Obama's Afghan war More Expensive than the Iraq War
SkaNK@sanfransicko.com Nasty Piglosi the San Franskanko Freak
Analysts Expect Long-Term, Costly U.S. Campaign in Afghanistan
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 9, 2009
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
$100 billion this year to continue fighting.
"We are creating a [long-term military aid] situation similar to the ones we
have
Mein F�hrer
"Mr, Piggy the Air Force Traitor" <Freak Sk...@Alaska.com> wrote in message
news:LAXfm.76693$O23...@newsfe11.iad...
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/08/AR2009080802283_pf.html
You mean Bush's Afghan war. Obama inherited Bush's LOST wars, economic mess
and 3rd World America.
SkaNK@sanfransicko.com Nasty Piglosi the San Franskanko Freak
"Mein HUSSEIN F�hrer" <Bu...@lemon.net> wrote in message
news:LvZfm.136068$Qg6....@newsfe14.iad...
>
> "Mr, Piggy the Air Force Traitor" <Freak Sk...@Alaska.com> wrote in
> message news:LAXfm.76693$O23...@newsfe11.iad...
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/08/AR2009080802283_pf.html
>
Barack Obama plans 20,000 troop surge to boost Afghan effort
Barack Obama is preparing to send at least 20,000 more US soldiers into
Afghanistan in a "surge" similar to the deployment that contributed to
security improvements in Iraq.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/3527638/Barack-Obama-plans-20000-troop-surge-to-boost-Afghan-effort.html
Tater Gumfries
Sk...@SanFransicko.com> wrote:
> "Mein HUSSEIN Führer" <B...@lemon.net> wrote in messagenews:LvZfm.136068$Qg6....@newsfe14.iad...
>
> > "Mr, Piggy the Air Force Traitor" <Freak Sk...@Alaska.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:LAXfm.76693$O23...@newsfe11.iad...
>
> > . Obama inherited Bush's LOST wars,
>
> ==============
>
> Barack Obama plans 20,000 troop surge to boost Afghan effort
> Barack Obama is preparing to send at least 20,000 more US soldiers into
> Afghanistan in a "surge" similar to the deployment that contributed to
So your original subject line was a lie then. Not at all surprising.
Tater
SkaNK@sanfransicko.com Nasty Piglosi the San Franskanko Freak
"Tater Gumfries" <TaterG...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:781a690a-5df7-40c8...@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 10, 12:55 pm, "Nasty Piglosi the San Franskanko Freak" <Freak
Sk...@SanFransicko.com> wrote:
>
> > "Mr, Piggy the Air Force Traitor" <Freak Sk...@Alaska.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:LAXfm.76693$O23...@newsfe11.iad...
> >>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/08/AR200...
>
> > . Obama inherited Bush's LOST wars,
>
> ==============
>
> Barack Obama plans 20,000 troop surge to boost Afghan effort
> Barack Obama is preparing to send at least 20,000 more US soldiers into
> Afghanistan in a "surge" similar to the deployment that contributed to
> security improvements in
> Iraq.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobam...
So your original subject line was a lie then. Not at all surprising.
Tater
\===========
Wheres the Lie Ass maggot?
Democratic Liars
Liar.
Bush inherited Clinton's war, NAFTA mess and the Clinton Trade
Deficit. You liberals are ignorant and you have short memories.
NAFTA was the worst mistake of any American president ever. It
directly contributed to the financial mess American is in now.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told
the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes
against Iraq.
The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons
inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.
"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors
or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological
weapons," Clinton said.
Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks,
will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British
forces, Clinton said.
"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike
military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by
British forces," Clinton said.
"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons programs and its military capacity to
threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.
Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons
of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because
he has used such weapons against his own people and against his
neighbors.
'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'
The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago,
Clinton said, when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N.
inspectors at the last minute just as U.S. warplanes were headed
its way.
"Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made
it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we
would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning,"
Clinton said.
The president said the report handed in Tuesday by Richard
Butler, head of the United Nations Special Commission in charge
of finding and destroying Iraqi weapons, was stark and sobering.
Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new
restrictions on them, Clinton said. He said Iraqi officials also
destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out
of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.
"Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the
inspectors," Clinton said.
"In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance --
not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the
credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be
destroyed," the president explained.
Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs
Clinton said he made the decision to strike Wednesday with the
unanimous agreement of his security advisors.
Timing was important, said the president, because without a
strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its
chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months,
not years.
"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get
away with it, he would conclude the international community, led
by the United States, has simply lost its will," said Clinton.
"He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal
of destruction."
Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the
security of the world.
"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new
Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its
neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people,"
Clinton said.
Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, Clinton
said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi
opposition forces.
Clinton also addressed the ongoing impeachment crisis in the
White House.
"Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought
that the serious debate currently before the House of
Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve
to face him down," he said.
"But once more, the United States has proven that although we
are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's
vital interests, we will do so."
bob in NY
"Democratic Liars" <fl...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
TO me the worst thing clinton did was vote to ammend fannie mae and its
sister program, to allow low income folks the ability to buy a house,
People who work at walmart or clean urinals at mcdonalds do not know the
differance between a fixed rate mortgage and a variable rate mortgage. Then
Clinton (Chief executive - the buck stops at the top, commander in Chief)
legalized derrivitives (insuring mortgage packages sold/traded) so mortgage
companies were happy to sell a burger flipper a house at variable rates,
When Clinton left office he had america almost out of debt(leaving americans
with the impression he was a good president), however the house of cards
fell when variable rates came do, still could collapse the country, as citi
and lots of companies the paid the derrivitives(insurance on failed mortgage
packages came do).
Tater Gumfries
Sk...@SanFransicko.com> wrote:
> "Tater Gumfries" <TaterGumfr...@usa.com> wrote in message
> > Iraq.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobam...
>
> So your original subject line was a lie then. Not at all surprising.
>
> Tater
> \===========
>
> Wheres the Lie Ass maggot?
Right here:
> Obama's Afghan war More Expensive than the Iraq War
Obama has not presided over the war for even a year. There is no way
in hell is has cost more than the 2.6 trillion Iraq cost us.
Tater
SkaNK@sanfransicko.com Nasty Piglosi the San Franskanko Freak
Right here:
Tater
=====================
Iraq War hasnt cost $ 2.6 trillion either, which is why you posted no link
to back up your lies with.
April 11, 2009
Added to the amount spent through 2008, it would mean the Iraq War will have
cost taxpayers a total of about $694 billion. The Vietnam War cost $686
billion in inflation-adjusted dollars, and World War II cost $4 trillion,
according to a Congressional Research Service study completed last year.
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2009/apr/11/nation/chi-iraq-cost_11apr11
Tater Gumfries
Sk...@SanFransicko.com> wrote:
> "Tater Gumfries" <TaterGumfr...@usa.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f69951d8-b2a1-4fee...@u38g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 10, 3:51 pm, "Nasty Piglosi the San Franskanko Freak" <Freak
>
> Sk...@SanFransicko.com> wrote:
> > "Tater Gumfries" <TaterGumfr...@usa.com> wrote in message
> > > Iraq.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobam...
>
> > So your original subject line was a lie then. Not at all surprising.
>
> > Tater
> > \===========
>
> > Wheres the Lie Ass maggot?
>
> Right here:
>
> > Obama's Afghan war More Expensive than the Iraq War
>
> Obama has not presided over the war for even a year. There is no way
> in hell is has cost more than the 2.6 trillion Iraq cost us.
>
> Tater
> =====================
>
> Iraq War hasnt cost $ 2.6 trillion either, which is why you posted no link
> to back up your lies with.
>
> April 11, 2009
> Added to the amount spent through 2008, it would mean the Iraq War will have
> cost taxpayers a total of about $694 billion.
That's only on-budget items. Still, Tater's 2.6 trillion might be too
much, but $694 billion is only the "official" number, which is phony
accounting.
Tater
softsofa
I read recently that it just passed $1 Trillion. However, the actual
cost of the war itself is less.
For example, the army wouldn't be smaller without Iraq, so the total
non-warzone part of their pay would be the same. That pay isn't an
extra Iraq war expense, yet it's treated as if it is. A true
accounting would only include extra expenses.
[]softsofa[]
Tater Gumfries
Some other off the books expenses include medical costs for injured
soldiers... unless everything is included, and the standard (non-
combat pay) salaries are excluded, we won't have an honest accounting.
Tater
Tater Gumfries
> Obama LIED! Why is he leaving our Military hanging out to dry?
>
> He seems to be oblivious to the fact that as COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF during
> WAR TIME he is obliged to focus on his Responsibility to Lead.
> Flitting around promoting his Socialist Agenda, while ignoring the
> aimless Afghan and Iraq quagmire should outrage even the most jaded.
>
> Does anyone have a Clue what his Strategy and Objectives are regarding
> the wasteful expenditure of our Blood and Treasure in aimlessly
> frittering away whatever we previously accomplished?
>
> Is "Homeland Security" afraid of our Troops returning home where
> they're REALLY needed now?
What the hell are you talking about?
Tater
softsofa
>Some other off the books expenses include medical costs for injured
>soldiers... unless everything is included, and the standard (non-
>combat pay) salaries are excluded, we won't have an honest accounting.
Can't fault that logic. There are other valid exclusions, such as
equipment and maintenance (subtracting peace-time from war-time
costs). And there are also other valid inclusions.
However, what always happens is that politically motivated speculation
is included as if it were fact. A procedure that used standard
accounting practices (something we'll NEVER see for any government
program) would be useful.
[]softsofa[]