What Did the U.S. Get for $2 Trillion in Afghanistan? (Published 2019)

[ltlee1]

The bill is potentially > $3 Trillion.

"$1.5 trillion waging war
The Taliban control or contest much of the country.
...
$10 billion on counternarcotics
Afghanistan supplies 80 percent of the world’s heroin.
...
$87 billion to train Afghan military and police forces
Afghan forces can’t support themselves.
...
$24 billion on economic development
Most Afghans still live in poverty.
...
$30 billion on other reconstruction programs
Much of that money was lost to corruption and failed projects.
...
$500 billion on interest
The war has been funded with borrowed money.
...
$1.4 trillion on veterans that have fought in post-9/11 wars by 2059
Medical and disability costs will continue for decades.

More than $350 billion has already gone to medical and disability care for veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Experts say that more than half of that spending belongs to the Afghanistan effort.

The final total is unknown, but experts project another trillion dollars in costs over the next 40 years as wounded and disabled veterans age and need more services."
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/09/world/middleeast/afghanistan-war-cost.html?mtrref=duckduckgo.com&gwh=7A0653E7F804B12B30694624620A8D2E&gwt=pay&assetType=PAYWALL

[Rusty Wyse]

A lot of death and destruction...
A kick from behind...
Another Vietnam...

[wakal...@yahoo.com.sg]

----------

The US spent 20 years, $2 trillion and shed lots of blood on both sides to prepare Afghanistan for China. Good job Uncle Sam.

Wakalukong

[babarella]

The 3 Trillion is mind-boggling spending. Does the Pentagon know before
hand?. Does the president who authorized the 9/11 revenge war on
Afghanization knew what will the war cost be and for how

Wonder how US could spend 3 Trillion dollars on Afghan war without being
checked and monitored and audited?.

Isn't there an audited process by the audit people in the audit
department of the US finance department and auditor in the Pentagon of
the defense department to monitor the spending?.

Surely, when they have the 6 monthly audit report ready, they should
publish to the media for the people to know where and how far the
spending has spent to this day.

A 6-monthly audit report would help the presidential administration to
know when to stop spending, rather than wait till 20 years later to
publicize of it.

Also, There should be tenure of objective of reviews on how many years
they wish to enter and invade and change the regime of a country.

It should be something like a war footing objective plan for, let say, 1
or 2 years tenure, and by then, they should withdraw or retreat from it.

They should also include a plan of spending on it - like how much money
should be spent over the months for the deployment, etc.

In short, there should be no free wheeling spending but a allocation
that is priorlly approved for it before a deployment of it takes place.

And upon further review before end of 1 or 2 years later, they should
decide if they want to extend their stay for it. And if so, new budget
is to budget and the duration of stay should be stated so, too.

Though, what is said here sounds as a great way to say this and that,
but in reality, when comes to war, the military does not care about it
at all. Hence, as far the military is concerned, there is no budget for it.

[ltlee1]

A lot of talk on US nation building effort.
But only a tiny percentage of the $ 2 trillion already spent was spent on nation building.

[moses]

The Pentagon is the one that spent this entire money of 3 trillion. The
Pentagon is the defence department reporting to the secretary of defence.

Afghanistan does not have an air force or navy and hence the cost of defence
should not be high at all.

Yet, the huge spending of $87 billion to train Afghan military and police
forces is outrageously super high.

It cannot even raise and support an army of 300,000 and a police force to
defend and fight for the country.

The soldiers were often not paid, and sometimes, not paid even for months.
The money must have been misappropriated.

The cash flow of money for wages and other things probably is severely run
out, due to corruption or false accounting practices in the chain of command
office..




"ltlee1" wrote in message
news:127f51cd-5645-4ed4...@googlegroups.com...

[Rusty Wyse]

Well, we only know the power of the gun can do no wrong!!!!
Whatever the problem, the power of the gun can solve it...

We still have NOT learned the lesson...
Soon we will have another adventure like the Afghanistan War, the Vietnam War, the war in the Middle East,...
This process never ends...

[Byker]

"moses" wrote in message news:sfgnho$oc4$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> The Pentagon is the one that spent this entire money of 3 trillion.

Nukes come a whole lot cheaper: https://tinyurl.com/vazfbbf8

[Septal]

Yea, but you can't REALLY use them - just shake
them at people. The Taliban would not be impressed.

The only way to fight dispersed old-school insurgents
like the Taliban is to emulate them. 50, 100k troops
going door to door, cave to cave, for years - slaughtering
any and anything that smelled a little bit Taliban. The
western nations just can't DO that anymore. We've
become too civilized to fight the uncivilized. OUR
defenses are aimed at OTHER big nations. Nukes and
bombers and tanks to counter nukes and bombers and
tanks. Big stuff. Keeps the general peace, but it
is almost useless for the Taliban or al-Qaida or
ISIS and similar groups. Russia was more effective
against ISIS than we were because they were far
less concerned about collateral damage. We didn't
ask and they didn't tell.

[Rusty Wyse]

less concerned about collateral damage!!!

We!!! concerned about collateral damage!!!????
Have you seen the country sides of the countries we bombed?? the Ho Chi Min trial in Cambodia???
Vietnam itself??? the whole Middle East???? We meant to bomb them back to the stone age!!!! Everything is destroyed, everything!!!!

[vonnie]

Absolutely, Russia doesn't care about uncivilised collateral damage, and
doesn't care about human rights, too.




"Rusty Wyse" wrote in message
news:17c5bf0e-bfbd-49cd...@googlegroups.com...

[Oleg Smirnov]

Septal, <news:jeCdnUgnncqG_4H8...@earthlink.com>

Americans were reluctant to truly fight ISIS, especially at the
early stage, because they saw it not only as a terrorist group,
but also as a useful tool against the Syrian government, so they
didn't rush to eliminate ISIS in order to 'allow' them to fight
against the Syrian government.

When Russia sent military support to Syria, the Russian planes
started attacking ISIS for real, and it also somewhat stimulated
the Americans to start fighting ISIS for more real.

And the claims that the Russian military absolutely do not care
about collateral damage is rather a traditional narrative of the
American and British propaganda.

[Oleg Smirnov]

Oleg Smirnov, <news:sg1bes$nk3$1...@os.motzarella.org>
> Septal, <news:jeCdnUgnncqG_4H8...@earthlink.com>

>> ISIS and similar groups. Russia was more effective
>> against ISIS than we were because they were far
>> less concerned about collateral damage. We didn't
>> ask and they didn't tell.
>
> Americans were reluctant to truly fight ISIS, especially at the
> early stage, because they saw it not only as a terrorist group,
> but also as a useful tool against the Syrian government, so they
> didn't rush to eliminate ISIS in order to 'allow' them to fight
> against the Syrian government.
>
> When Russia sent military support to Syria, the Russian planes
> started attacking ISIS for real, and it also somewhat stimulated
> the Americans to start fighting ISIS for more real.

Details and proofs of what I've said one can learn by these links:
<https://tinyurl.com/ckyy8mmd>
<https://tinyurl.com/4rtxcdy2>