See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Analysts Expect Long-Term, Costly U.S. Campaign in Afghanistan
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy ... /08/08/AR2009080802283_pf.html
Published: Aug 9, 2009
Author: Walter Pincus
Post Date: 2009-08-09 10:14:59 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 1078
Comments: 85
As the Obama administration expands U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, military experts are warning that the United States is taking on security and political commitments that will last at least a decade and a cost that will probably eclipse that of the Iraq war. Since the invasion of Afghanistan eight years ago, the United States has spent $223 billion on war-related funding for that country, according to the Congressional Research Service. Aid expenditures, excluding the cost of combat operations, have grown exponentially, from $982 million in 2003 to $9.3 billion last year. The costs are almost certain to keep growing. The Obama administration is in the process of overhauling the U.S. approach to Afghanistan, putting its focus on long-term security, economic sustainability and development. That approach is also likely to require deployment of more American military personnel, at the very least to train additional Afghan security forces. Later this month, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is expected to present his analysis of the situation in the country. The analysis could prompt an increase in U.S. troop levels to help implement President Obama's new strategy. Military experts insist that the additional resources are necessary. But many, including some advising McChrystal, say they fear the public has not been made aware of the significant commitments that come with Washington's new policies. "We will need a large combat presence for many years to come, and we will probably need a large financial commitment longer than that," said Stephen Biddle, a senior fellow for defense policy at the Council on Foreign Relations and a member of the "strategic assessment" team advising McChrystal. The expansion of the Afghan security force that the general will recommend to secure the country "will inevitably cost much more than any imaginable Afghan government is going to be able to afford on its own," Biddle added. "Afghan forces will need $4 billion a year for another decade, with a like sum for development," said Bing West, a former assistant secretary of defense and combat Marine who has chronicled the Iraq and Afghan wars. Bing said the danger is that Congress is "so generous in support of our own forces today, it may not support the aid needed for progress in Afghanistan tomorrow." Some members of Congress are worried. The House Appropriations Committee said in its report on the fiscal 2010 defense appropriations bill that its members are "concerned about the prospects for an open-ended U.S. commitment to bring stability to a country that has a decades-long history of successfully rebuffing foreign military intervention and attempts to influence internal politics." The Afghan government has made some political and military progress since 2001, but the Taliban insurgency has been reinvigorated. Anthony H. Cordesman, another member of McChrystal's advisory group and a national security expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told reporters recently that even with military gains in the next 12 to 18 months, it would take years to reduce sharply the threat from the Taliban and other insurgent forces. The task that the United States has taken on in Afghanistan is in many ways more difficult than the one it has encountered in Iraq, where the U.S. government has spent $684 billion in war-related funding. In a 2008 study that ranked the weakest states in the developing world, the Brookings Institution rated Afghanistan second only to Somalia. Afghanistan's gross domestic product in 2008 was $23 billion, with about $3 billion coming from opium production, according to the CIA's World Factbook. Oil-producing Iraq had a GDP of $113 billion. Afghanistan's central government takes in roughly $890 million in annual revenue, according to the World Factbook. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has pointed out that Afghanistan's national budget cannot support the $2 billion needed today for the country's army and police force. Dutch Army Brig. Gen. Tom Middendorp, commander of the coalition task force in Afghanistan's southern Uruzgan province, described the region as virtually prehistoric. "It's the poorest province of one of the poorest countries in the world. And if you walk through that province, it's like walking through the Old Testament," Middendorp told reporters recently. "There is enormous illiteracy in the province. More than 90 percent cannot write or read. So it's very basic, what you do there. And they have had 30 years of conflict." Unlike in Iraq, where Obama has established a timeline for U.S. involvement, the president has not said when he would like to see troops withdrawn from Afghanistan. White House officials emphasize that the burden is not that of the United States alone. The NATO-led force in the country has 61,000 troops from 42 countries; about 29,000 of those troops are American. Still, military experts say the United States will not be able to shed its commitment easily. The government has issued billions of dollars in contracts in recent years, underscoring the vast extent of work that U.S. officials are commissioning. Among other purposes, contractors have been sought this summer to build a $25 million provincial Afghan National Police headquarters; maintain anti-personnel mine systems; design and build multimillion-dollar sections of roads; deliver by sea and air billions of dollars worth of military bulk cargo; and supervise a drug-eradication program. One solicitation, issued by the Army Corps of Engineers, is aimed at finding a contractor to bring together Afghan economic, social, legal and political groups to help build the country's infrastructure. The contractor would work with Afghan government officials as well as representatives from private and nongovernmental organizations to establish a way to allocate resources for new projects. "We are looking at two decades of supplying a few billion a year to Afghanistan," said Michael E. O'Hanlon, a senior fellow and military expert at the Brookings Institution, adding: "It's a reasonable guess that for 20 years, we essentially will have to fund half the Afghan budget." He described the price as reasonable, given that it may cost the United States $100 billion this year to continue fighting. "We are creating a [long-term military aid] situation similar to the ones we have with Israel, Egypt and Jordan," he said.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 71.
#5. To: christine (#0)
Why don't the teabaggers ever rally against this? At our latest one on our courthouse lawn on July 4, the speaker here decried Obama for NOT increasing the military budget, which he DID do, BTW, just not enough for the retired teabagging military officer (who, like McCain, was once a guest at the Hanoi Hilton). This is another key reason the GOPers are finished. They are AGAINST Big Gubmint, except when they're not. ANYTHING which can be related to wars and the military gets a pass. The Blue Dog Dems with military bases in their district are no better. Eisenhower's prophecy came true. This country is a captive of the MIC. We are all their slaves.
Well, there is one little detail you left out there. GWBush had a chance to capture OBL early on in Afghanistan. Instead, he felt confident going into Iraq waging a do nothing campaign liberating the whole planet from tyrants. The tempo for success was lost in Afghanistan leading to well understood fact of where we are today. And even if we accomplished our military and political objectives in Afghanistan, we would still fail. The Taliban would be replaced by others perhaps even more radical.
And even if we accomplished our military and political objectives in Afghanistan, we would still fail. We would fail with our ostensible objectives in Afghanistan because that is what they are designed to do - fail. Our real objectives have nothing to do with Afghanstan at all. Our real objectives involve staying in the region as long as possible. Our real objectives involve providing Iran with the surround sound of our artillery fire. Our real objectives involve jacking around with Russia in their own back yard. The Taliban would be replaced by others perhaps even more radical. The Taliban are about ten percent more conservative than the peasants from whose loins they spring. They are just the neighborhood bully boy farm hands that would rather sit around reading the Koran and walk the barrio toting AK's, than till the soil. They live off the dope we let them export. If it weren't for us, they'd be run out of town and have to find jobs. BTW, Bucky, Big Bad Bin Ladin has been room temperature since '02, and the Chimpster had no intention of capturing him. Like Saddam he was our Frankenstein from early on. (He is ali-i-ive! Ha-ha-ha-ha!) Now these boys are dead.
I disagree with you about "real objectives" although America is acting as the catalyst as the de facto standard for ME aggression. The real objectives are the control of gas/oil energy pipelines into Southeast Europe.
Then we're on the same page. This requires armed presence in Russia's outback for the forseeable future. Turning Iran would be a nice adjunct to all this. The Taliban provide our leaders with a fright mask to shake on the face of the rubes that pay for and man our battalions over there.
So, you have to place things in perspective. America is NOT in the ME to raise havoc even though it appears that way. The US maintains about 25% of the world's economy although it is relatively declining with the rise of China and India as industrial powerhouses. Still, the undercurrent we are discussing is about energy which fuels America's industrial capacity and capabilities and ensures our future to compete on the global markets. And I mean cheap fuel, too. It also ensures our allies have energy for their struggling economies as well. So, you better believe there is national strategic interest in the ME. But it was never about "liberation" as that idiot and earlier liar and thief, GWBush, suggested countless times. It is about maintenance of stable markets ensuring tranquility on the home-front.
That's an out-of-date figure. I'd say it's below 20 by now. The U.S. GDP number in itself is phony, based mainly on vendor-financed consumption. The vendors are wising up, too. They realize this economy is a hollow shell and they have no hope of ever being paid back.
That phrase is quite telling. It's indicative of a phony, consumption-based, FIRE-based economy. "Transactions" are not the same as "production." The U.S. economy is now about five percent smaller than it was at its peak. China slowed down, but has not had a down quarter yet. I don't know about India.
If you had bothered to read the stats presented, you could have realized these folks are way behind us. Now, please don't misunderstand me again. I am not suggesting America is increasing economic strength. I am suggesting we actually carry the world's economy particularly when you factor in the populace. Some folks around the world consider us as living GODS because of this average wealth disparity amongst nations. You can't get around it.
I like your new schtick. This site is getting it's version of McCain Rocks. lol
There are no replies to Comment # 71. End Trace Mode for Comment # 71.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#6. To: Sam Houston (#5)
Eisenhower's prophecy came true. This country is a captive of the MIC. We are all their slaves.
#8. To: buckeroo (#6)
(Edited)
#9. To: randge (#8)
Our real objectives involve staying in the region as long as possible. Our real objectives involve providing Iran with the surround sound of our artillery fire. Our real objectives involve jacking around with Russia in their own back yard.
#10. To: buckeroo (#9)
#11. To: randge (#10)
#61. To: buckeroo (#11)
The US maintains about 25% of the world's economy
#65. To: Sam Houston (#61)
And just in case you didn't think I saw your 20% error that you claim I created, here is some news from the World Bank proving I was correct about the economic strength of America. America stands at about 24% of world economic transactions.
Rank Country GDP (millions of USD) — 
World62,250,000 — 
European Union18,850,000 1 
United States14,330,000 2 
Japan4,844,000 3 
People's Republic of China4,222,000 4 
Germany3,818,000 5 
France2,978,000 6 
United Kingdom2,787,000 7 
Italy 2,399,000 8 
Russia1,757,000 9 
Spain1,683,000 10 
Brazil1,665,000 11 
Canada1,564,000 12 
India1,237,000 13 
Mexico1,143,000 14 
Australia1,069,000 15 
Netherlands909,500 16 
South Korea857,500 17 
Turkey798,900 18 
Poland 567,400 19 
Belgium530,600 20 
Sweden512,900 21 
Indonesia510,800 22 
Switzerland492,600 23 
Norway481,100 24 
Saudi Arabia467,700 25 
Austria432,400 26 
Taiwan401,600 27 
Iran382,300 28 
Greece373,500 29 
Denmark369,600 30 
Argentina338,700 31 
Venezuela 331,800 32 
South Africa300,400 33 
Finland287,600 34 
Ireland285,000 35 
Thailand272,100 36 
United Arab Emirates270,000 37 
Portugal255,500 38 
Colombia249,800 — 
Hong Kong223,800 39 
Nigeria220,300 40 
Czech Republic217,200 41 
Malaysia 214,700 42 
Romania213,900 43 
Ukraine198,000 44 
Israel188,700 45 
Chile181,500 46 
Philippines172,300 47 
Algeria171,300 48 
Hungary164,300 49 
Pakistan160,900 50 
Kuwait159,700 51 
Egypt158,300 52 
Singapore 154,500 53 
Kazakhstan141,200 54 
New Zealand135,700 55 
Peru131,400 56 
Qatar116,900 57 
Libya108,500 58 
Slovakia100,600 59 
Angola95,950 60 
Iraq93,800 61 
Vietnam90,880 62 
Morocco90,497 63 
Bangladesh 83,040 64 
Croatia63,950 65 
Sudan62,190 66 
Belarus57,680 67 
Luxembourg57,610 68 
Slovenia57,010 69 
Oman56,320 70 
Cuba55,180 71 
Ecuador54,670 72 
Azerbaijan53,260 73 
Serbia52,180 74 
Bulgaria 51,930 75 
Lithuania48,750 76 
Dominican Republic45,690 77 
Syria44,490 78 
Sri Lanka42,160 79 
Tunisia41,770 80 
Guatemala36,280 81 
Latvia33,900 82 
Kenya31,420 83 
Costa Rica30,380 84 
Turkmenistan28,820 85 
Uruguay 28,350 86 
Lebanon28,020 87 
Yemen27,560 88 
Uzbekistan26,620 89 
North Korea26,200 90 
Cyprus25,590 91 
Estonia25,210 92 
Ethiopia25,080 93 
Cameroon25,000 94 
Trinidad and Tobago24,610 95 
Ivory Coast23,780 96 
Panama 23,420 97 
El Salvador22,280 98 
Tanzania20,630 99 
Equatorial Guinea20,160 100 
Bahrain19,680 101 
Bosnia and Herzegovina19,360 — 
Macau19,200 102 
Jordan19,120 103 
Iceland19,020 104 
Bolivia18,940 105 
Ghana17,720 106 
Brunei 17,180 107 
Paraguay16,360 108 
Gabon15,910 109 
Zambia15,230 110 
Uganda15,040 111 
Senegal13,900 112 
Botswana13,810 113 
Honduras13,780 114 
Burma13,700 115 
Albania13,520 116 
Jamaica13,470 117 
Republic of the Congo 13,350 118 
Georgia13,280 119 
Democratic Republic of the Congo12,960 120 
Afghanistan12,850 121 
Nepal12,640 122 
Armenia12,070 123 
Cambodia10,820 124 
Mozambique9,788 125 
Madagascar9,729 126 
Republic of Macedonia9,624 127 
Chad9,106 128 
Mali 8,776 129 
Malta8,584 130 
Burkina Faso8,242 131 
Mauritius8,128 132 
Namibia7,781 133 
Haiti6,966 134 
Benin6,940 135 
The Bahamas6,935 — 
West Bank and Gaza6,641 136 
Nicaragua6,561 137 
Papua New Guinea6,363 138 
Moldova6,197 139 
Niger5,322 140 
Laos5,187 — 
Jersey5,100 141 
Kyrgyzstan5,050 142 
Liechtenstein4,993 143 
Mongolia 4,991 144 
Tajikistan4,788 — 
Aruba4,548 145 
Zimbabwe4,548f 146 
Montenegro4,515 147 
Guinea4,454 148 
Malawi4,082 149 
Rwanda4,027 — 
French Polynesia3,800 150 
Fiji3,783 151 
Barbados3,777 152 
Mauritania3,625 — New Caledonia3,300 — 
Kosovo 3,237 153 
Togo3,009 154 
Suriname2,984 155 
Swaziland2,968 — 
Guam2,773 — 
Guernsey2,742 — 
Isle of Man2,719 156 
Somalia2,600 157 
Central African Republic2,087 158 
Sierra Leone1,971 159 
Cape Verde1,845 — 
Faroe Islands 1,700 — 
Greenland1,700 160 
Lesotho1,652 161 
Eritrea1,479 162 
Belize1,383 163 
Bhutan1,368 164 
Maldives1,296 165 
Guyana1,134 166 
Antigua and Barbuda1,126 — 
Gibraltar1,066 167 
San Marino1,048 168 
Saint Lucia 1,031 169 
Djibouti973 170 
Liberia926 171 
Burundi903 — 
British Virgin Islands839.7 172 
The Gambia779 173 
Seychelles779 174 
Grenada657 — 
Northern Mariana Islands633.4 175 
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines597 176 
Vanuatu560 177 
Saint Kitts and Nevis 559 179 
Comoros557 180 
Samoa537 181 
East Timor489 182 
Solomon Islands460 182 
Guinea-Bissau442 183 
Dominica365 — 
American Samoa333.8 184 
Tonga258 185 
Micronesia232 — 
Cook Islands183 186 
Palau 164 187 
São Tomé and Príncipe160 188 
Marshall Islands144 — 
Anguilla108.9 189 
Kiribati71 190 
Tuvalu14.94 — 
Niue10.01
#66. To: buckeroo (#65)
"economic transactions"
#67. To: Sam Houston (#66)
China slowed down, but has not had a down quarter yet. I don't know about India.
#71. To: buckeroo (#67)
Some folks around the world consider us as living GODS because of this average wealth disparity amongst nations. You can't get around it.
Replies to Comment # 71.