stuff in Afghanistan Costs So Much
Time’s Battleland by Mark Thompson
Here’s part of the reason we’re spending so much money in Afghanistan. Just take a look at some of the pieces of a solicitation seeking a Swiss-Army-Knife complex to house a Ministry of Interior Supply Point, Fire Department, and Uniformed Police District Headquarters, in Nimroz province in the southwestern corner of the country.OPINION
7/11/12
Is corruption the cost of saving Afghanistan?
The Globe and Mail by Roland Paris
Why should we continue to provide billions of dollars to a regime and country where corruption is not just a problem but an integral part of the governing system? -
U.S. Commits to Billions in Afghanistan Aid
Published: July 10th, 2012
At the international aid conference in Tokyo there was another sign that the U.S. will continue to spend billions on aid to Afghanistan, despite serious questions about how aid dollars are spent.
At the conference donor nations pledged $16 billion in non-security aid to Afghanistan over the next four years. The U.S. contribution was not specified, but Secretary of State Clinton said that the administration intends to keep aid to Afghanistan “at or near the levels of the past decade through the year 2017.”
According to news reports the expected U.S. contribution to Afghanistan aid is $1 billion to $2.3 billion per year for the next five years. Given that U.S. non-security aid to Afghanistan has topped $1.5 billion per year since 2002, future aid levels seems likely to be at the high end of that range. That means total non-security funding will come to some $8 billion over the next four years.
Of course, that includes only economic and humanitarian aid. Security aid will cost even more. In 2013 the Pentagon requested $5.7 billion to train and equip the Afghan National Security Forces, down from the previous year’s $11.2 billion. After 2014 the U.S. contribution to Afghan security aid will go down even further, possibly to $2.3 billion. Despite the steady downward trend, the four year total for security aid will easily surpass $10 billion.
The U.S. seems to be making a feeble attempt — very feeble; only in Afghanistan could $18 billion over four years be considered a cut — to stem the massive flow of aid dollars to Afghanistan. But what’s missing is an attempt to improve accountability in Afghanistan aid.
At the Tokyo conference donors paid lip service to accountability by making up to 20 percent of the $16 billion contingent on Afghanistan’s efforts to fight corruption and improve accountability. But individual nations direct their own aid dollars, and there is no sign that the U.S., which has poured billions into Afghanistan over the past decade despite evidence of rampant corruption, will change its policy.
An estimated 85 percent of Afghanistan aid is eaten up in overhead costs or lost to waste and corruption. Instead of taking steps to make aid dollars more efficient, U.S. policymakers keep sending billions to Afghanistan. In 2002, that policy was wasteful and foolish, creating an aid bubble in Afghanistan that will burst when NATO pulls troops and funding. In 2012, pouring billions into Afghanistan aid without ensuring that it is well spent is not just foolish, it is actually dangerous. With a sluggish economy and more important defense priorities, there are better uses for U.S. taxpayer dollars.
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: Moving Supplies to Afghanistan Cost $2.1 Billion
Published: July 6th, 2012
In good news for U.S. operations in Afghanistan, Pakistan reopened its border crossings to NATO supply convoys this week. The eight-month closure had a high price: over $2.1 billion transferred from other defense programs to pay for moving supplies through the more expensive alternate routes.
Concerns about the costs of the Afghanistan war will continue as leaders meet at an international aid conference in Tokyo this Sunday. Afghanistan is expected to seek at least $4 billion per year from international donors. That may be a tough sell, particularly against the backdrop of attacks by Afghan security forces against NATO troops. Five U.S. troops were wounded in such an attack this week. a few days earlier an Afghan policeman shot and killed three British soldiers, bringing the number of fatal ‘green on blue’ attacks to 26 this year.From ASG
7/2/12
Afghanistan War Costs Come at the Expense of Other Defense Programs
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
That $2.1 billion isn’t just additional money tacked on to the war budget for 2012. Instead, the Pentagon (pending congressional approval) will reprogram the funds—taking money from other defense programs and moving it the war budget.ARTICLES
6/29/12
IMF approves disbursement after first review of Afghan program
Reuters by Lesley Wroughton
The International Monetary Fund on Friday approved an $18.2 million disbursement to Afghanistan following the first performance review of the country’s new loan program.
7/6/12
Tokyo conference crucial to future Afghan aid
Associated Press
Afghanistan will seek at least $4 billion from international donors this weekend at a crucial aid conference aimed at propping up the country after most foreign combat troops leave at the end of 2014.7/4/12
In Afghanistan, another turncoat shooting wounds five Americans
LA Times
An Afghan soldier opened fire on a group of American troops, wounding five of them, Western and Afghan military officials said Wednesday.The attack, which took place Tuesday in Wardak province in eastern Afghanistan, was the second incident of its kind in three days.7/1/12
Rare meeting between Afghan government, Taliban
Associated Press by Kathy Gannon
A Taliban emissary sat face-to-face this week with a senior Afghan government official responsible for peace talks in a rare high-level gathering between the bitter adversariesOPINION
7/5/12
The Military Solution
Tomdispatch by Tom Engelhardt
The militarization of the United States and the strengthening of the National Security Complex continues to accelerate. The Pentagon is, by now, a world unto itself, with a staggering budget at a moment when no other power or combination of powers comes near to challenging this country’s might. -
Afghanistan war costs come at the expense of other defense programs
Published: July 2nd, 2012
When Pakistan closed its border crossings to NATO convoys after a NATO airstrike mistakenly killed 24 Pakistani soldiers, the war in Afghanistan got more expensive. Only now, months later, are we learning just how expensive.
The Pentagon is requesting congressional approval for more than $2.1 billion for increased shipping and transportation costs. The more expensive alternatives to the Pakistan routes—Northern Distribution Network, a series of roads through Russia and Central Asia, and airlifting supplies into Afghanistan—are partly responsible for cost hike, which Defense Secretary Leon Panetta pegs at $100 million per month.
Rising oil prices have had an effect too. The Pentagon, the world’s largest consumer of fossil fuels (excluding countries) pays up to $400 per gallon of gasoline in Afghanistan.
Of course, $2.1 billion is pocket change compared to the overall costs of the war. The Pentagon’s war budget for 2012 topped $110 billion. $2.1 billion is less than 2 percent of that total—the price of just one week of war in Afghanistan.
But there’s a catch. That $2.1 billion isn’t just additional money tacked on to the war budget for 2012. Instead, the Pentagon (pending congressional approval) will reprogram the funds—taking money from other defense programs and moving it the war budget.
It has never been more clear that continuing the war in Afghanistan comes at a high price, to the U.S. economy and national security.
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: Moving Defense Dollars to Fund the War
Published: June 28th, 2012
The closure of Pakistan’s supply routes last fall caused a spike in the costs of supplying NATO troops in Afghanistan. Now the Pentagon is seeking congressional approval to transfer $100 million per month from other defense programs to the cover increased costs of continuing the war effort. Meanwhile, the news from the ground in Afghanistan is mixed. Poppy production has declined, and the number of U.S. casualties from improvised explosive devices has dropped. But violence continues, particularly in southern Afghanistan. The International Security Assistance Force reports 3,000 insurgent attacks around the country in May, up 21% from May 2011.
From ASG
6/26/12
Seeking Responsible Policymakers on Afghanistan
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
Many members of Congress, including fiscal conservatives, have dropped the ball on Afghanistan policy. Rather than supporting efforts to wind down the war, Congress has voted to extend it. Rather than working to make every aid dollar count, Congress has dragged their feet on improving aid oversight.ARTICLES
6/22/12
Afghanistan War Strategy During the Surge – Infographic
The New York Times
In 2009 and 2010, the United States increased its troop levels in Afghanistan by 54,000 soldiers. A majority of the first wave of reinforcements was sent to Helmand province instead of neighboring Kandahar, which was deemed to be more important strategically by the then-top U.S. commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal.6/22/12
10 things you didn’t know about the Afghan war
The Washington Post
In the 1950s, dozens of American engineers built a vast network of irrigation canals aimed at bringing modern agriculture to southern Afghanistan. Six decades later, U.S. Marines fought and died in those same canals as they sought to beat back the Taliban.6/27/12
Pentagon to seek shifts in spending
Politico by Austin Wright
The Defense Department plans to seek congressional approval to alter its spending to handle billions of dollars in unanticipated costs, including an additional $100 million a month to supply troops in Afghanistan.OPINION
6/27/12
Building Bridges in Afghanistan
Time’s Battleland by Mark Thompson
Anyone who has had to live without a bridge in his or her neighborhood for awhile knows just how vital those spans can be. In Afghanistan, it turns out they’re also ripe for corruption and an ideal place to plant improvised explosive devices.6/28/12
The Folly of Nation Building
The National Interest by Amitai Etzioni
There is a growing consensus that the United States can’t afford another war, or even a major armed humanitarian intervention. But in reality, the cost of war itself is not the critical issue. It is the nation building following many wars that drives up the costs. -
Seeking Responsible Policymakers on Afghanistan
Published: June 26th, 2012
Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s “Little America: The War Within the War for Afghanistan”, released today, lends new support to critiques of the Obama administration’s handling of the Afghanistan war. According to Little America, the administration squandered a chance to end the war by sidelining the Special representative for Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke, ignored the Vice President’s warnings against the counterinsurgency strategy, and dismissed a CIA report that the 30,000 troop surge had little measurable effect.
Little America is not the first source that gives a different perspective on the Afghanistan war than the one regularly portrayed in the media. Earlier this year Lt. Col. Danny Davis wrote in a ground-breaking article for the Armed Forces Journal that policymakers deliberately suppressed negative news about the war, selling the public a sanitized version of what is really going on in Afghanistan.
Chandrasekaran’s work is another window into how our Afghanistan policy went wrong. And it’s a useful reminder of how politics can have costly consequences. According to Little America, the administration’s flawed policy prolonged the war by several years, and cost American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.
After Little America it might feel right to place the blame for the unwinding of the Afghanistan war on the Obama administration. But let’s not forget about the other players here. Congress played, and continues to play, a huge role in U.S. policy on Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, many members of Congress, including fiscal conservatives, have dropped the ball on Afghanistan policy. Rather than supporting efforts to wind down the war, Congress has voted to extend it. Rather than working to make every aid dollar count, Congress has dragged their feet on improving aid oversight. Rather than finding ways to curtail war costs, Congress keeps approving requests to spend billions of dollars on the Afghanistan war each year.
Each week this year the U.S. is spending $2 billion per week on the Afghanistan war. Next year, we will spend be about $1.7 billion per week. Meanwhile, student loan interest rates are about to skyrocket, tax rates will spike starting in January, and out-of-control government spending means the U.S. national debt is approaching $16 trillion.
There are many better uses for taxpayer dollars than the war in Afghanistan. It’s time policymakers started listening to what taxpayers want: bring our troops and tax dollars home.
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: $11 billion for Afghanistan Aid for the Next Decade
Published: June 21st, 2012
The spring offensive in Afghanistan continues with more insurgent attacks against U.S. and Afghan troops. The uptick in violence has raised fears about the capability of the Afghan security forces. But both Afghan President Karzai and U.S. General John Allen, commander of the U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan, say the Afghan forces are on track to take over the lead combat role in 2013.
Of course, most of the costs of maintaining those troops will have to come from foreign aid. The international community is expected to contribute an estimated $4.1 billion per year for ten years after 2014, when the combat mission will end. And Afghanistan will need an additional $6 to $7 billion in economic aid on top of security aid, bringing the total to $11 billion per year for the next decade.
From ASG
The Enduring Military Presence in Afghanistan
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
If Panetta’s “enduring presence” means thousands of troops, we could be looking at the continuation of this trillion dollar war.ARTICLES
6/19/12
Afghanistan needs $7 billion aid after Western pullout
Reuters by Sanjeev Miglani
Afghanistan will need $6-7 billion a year in aid over the next decade to help grow the economy, the head of the central bank said on Tuesday, on top of a $4.1 billion bill for security forces to keep the peace once foreign troops leave in 2014.6/20/12
General ‘not concerned’ with Afghan funding
Politico by Stephanie Gaskell
Congress is going to send less and less cash to Afghanistan to train and equip local forces, but a top general said Wednesday he’s “not concerned.”6/21/12
Afghanistan eyes 4 billion USD aid in July conference
Xinhua
War-torn Afghanistan expects a key international conference on the country’s economy to pledge 4 billion U.S. dollars a year after 2014 when all foreign combat troops leave the country, President Hamid Karzai said on Thursday.OPINION
6/20/12
Somebody in government finally asks a taxing question about the next war
The Washington Post by Walter Pincus
At last, after 11 years of the United States at war, a few minutes of public discussion of a tax to pay for the fighting. But that would be for the next war.6/19/12
Questions About Afghanistan, If Congress Cared Enough to Ask Them
The Huffington Post by Dan Froomkin
Were they the least bit interested in exercising any oversight at all into the war that American soldiers are still fighting and dying in – and that Chinese bond buyers are still providing the cash for – members of Congress wouldn’t have to go very far to find some excellent questions. -
The Enduring Military Presence in Afghanistan
Published: June 19th, 2012
Iran’s nuclear program and drone strikes in Pakistan are garnering a lot of attention in the news lately, which makes it easy to forget that we are still at war in Afghanistan. And despite American’s wish to the contrary, the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan will last long after the combat mission ends in 2014.
The U.S. still has more than 90,000 troops in Afghanistan. Some of these troops will come home over the summer, but many more — 68,000, to be exact — will remain. An exact number of troops that will remain as the U.S. and allies transition to local security forces through 2013 and 2014 is still unclear.
Gen. John Allen, commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, has said that “we will need significant combat power in 2013,” while local security forces start to take on the primary lead in the combat mission. Recent comments from other U.S. leaders indicate that the military footprint in Afghanistan will last long after the combat mission is over.
Capt. John Kirby, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Media Operations, recently noted that “we … continue to believe that they’ll be some U.S. presence in Afghanistan and a U.S. military mission of some kind after the ISAF mission ends at the end of 2014…It will most likely be in some sort of training, advising and assisting capacity that could involve Air Force personnel and Air Force capabilities.”
Defense Secretary of Panetta, meanwhile, has spoken of the “enduring presence” of the U.S. military in Afghanistan. Testifying at a recent hearing, Sec. Panetta said,
“I am confident that we’re going to be able to complete all of the transition in the areas that we have as part of General Allen’s plan, that we can do this because we have the Afghan army in place — but also because we continue to have ISAF in place as well to provide the support necessary.
So I think the combination of an Afghan army that’s able to do the job plus the kind of enduring presence that we need to have there as well in order to assure that the training and assistance continues. I think that combination does make clear that they’re going to be able to govern and secure themselves at that point.” [Emphasis added]
Neither the Pentagon nor the administration has publicly laid out post-2014 plans, but they are clearly leaving open the possibility of a significant military presence. Even though relying on military might has done little to prevent instability in Afghanistan and has drained significant resources from the american people.
Even as the media and public attention is drawn away from Afghanistan, the violence continues. The U.S. death toll reached 2,000 this past week. A recent attack on a U.S. outpost killed two Americans; another recent attack left six dead.
The economic costs of the war continue to add up too. Each week of war in 2012 costs about $2 billion. 2013 war costs will be about $90 billion — $1.7 billion per week. Already the ten-year costs of the war have topped $500 billion. If Panetta’s “enduring presence” means thousands of troops, we could be looking at the continuation of this trillion dollar war.
