ASG Blog
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: Closure of Pakistan Supply Routes Costs $100 Million per Month
Published: June 14th, 2012
Amid tensions with Afghanistan over NATO airstrikes that have caused civilian casualties, the U.S. is also facing tense negotiations with Pakistan over supply routes to Afghanistan. Ever since the November 2011 NATO airstrike that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers, Pakistan’s supply routes have been closed. The U.S. and Pakistan were reportedly close to a deal to reopen the routes several times, but the U.S. negotiators left Pakistan this Monday without an agreement.
Pentagon officials still hope a deal can be reached. In the meantime, the U.S. must rely on routes through Central Asian countries – routes that cost up to two-and-a-half times more. Defense Secretary Panetta estimates that the Pakistan route closure costs the U.S. a staggering $100 million per month.
From ASG
War Costs Will Continue After 2014
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
The U.S. combat mission in Afghanistan may end in by 2014, but that doesn’t mean troops will be coming home. And it certainly doesn’t mean that war costs will end any time soon.ARTICLES
6/10/12
Lawmakers unite in effort to end war in Afghanistan
Army Times by Lance M. Bacon
A bipartisan group of nine lawmakers has enlisted the help of an Army whistle-blower in their determined efforts to bring a swift end to the war in Afghanistan.6/11/12
Pentagon probes Leonie’s taxes, treatment of Afghan workers
USA Today by Tom Vanden Brook
Pentagon criminal investigators have launched a full probe into the military’s top propaganda contractor in Afghanistan regarding taxes paid by its owners and treatment of its Afghan employees.6/12/12
Military Will Soon Pay More For Former Soldiers Than Current Ones
U.S. News & World Report by John Bennett
The Pentagon soon will spend more on health care and other benefits for former military personnel than on the men and women fighting today’s conflicts, according to a new study.OPINION
6/11/12
US legacy in Afghanistan: What 11 years of war has accomplished
CS Monitor by Scott Baldauf
If Americans correct past mistakes and build on achievements, they still have a chance to leave behind a country that can survive on its own. If past mistakes are repeated, the withdrawal could be a messy one indeed – and may prove an ignoble ending to one of the costlier ventures in modern American history.6/12/12
Counterinsurgency doctrine fundamentally flawed at outset
Global Post by Jonathan Moore
COIN extends US military beyond its competence by making it try to build a cohesive nation in Afghanistan. -
War Costs Will Continue After 2014
Published: June 12th, 2012
The U.S. combat mission in Afghanistan may end in by 2014, but that doesn’t mean troops will be coming home. And it certainly doesn’t mean that war costs will end any time soon.
The situations in Iraq and Afghanistan are very different, but Iraq can still tell us something about what may happen in Afghanistan. President Obama declared an end to the combat mission in Iraq at the end of August 2010, when there were close to 50,000 U.S. troops in the country. One year later, there were still around 40,000. If the Iraq government hadn’t refused to grant U.S. troops legal immunity, they would still be in Iraq today.
We’re likely to see something similar in Afghanistan. The U.S. and NATO allies will transition the lead combat mission to Afghan forces mid-2013, but the International Security Assistance Force
combat role will not end until 2014. What the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan will look like post-2014 is anyone’s guess, but the U.S.-Afghanistan Strategic Partnership Agreement explicitly “provides for the possibility of U.S. forces in Afghanistan after 2014.”Sustaining an expansive the U.S. presence in Afghanistan will be expensive, especially if the number of deployed U.S. troops stays high. The U.S. has already agreed to pay $2.6 billion per year through 2024 for the Afghan security forces. Add to that some $8 billion – that Department of State request for war-related operations in 2013 – and you’re already over $10 billion, without even looking at the Department of Defense budget. DOD’s reset account – funds to repair and replace equipment used in combat operations – came to $13 billion in 2012.
Costs to sustain U.S. troops, however many stay in Afghanistan post-2014, are in addition to all these costs, meaning U.S. taxpayers will continue to pay billions to finance the war for years to come.
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: $11 Billion for State Department War Operations in 2012
Published: June 7th, 2012
Secretary of Defense Panetta’s trip to Kabul yesterday made it clear that, while the NATO combat mission in Afghanistan is winding down, the war is far from over. Yesterday also marked the deadliest day this year for Afghan civilians, with a suicide attack in Kandahar City and a NATO airstrike in rural Logar Province causing at least 24 civilian deaths. Meanwhile, the number of U.S. fatalities in Afghanistan has reached 2,000. And despite the continuing violence, the U.S. war spending shows no sign of slowing down.
From ASG
6/5/12
Congress Silent on Ending the Afghanistan War
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
Unlike their constituents, who have spoken so strongly in favor of ending the war, many elected officials are silent.ARTICLES
5/30/12
No. 2 U.S. Commander In Afghanistan Would Like 68,000 Troops Into Next Year
NPR by Tom Bowman
The number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan will drop by 23,000 by September. At that point, 68,000 U.S. troops will be serving in the country, fighting the Taliban and training Afghan soldiers and police. Any further reductions are now at the center of a debate. It’s all a game of numbers.6/4/12
U.S. and NATO secure exit route from Afghanistan
CNN by Mike Mount
U.S. and NATO equipment will have a guaranteed route out of Afghanistan after an agreement with Central Asian countries allowing the alliance to completely cut out the shorter Pakistani access routes NATO has used for years.6/5/12
U.S. Cozies Up to Pakistan’s Archrival for Afghan War
Wired by Spencer Ackerman
In a move that could rankle Pakistan, the U.S. military is encouraging Islamabad’s arch-rival, India, to deepen its involvement in the Afghanistan war.OPINION
6/6/12
And now, only one senior al Qaeda leader left
CNN by Peter Bergen
Few Americans harbor irrational fears about being killed by a lightning bolt. Abu Yahya al-Libi’s death on Monday should remind them that fear of al Qaeda in its present state is even more irrational. -
Congress Silent on Ending the Afghanistan War
Published: June 5th, 2012
In poll after poll the American public has said the Afghanistan war is not worth the costs. They have called for removing U.S. troops as soon as possible. They have supported cutting war costs by an average of 43%.
Where do policymakers stand on this issue? It’s hard to say. Unlike their constituents, who have spoken so strongly in favor of ending the war, many elected officials are silent.
There are notable exceptions. Representatives Timothy Johnson (R-IL), Barbara Lee (D-CA), and Walter Jones (R-NC) have led the way in calling for an end to the Afghanistan war. Senators Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Jim Webb (D-VA) have introduced legislation to implement the oversight reforms recommended by the Commission on Wartime Contracting, which found that as much as $60 billion has been lost to contract waste and fraud in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Unfortunately, these legislators are in the minority. Other members of Congress consistently overlook Afghanistan, even working actively to extend the war. In their version of the 2013 National Defense Authorization bill, the House voted to sustain the war, voting down an amendment that would limit funds to the “safe and orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops and military contractors from Afghanistan.” Another amendment to accelerate the drawdown didn’t even make it to a vote; the House Rules Committee refused to allow it to be debated.
While House members try to extend the war, some Senators are simply ignoring it. Political scientist Jonathan Bernstein notes that of the 16 Republican candidates likely to win Senate seats, 15 do not even mention the war on their campaign sites.
The Afghanistan war likely will not be a driving issue this election season. But it should be. The war has cost over $500 billion over the past ten years, and will cost close to $100 billion in the 2013 alone. Americans believe there are better uses for taxpayer dollars. Some members of Congress may disagree, but rather than debate the issue, they are sweeping it under the rug. By quietly supporting the status quo, policymakers are spending billions on the war without justifying their strategy to the taxpayers who are underwriting it.
The Afghanistan war is too big, and too costly, to be ignored. The American public understands this. It’s time for fiscal conservatives to show they understand it too.
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: Declining Support for a Costly, Unnecessary War
Published: June 1st, 2012
It’s widely known that support for the war in Afghanistan is plummeting among the general public. Less well-known is the fact that antiwar sentiment is growing among post-9/11 veterans too. A recent poll shows that 33% of veterans believe the war is not worth the costs. These veterans are joined by members of the faculty at West Point Military Academy who argue that the Afghanistan counterinsurgency could work, but at an unacceptable cost to the United States.
While opposition to the Afghanistan war is growing, the U.S. Congress continues to back the war effort. The House of Representatives recently voted down an amendment to withdraw combat troops quickly. And the Senate Armed Services Committee voted to approve the Pentagon’s request of $88.5 billion for war costs in 2013, bringing the total costs of the war to over $600 billion.
From ASG
5/28/12
$85 Billion in Aid to Afghanistan Wasted
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
Much the $100 billion U.S. taxpayer dollars spent Afghanistan aid has been misdirected. A former senior auditor for SIGAR estimates that only 15% of aid dollars makes it to the intended recipient. The rest is lost to waste and corruption or eaten up by overhead costs. For the U.S., that means $85 billion has been wasted in Afghanistan.ARTICLES
5/28/12
West Point Is Divided on a War Doctrine’s Fate
The New York Times by Elisabeth Bumiller
Narrowly, the argument is whether the counterinsurgency strategy used in Iraq and Afghanistan — the troop-heavy, time-intensive, expensive doctrine of trying to win over the locals by building roads, schools and government — is dead. Broadly, the question is what the United States gained after a decade in two wars.5/26/12
Among post-9/11 veterans, deepening antiwar sentiment
The CS Monitor by Gloria Goodale
This Memorial Day the Iraq war is over and the Afghanistan war is winding down, but they’re weighing heavily on post-9/11 veterans, 33 percent of whom said they weren’t worth the cost.OPINION
5/31/12
Afghanistan Exit Strategy Must Focus on Development
US News and World Report by Michael Honda and Michael Shank
Development in Afghanistan is currently in the wrong hands. Tens of billions of dollars of American taxpayer money have been spent over almost 12 years in Afghanistan on development projects which were largely managed and implemented by foreign contractors and with little regard for long-term localized viability.5/28/12
Cost of war in Afghanistan not justified
The Portland Maine Press Herald Editorial Board
It’s time to reflect once again on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and their costs in lives, treasure and national prestige. In the end, Afghanistan was not what candidate Barack Obama described as a “smart war,” with clear military objectives and a way out, but another “dumb war” like Iraq, where the liberators soon became a detested occupying army. -
$85 Billion of Aghan Aid Wasted
Published: May 28th, 2012
The president has requested close to $10 billion for Afghanistan reconstruction next year. If Congress approves the request, that will bring the total amount of U.S. reconstruction aid to Afghanistan to $100 billion since 2002, according to the latest quarterly report from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. That averages out to a little over $8 billion each year.
$8 billion is a lot of money. It’s $2 billion more than Congress needs to find to avoid raising student loan interest rates. It’s more than three times what the Department of Energy spent last year on vital nuclear nonproliferation programs, and it’s four times the amount the Veterans Health Administration spent to provide medical care to recent combat veterans in 2010.
Some U.S. aid money has been well spent. The literacy rates among the Afghan National Security Forces, for example, has almost tripled since 2009.
But a lot of the $100 billion U.S. taxpayer dollars spent on Afghanistan aid has been misspent. A former senior auditor for SIGAR estimates that only 15% of aid dollars makes it to the intended recipient. The rest is lost to waste and corruption or eaten up by overhead costs. For the U.S., that means $85 billion has been wasted in Afghanistan.
Slashing aid to Afghanistan (as the Senate Appropriations committee recently did, cutting the president’s request by 28%) isn’t necessarily the answer. Doing something on a smaller scale does not mean you’re doing it better.
It’s not simply a matter of changing how much we invest; we must change the way we invest. By making each aid dollar more effective, we will spend less and get real results.
What does this mean in practical terms? There are a lot of recommendations for making Afghanistan aid more effective. Improving congressional oversight would be a good start. Cracking down on wartime contracting abuses is also essential. And focusing on economic development – promoting investment in local infrastructure, providing subsidies and technical assistance to local agricultural producers, and helping Afghan women directly through micro-lending and education programs – would also be smart.
$85 billion of U.S. taxpayer dollars has already been wasted. Billions more are at risk, unless the current course changes.
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: Paying for Endless War
Published: May 25th, 2012
It was a big week for Afghanistan news. At the Chicago summit, NATO leaders agreed give Afghan forces the lead in combat operations by mid-2013 and withdraw ISAF combat troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014 – a plan that Defense Secretary Panetta announced back in February. Meanwhile, two big leadership changes were announced: U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan Ryan Crocker is stepping down for health reasons, and Gen. John Allen, the commander of U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan, is expected to leave at the end of the year to become the chief allied commander in Europe.
The connecting thread here is that the U.S. plan for Afghanistan shows neither stability nor clarity of purpose. The result, of course, is that American taxpayers will have to keep on paying for a war that they do not want. And it won’t be cheap. This year the U.S. will spend $2 billion per week on the war in Afghanistan. Next year, if Congress approves the president’s budget request, costs will go down slightly, to only $1.7 billion per week.
From ASG
5/22/12
Open-Ended Commitment To Afghanistan Will Cost Taxpayers Billions
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
Fiscal conservatives are always saying we need to rein in wasteful government spending. Where are the fiscal conservatives when it comes to ending the wasteful war in Afghanistan?ARTICLES
5/22/12
Accounting for War
National Priorities Project by Chris Hellman
The withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and the winding down of military operations in Afghanistan does not mean the end of the U.S. presence or war-related funding. U.S. taxpayers will continue to provide funding for Iraq and Afghanistan for years into the future.5/24/12
General says Afghanistan will need “combat power”
Reuters
The United States will require “significant firepower” in Afghanistan in 2013-14, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces there said, but decisions about further U.S. troop reductions will only be made after this fall at the earliest.5/18/12
Afghanistan’s Squandered Foreign Aid Has Young Businessmen Worried About Future
Huffington Post by Joshua Hersh
The billions of dollars that has flowed through the country for the past decade may have made some people rich, but has failed to create the kind of environment that would allow businesses to sustain themselves after the international community withdraws, or the kind of businesses that might choose to stick around.OPINION
5/22/12
Apathetic on Afghanistan: Why the candidates are ignoring voter sentiment
Highlander News by Brendan Bordelon
If Americans cannot muster the courage to stand by their convictions and hold our elected officials accountable for wasteful and destructive policies, the worthless death and devastation may well continue into 2014 and beyond. In the last two presidential elections, war was a central campaign issue. This time, voters only worry about Afghanistan when they’re forced to. Can we expect our politicians to behave any differently? -
Open-ended commitment to Afghanistan will cost taxpayers billions
Published: May 22nd, 2012
In the Chicago Summit Declaration issued this past Sunday, NATO leaders committed to ending the combat mission in Afgahnistan in 2014, as they agreed at the 2010 Lisbon summit. They also made a commitment “to support Afghanistan in its Transformation Decade beyond 2014,” including financial support for the Afghan National Security forces.
The declaration leaves a lot of unanswered questions about the NATO’s future strategy in Afghanistan. How many troops will stay “to train and support” Afghan forces after 2014? How much will NATO members commit to maintaining the Afghan Security Forces? Will it be enough to keep the ANSF at target levels and is the target level sustainable?
President Obama reportedly went into the summit looking for answers to some of these questions, particularly a financial commitment from other NATO members for the ANSF. His failure to secure specific commitment is largely unsurprising. After all, other NATO countries face the same difficulties in developing a plan for Afghanistan that the U.S. faces (e.g, domestic politics, regional dynamics). The simple fact is that making a ten-year commitment is hard; keeping it vague is much easier.
The vague commitments and unanswered questions in the NATO declaration are the same in U.S. policy. The Strategic Framework signed by President Obama and Afghan President Karzai says the U.S. will withdraw combat troops by the end of 2014, and commits U.S. support for the next ten years, but the agreement is silent on most of the details.
It may be understandable that NATO leaders, with all their different pressures and interests, failed to come up with a clear strategy. However, U.S. policymakers don’t have the same excuse. By sticking to the 2014 timetable, the administration is ignoring the American public, most of whom do not support the war.
Of course, Obama’s rival is not much better on Afghanistan policy. Gov. Mitt Romney has criticized the president for setting a deadline for withdrawing combat troops. But the alternative to a timeline is an open-ended commitment. As Iraq war veteran Jon Soltz writes, “open-ended means decades and hundreds of thousands of troops in Afghanistan”— as well as hundreds of billions of dollars, on top of the $560 billion already spent.
Congress is no better at listening to public opinion. The American public is tired of wasteful defense spending, and the war in Afghanistan in particular, the House of Representatives just voted for a defense bill that exceeds, by $8 billion, the cap on defense spending that Congress agreed to as part of the Budget Control Act last August. Representatives voted against an amendment to speed up the drawdown and approved an amendment to maintain 68,000 troops in Afghanistan through 2014.
Fiscal conservatives are always saying we need to rein in wasteful government spending. Where are the fiscal conservatives when it comes to ending the wasteful war in Afghanistan?
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: $88 Billion for Another Year of War
Published: May 18th, 2012
Congress is on the way to authorizing another $88 billion for next year’s operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Besides billions for ongoing military operations, that amount includes more than $5 billion for the Afghan National Security Forces, plus hundreds of millions for unsustainable aid projects under the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund and the Commander’s Emergency Response Program.
Unfortunately Congress isn’t on the same page as the American public when it comes to the Afghanistan war. Public support for the war is at all-time lows. In fact, a new poll finds that the average American would reduce next year’s war budget to $50 billion – a 43% cut from what Congress wants to spend.
From ASG
5/15/12
Congress Continues To Ignore Public Opinion On Afghanistan
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
It has become clear, at least to the American public, that we are wasting our resources. But still some members of Congress persist in advocating for sustaining, or even expanding, our role in Afghanistan.ARTICLES
5/15/12
As Trained Afghans Turn Enemy, a U.S.-Led Imperative Is in Peril
New York Times by Matthew Rosenberg
The [green on blue] attacks, and the personal animosity that officials believe have driven most of them, are threatening the joint-training model that is one of the remaining imperatives of the Western mission in Afghanistan.5/15/12
NATO Summit Will Likely Produce Vague Plans on Afghanistan
US News by John Bennett
Despite ample hype about the coming NATO summit in Chicago, the powwow is unlikely to produce specific policy pacts that will make clear the alliance’s plans for Afghanistan and Syria.5/16/12
US Lawmakers Calling for Faster Withdrawal From Afghanistan
Voice of America by Cindy Saine
A bipartisan group of 86 members of the U.S. House of Representatives has written a letter to President Barack Obama asking him to bring the war in Afghanistan to an accelerated end.OPINION
5/14/12
Nato’s battle of spin with the Taliban marks a new era for Afghanistan
The Guardian by Jason Burke
If you see the current battle of spin for what it is, then it is possible to imagine that policymakers and strategists do actually recognise the unpleasant reality facing Afghanistan in coming years despite their public rhetoric. This may be a slim hope but is nonetheless comforting. But are they preparing to deal with events over the next decade more sensibly than they have over the last? Let’s not go that far. -
Congress Continues to Ignore Public Opinion on Afghanistan
Published: May 15th, 2012
Every recent opinion poll confirms declining public support for the war. A March Washington Post poll finds that 60% of respondents believe the war has not been worth the costs. 72% say they oppose the war and 77% want to withdraw all U.S. troops in 2014 or earlier, according to a March CNN poll. An April poll from The Christian Science Monitor finds that 63% of respondents do not support the recently announced US-Afghan Strategic Agreement, which commits the U.S. to ten years of aid and military support for Afghanistan.
The downward trend shows that Americans are responding to mounting evidence that the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan just isn’t working. Each year since 2001 the U.S. has spent an average of $45 billion on the Afghanistan war. Troop levels peaked at about 101,000 in 2010; today some 90,000 U.S. troops are still deployed in Afghanistan. U.S. casualties number close to 2,000, including 378 deaths since the death of Osama bin Laden in May 2011.
With the primary goal – dismantling al-Qaeda – accomplished, we continue nation-building in a country where there is no basic security. IED attacks set a record high in 2011. Questions about the capability of the Afghan Security Forces persist. Billions of dollars invested in aid projects are abandoned because the Afghan government cannot afford to pay for them.
It has become clear, at least to the American public, that we are wasting our resources. But still, some members of Congress persist in advocating for sustaining, or even expanding, our role in Afghanistan. Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), for example, believes “bringing these 20,000 troops home this year is too soon,” and has called for U.S. troops to replace local security forces who guard U.S. facilities in Afghanistan. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-NC), who supports keeping 20,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan past 2014, insists that “We have made progress, and we do have strong allies within Afghanistan
Congress’ latest effort to prolong the war is the 2013 Department of Defense authorization bill, recently passed by the House Armed Services Committee. The HASC bill includes a provision to maintain 68,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan through 2014, and “maintain a credible troop presence after December 31, 2014, sufficient to conduct counter-terrorism and train and advise the Afghan National Security Forces.” This plan would cost billions of dollars, not to mention the lives of U.S. soldiers.
Not all members of Congress are tied to a losing strategy in Afghanistan. Some, like Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) and Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) have actively worked for an accelerated drawdown and greater oversight of U.S. spending in Afghanistan. Thus far these efforts have failed, and the gap between a public that wants to end the war and policymakers determined to sustain it continues.
