Obama and the Costs of War in Afghanistan
There was much that troubled me in President Obama's speech on Afghanistan earlier this week. But I want to focus on one point the President mentioned in passing: the costs of the war. They go far beyond the $30 billion in additional funding to pay for 30,000 more troops (as noted elsewhere, that's $1 million per soldier!).
There are three readily available sources on war costs: a piece by Chris Hellman of the National Priorities Project; a fact sheet by Travis Sharp of the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation; and an analysis by Amy Belasco of the Congressional Research Service. The information cited here comes from these sources.
First, it's important to note that the $30 billion figure cited by the President is on top of $68 billion in spending on Afghanistan that had already been planned for 2010, bringing the total to almost $100 billion. With Iraq war costs still running at about $60 billion per year, that puts the costs of the two wars together at close to the peak reached during the Bush years.
This is a huge amount of money, but it's not inconsistent with Obama's pledges on the campaign trail. He ran as a an anti-Iraq warcandidate, not an anti-warcandidate.
But the fact that the troop drawdown in Iraq will not do much to reduce overall war costs (Iraq plus Afganistan) is a bit surprising. It's a result of two factors -- the rapid increase in troops to Afghanistan, and the amazing difference in the "costs per soldier" for the two wars. The $1 million per soldier cost for Afghanistan is two and one-half times what it takes to support a soldier in Iraq. This means that even if Iraq troop levels go down more rapidly than the buildup in Afghanistan, the total costs of the two wars combined will remain about the same.
So, there will be no "peace dividend" from Iraq. Just a shift of costs to Afghanistan. And given that the President spoke in his speech about striking a balance in government spending and being more concerned with nation building in America than nation building in Afghanistan, these figures contradict that pledge.
One could say, sure, but President Obama has also promised to start drawing down troops in Afghanistan by July 2011. But a "drawdown" is not a withdrawal. As Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said yesterday, even if everything went perfectly according to plan (which it won't), the U.S. would have troops in Afghanistan for two to three years beyond the July 2011 goal for starting to draw down troops. It's quite possible that a drawdown, if it happens on schedule, could just mean bringing back the 30,000 troops committed this week and keeping the rest (60,000 to 70,000) there for some unspecified time period.
So, under the Obama plan, prepare to see a substantial U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan for a minimum of four to five years, probably longer. Will the American people stand still for that? We'll see.
The American people shouldn't stand for it. We spend nearly $200 billion a year on foreign occupations while folks here live with lost jobs and stagnant wages?
December 4, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
NIKEshoes Jordan choth ect www.global4biz.com
cheap nike shoes handbang choth ect
*********************************************
*** wbesite www.global4biz.com *****
*********************************************
Welcome to Shopping→→→ www.global4biz.com
gucci edhardy prada lv chanel ect
@
hh
December 5, 2009 6:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
NIKEshoes Jordan choth ect www.global4biz.com
cheap nike shoes handbang choth ect
*********************************************
*** wbesite http://www.global4biz.com *****
*********************************************
Welcome to Shopping→→→ http://www.global4biz.com
gucci edhardy prada lv chanel ect
'
December 5, 2009 6:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Suggestion : name the profiteers that are making huge money off these wars and rag on them, not on the president.
Once a legitimate business is established that makes huge money it is almost impossible to stop it from continuing to do so.
Obama makes a prominent and therefore easy target. But the people you should blame are the guys sticking billions in their pockets.
December 4, 2009 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is writing the checks and making the decision to keep wasting those billions. He's not only an easy target, he is actually responsible for this ongoing theft from the treasury!
December 4, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK I am not disagreeing with you.
Congress hands out the money. Can we find a majority of Congresspersons that are not afraid of wealthy well-connected enemies that can finance a campaign to unseat him or her ?
A businessman making big money from the US treasury will fight like a furious bulldog to keep his good thing going. This businessman operates in the dark where the public does not see; he will certainly not stop if he is not exposed.
A congressperson will not oppose anything, not an herbicide or a plastic bottle or a flammable baby pyjama or a subsidy for domestic sugar cane, if it means making a powerful enemy.
Mr President has his hands full with lots of powerful enemies right now. Mr President also has a congress full of weak-willed people who think of nothing but keeping their seats.
I think it would help to find and name the profiteers. Meanwhile I decline to throw rocks at the overwhelmed Mr President.
December 4, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
IT is the President's job to lead. If he would lead, other's would follow. When he cowers behind his desk no different than the average member of Congress then you cannot expect the followers will lead. It's a totally illegitimate dodge to say Congress controls the purse strings when the fact is the President sets the agenda and the President's agenda rarely gets trumped. It may get altered or frustrated in some ways but it always looks more like what the President wants than what Congress wants: always.
December 4, 2009 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
All this is true of course, but let's remember that the important thing is not to be irresponsible when it comes to spending on frivolous things like jobs for our people as opposed to important and necessary expenses like fighting two futile imperialist wars on the other side of the globe.
December 4, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it's your job, health care or retirement that's at issue, I'm sorry but we can't afford to help you. You know that, Oleeb.
But take heart, if we stay in constant warfare and you need a job you can always enlist!
December 4, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
First off I gotta say that it's quite remarkable that here on Marshall's website, if one wants information or discussion regards Afghanistan, it either isn't there or else one has to go and dig for it. It certainly has been absent from the main page and that to me means only one thing: Josh desires to remain a player with major sources in Washington. That and nothing more. For evidence, simply look again at his main page. You'd think that we're still in the center of campaign '08. I've followed Marshall for years and with each week, my admiration and respect declines.
Regards Afghanistan (I know, I know - only five previous comments on this thread today), here is what the Edward R. Murrow Fellow of the Council of Foreign Relations presently reports, from Kabul - of all places:
Corruption in the country has reached such a scale that Ashraf Ghani, a former World Bank executive and presidential candidate, says that a senior Karzai adviser told him that one government minister made $25 million in a single year, and a northern governor, $75 million. Two of Karzai's brothers -- Mahmoud Karzai and Ahmed Wali Karzai -- and relatives of at least one governor, Gul Agha Shirzai, and the country's defense minister, Abdul Rahim Wardak, have either earned money with questionable tactics or been awarded lucrative Western contracts with little fair competition. They have been helped by their relatives' political clout and suspicious bidding practices.
Some of the shifting public support toward the Taliban is due to the fact that the Taliban, unlike the central government, seem to take such widespread corruption seriously. In 33 of the country's 34 provinces, the Taliban has set up its own anticorruption committees, which allow local Afghans to complain about any injustice, including those inflicted by the Taliban. One Afghan official told me that such committees would be "a good idea" for the government. The Taliban also runs its own courts, which are known for quick justice without the need to pay bribes.
But for now, paying money remains the only way to efficiently accomplish anything with the Afghan government. Daniel Grey, the local head of a large U.S. contracting company that works on roads and power, said that his company refuses to pay bribes. As a result, its work is made more onerous and ultimately more expensive. In one case, the customs department held 13 vehicles for a year before releasing them. Another time, in Kandahar, when Grey's company was trying to load supplies onto a helicopter that costs $16,000 an hour to operate, an Afghan official came over to say that the helicopter would have to be loaded somewhere else. That cost the company an hour of time, or $16,000. But the official just wanted a $100 kickback. "The cost of avoiding a bribe was much more than we ever would have paid for a bribe," Grey said.
Good 'ol Barak, he really thinks that he can build his foundation upon a quagmire. Gawd, if only Halberstam were still with us.
December 4, 2009 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of costs, maybe there's a correlation and maybe there isn't but the (economically teetering) Soviet Union finally collapsed after nine years of war in Afghanistan. Are we repeating their folly?
December 5, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
And their logistical pipeline was a tunnel about as long as the Lincoln or Holland tunnel! (ok, maybe the Salang tunnel is a lot longer, but shit, you can still drive through it in a truck.
December 6, 2009 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
This American person may be stuck with it but she sure the heck isn't going to vote for it.
December 4, 2009 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
When we say it costs 2.5 times as much per soldier in Afghanistan as in Iraq, we are really saying that money from the US budget is going out 2.5 times faster to US corporations than it did when Bush was squandering money. That money isn't migrating to Afghanistan. It is going into the accounts of US corporations.
This makes Obama's war much more attractive to corporations than Bush's war was. I'm not at all sure that this isn't a major consideration in Obama's decision. Peace may never happen again, unless there is another American Revolution. Interfering with the transfer of money to US corporations doesn't seem to be possible.
December 5, 2009 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Before someone raises the flag, salutes, and starts blathering about terrorism, stop and think. If whatever we are doing in Afghanistan is really of vital importance to our country, there should be not one single American corporation making a dime off of it. It would be a crime for them to do so. The thugs we send over there and call "contractors" would simply be drafted and paid the standard salary of GI's. The corporations making armored trucks would be paid only the legitimate cost of producing them, and their production would go to the lowest cost builder. None of that is happening. Thus, this is simply a scam for building corporate wealth.
December 5, 2009 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
How did this country become such a war mongering nation?
December 6, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not sure what to think here. The cost is adding up more and more each day. We have to spend the money because we cannot leave the country right now. We have to stop terrorism.
as seen on tv products
June 29, 2010 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was very pleased to find this site.I wanted to thank you for this great read!! Hulu Downloader | iPad Converter
August 18, 2010 3:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
This article is very interesting. Thank you very much for sharing . m2ts files converter from m2ts converter
August 18, 2010 3:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tulsa Courthouse
here will be no "peace dividend" from Iraq. Just a shift of costs to Afghanistan. And given that the President spoke in his speech about striking a balance in government spending and being more concerned with nation building
December 17, 2010 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
US budget is going out 2.5 times faster to US corporations than it did when Bush was squandering money. That money isn't migrating to Afghanistan. It is going into the accounts of US corporations.bathing suits
December 20, 2010 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
simply look again at his main page. You'd think that we're still in the center of campaign '08. I've followed Marshall for years and with each week, my admiration and respect declines.printed bags custom printed bags
December 23, 2010 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
War is an expensive one. So it is normal to have the expenses run this theater. Obama did have some problem regarding this, anti-war fanatics are always watching.
___
mole removal
February 14, 2011 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink