U.S.' failure in Afghanistan

[dre]

I think HJ confirmed the $600B number.

Hold on... You need to not only consider the costs SO FAR, but also the costs that we know for sure are coming down the road.

Estimating war costs is not a simple matter of adding up appropriates to date.

The U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will cost taxpayers $4 trillion to $6 trillion, taking into account the medical care of wounded veterans and expensive repairs to a force depleted by more than a decade of fighting, according to a new study by a Harvard researcher.

Washington increased military benefits in late 2001 as the nation went to war, seeking to quickly bolster its talent pool and expand its ranks. Those decisions and the protracted nation-building efforts launched in both countries will generate expenses for years to come, Linda J. Bilmes, a public policy professor, wrote in the report that was released Thursday.

“As a consequence of these wartime spending choices, the United States will face constraints in funding investments in personnel and diplomacy, research and development and new military initiatives,” the report says. “The legacy of decisions taken during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will dominate future federal budgets for decades to come.”

There has been two major studies on the cost of these policies. One put the bill at 4 Trillion, the other put the bill at 4-6 trillion. These estimates include things like interest on the debt (because the US had none of its own money to put into the projects and had to borrow it all), and the cost of caring for dozens of thousands of injured/maimed veterans for the rest of their lives.

Then theres the costs assumed by the REST of the countries for operation: "OOPS: Didnt think THAT through".

American tax payers will STILL be paying for these projects for most of the next century.

[Hudson Jones]

You're not making any sense. I have been saying that we shouldn't be spending more money there. I have been saying its not our responsibility to rebuild a country that was never built in the first place. You were the one suggesting the opposite. You're throne advocating more failure. You make no sense at all.

All I said was that if someone comes and crashes a party and makes a mess, they should be held responsible to clean the mess. That said, the war, from the very beginning was a failure. Have a look at the original post in this thread and understand what I'm talking about.

[Shady]

All I said was that if someone comes and crashes a party and makes a mess, they should be held responsible to clean the mess. That said, the war, from the very beginning was a failure. Have a look at the original post in this thread and understand what I'm talking about.

I agree. But no mess was made. The mess already existed before long before 2001. And since, the west has done plenty of building of schools, hospitals, etc.

[Hudson Jones]

IMO, the mistake was invading Iraq in 2003 instead of concentrating military resources and international political goodwill on the war in Afghanistan. The US had the world on it's side and the war could have been successful - similar to Operation Desert Storm.

Iraq was absolutely a mistake. The Iraq war was a product of pressure and influence of the neo-cons, who not only wanted U.S. to do Israel's dirty work but they also had financial interest like the oil, military spending and construction (KBR).

You give good examples of the failures of war. There are however some good examples of successful Western military operations, like Sierra Leone in 1999. Also there are examples where non-intervention led to disaster: Rwanda.

I think the problem with Afghanistan was U.S' arrogance and bad planning. They thought they could go in there and get results without carefully looking at the possible consequences and without showing respect to the locals. This is why there was such a resistance to cooperate from Taliban and numerous other groups and tribes.

[Hudson Jones]

I agree. But no mess was made. The mess already existed before long before 2001. And since, the west has done plenty of building of schools, hospitals, etc.

"But no mess was made"

I don't think you understand the situation in Afghanistan beyond the foxnews talking points.

The International Rescue Committee calculated that there are nearly 3 million Afghan refugees, outside and 1 million internal refugees since the U.S. invasion. This is all due to U.S. attack on Afghanistan. U.S. has destroyed the society.

[Shady]

"But no mess was made"

I don't think you understand the situation in Afghanistan beyond the foxnews talking points.

The International Rescue Committee calculated that there are nearly 3 million Afghan refugees, outside and 1 million internal refugees since the U.S. invasion. This is all due to U.S. attack on Afghanistan. U.S. has destroyed the society.

No, there are no millions of Afghan refugees, and no there wasn't a society destroyed. All that's complete nonsense. Afghanistan was a stone-age country long before 2001. Ruled by a barbaric dictatorship that forbid women from working or getting an education, and destroyed thousand year old mountain side buddhist statues because no other religions beside Islam can be allowed in their country. It was a backwards, poor, illiterate and uneducated society before 2001, and if anything, has acutally progressed since. Regardless, we're not respsonble for building them a country that didn't exist in the first place. That we agree on.

[dre]

Actually the Taliban never really "ruled" Afghanistan. They had control of some regions but even before the invasion there was a civil war ongoing. Afghanistan has never had an effective central government capable of projecting its influence in all areas of the country and it still doesnt now. Its basically run by autonamous strongmen and regional narco warlords.

There no real revenue stream sufficient to fund a central government. Its an almost completely agrarian economy... fruit, nuts, heroin, hash etc. Money flowing into the place has helped the economy a bit at least for the short term... tough to say what will happen when it stops.

[carepov]

Iraq was absolutely a mistake. The Iraq war was a product of pressure and influence of the neo-cons, who not only wanted U.S. to do Israel's dirty work but they also had financial interest like the oil, military spending and construction (KBR).

Absolutely agree that it was a mistake. I'm not so sure about the reasons but that's another discussion.

I think the problem with Afghanistan was U.S' arrogance and bad planning. They thought they could go in there and get results without carefully looking at the possible consequences and without showing respect to the locals. This is why there was such a resistance to cooperate from Taliban and numerous other groups and tribes.

I will also add that the US also ruined much of their goodwill with most allies and this certainly did not help the Afghan war.

I wonder, what if Kerry won in 2000, 9/11 still happened and the US invaded Afghanistan but not Iraq and fought the war intelligently. How would it have turned out? Do you think they would have been successful in this scenario?

Edited July 25, 2013 by carepov

[dre]

I wonder, what if Kerry won in 2000, 9/11 still happened and the US invaded Afghanistan but not Iraq and fought the war intelligently. How would it have turned out? Do you think they would have been successful in this scenario?

Probably not. The invasion of afghanistan was about having a visible and agressive response to 911. There was never any real coherent policy goals there. Yes they talked about it behing a safe haven for terrorists by even by US intelligent accounts "Al Qeada" was already in 50 other countries.

Now theres this post-hoc rationalism about the war suggesting that it was about the human rights and the plight of afghanis. I suppose if you buy that then the 3 trillion dollars wasted on Iraq could have been dumped into the Afghani economy to improve lives there. But this still isnt a policy that benefits Americans in any proportionate way to what was spent.

Afghanistan happened because the US was "configured" towards providing a military response. There was no real comprehensive anti terrorism plan in place, yet the administration had to do "something". The administration thought that attacking the poorest country in the world would be easy... they threw out figures like "a couple of hundred thousand" for their project costs...

I guess it depends how you define success. Did American tax payers get a good return on investment for the 1-2 trillion dollars that the war will cost when all is said and done?

At the end of the day there wasnt much of value to chase there... which is why they moved on to Iraq...

[bleeding heart]

Iraq was absolutely a mistake. The Iraq war was a product of pressure and influence of the neo-cons, who not only wanted U.S. to do Israel's dirty work but they also had financial interest like the oil, military spending and construction (KBR).

I think these were the least of it. The primary purpose was geostrategic, involving matters like control. On a related note, undoubtedly it was meant a an object lesson (that was under the assumption that things wouldn't go as badly as they did, of course). It is the logic of power.

As for Israel, I think that's a non-starter, reason-wise. The United States does not undertake such a large-scale, politically- and financially-costly operation for Israel's sake. I believe Israel's influence on US foreign policy is often massively overstated.

Let's remember who is the client state...and who is the boss in that relationship. For the same reason, I think concerns about the Israel lobby are greatly exaggerated as well.

Edited July 25, 2013 by bleeding heart

[bleeding heart]

Actually the Taliban never really "ruled" Afghanistan. They had control of some regions but even before the invasion there was a civil war ongoing. Afghanistan has never had an effective central government capable of projecting its influence in all areas of the country and it still doesnt now. Its basically run by autonamous strongmen and regional narco warlords.

Just so. There was also already existing a de facto confederation of principled opposition, with humane (and sometimes secular) democratic ideals....these forces, some of them led by women (RAWA, the "Malalai Joya movement," etc) were--and remain--opposed to both the Taliban and to the Taliban's equally-reactionary enemies, like "The Northern Alliance" warlords and so on.

When the West went in, it chose the retrograde enemies of the Taliban to work with, rather than the liberal secularists and democratic-reform-minded components. It was a conscious choice.

[carepov]

Probably not. The invasion of afghanistan was about having a visible and agressive response to 911. There was never any real coherent policy goals there. Yes they talked about it behing a safe haven for terrorists by even by US intelligent accounts "Al Qeada" was already in 50 other countries.

Now theres this post-hoc rationalism about the war suggesting that it was about the human rights and the plight of afghanis. I suppose if you buy that then the 3 trillion dollars wasted on Iraq could have been dumped into the Afghani economy to improve lives there. But this still isnt a policy that benefits Americans in any proportionate way to what was spent.

Afghanistan happened because the US was "configured" towards providing a military response. There was no real comprehensive anti terrorism plan in place, yet the administration had to do "something". The administration thought that attacking the poorest country in the world would be easy... they threw out figures like "a couple of hundred thousand" for their project costs...

I guess it depends how you define success. Did American tax payers get a good return on investment for the 1-2 trillion dollars that the war will cost when all is said and done?

At the end of the day there wasnt much of value to chase there... which is why they moved on to Iraq...

I agree that the mission lacked coherent goals and therefore it is difficult to define what could have been successful.

I also agree that the reasons for the mission had nothing to do with protecting human rights. But it is always good to promote and protect human rights, there were great gains made and I can't help wondering how many more gains could have been made.

You are right about costs - the amount spent in blood and treasure was not worth it. However in my "what if" scenario, the costs would have been substantially lower. Imagine if the 2009 troop surge took place in 2002 instead. My point is that what has been accomplished in the 11 years could have been in 3-5 years reducing the costs of the war down 50-70%. These costs would also be more evenly split amongst NATO members. Would you have considered the war a success in this situation?

[dre]

I agree that the mission lacked coherent goals and therefore it is difficult to define what could have been successful.

I also agree that the reasons for the mission had nothing to do with protecting human rights. But it is always good to promote and protect human rights, there were great gains made and I can't help wondering how many more gains could have been made.

You are right about costs - the amount spent in blood and treasure was not worth it. However in my "what if" scenario, the costs would have been substantially lower. Imagine if the 2009 troop surge took place in 2002 instead. My point is that what has been accomplished in the 11 years could have been in 3-5 years reducing the costs of the war down 50-70%. These costs would also be more evenly split amongst NATO members. Would you have considered the war a success in this situation?

Yeah basically what you are saying is that if the war was managed better it would have gone better, and held up better to a cost/benefit analysis. Im pretty sure you are right about that.

But no... I still wouldnt consider that a success, although it might have a positive outcome for some people.

A plan/project has to be judged based on what the architects planned. You have to weigh it against its own goals, not look post-hoc and try to gather up a justification for it after the fact.

The stated goals of the project were to irradicate the Taliban, and fight terrorism... And administration officials projected the war would cost very little.

The first goal is mostly successful.... The taliban are still a regional power but clearly have taken a beating. Id give them a 70% on that one. The second goal... righting terrorism... Id give a failing grade on. The Dod actually reported the threat of terrorism was increased by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Theres terrorism attacks in these places CONSTANTLY since we invaded. The cost projection is out of the park... The US will be paying for this war for most of the next century... plus interest.

Thats how I evaluate the success of a project. So the project was a failure and still would have been if it took half as long and cost half as much.

But theres a different question... Its entirely possible that a failed project, that was poorly planned and poorly executed, and way over budget and severly delayed.... might actually have a net positive effect, YOu could certainly make that case... the war in afghanistan regardless of how botched it was has certainly resulted in a lot of money being invested there and at the very least a temporary boon to the economy. And it has definately resulted in at least the tempory liberalization in some aspects (people brought up improved rights for women).

[bleeding heart]

The first goal is mostly successful.... The taliban are still a regional power but clearly have taken a beating. Id give them a 70% on that one. The second goal... righting terrorism... Id give a failing grade on. The Dod actually reported the threat of terrorism was increased by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Theres terrorism attacks in these places CONSTANTLY since we invaded.

You're right. Interesting how we've lost focus on what was uncontroversially and unquestionably the most salient goal: decreasing the threats of terrorism.

[Guest American Woman]

You're right. Interesting how we've lost focus on what was uncontroversially and unquestionably the most salient goal: decreasing the threats of terrorism.

I think, to be honest, the goal was to decrease the threat of terrorism to the western world/in the western world. It goes without saying that acts of terrorism are going to increase within a country at war, especially when factions are fighting each other for control, and terrorism is a big part of their strategy.

I doubt if most people were so naive as to believe there would be a seamless takeover of power, with no fighting within the countries. The fact that terrorism has increased so greatly within the countries pretty much shows who is carrying out acts of terrorism. At any rate, as I've pointed out countless times, democracy and freedom are a process that don't happen overnight and even with gaining freedom and democracy, Camelot isn't the result.

So many who expect it to be otherwise seem to be looking for failure, and I do strongly believe that there are many people who are looking for, indeed hoping for, failure.

Bin Laden was killed, the Taliban was removed from power, al Qadea leaders have been killed, girls are going to school, elections are taking place. That's called success. Whether or not there is continued success is up to those involved.

Edited July 27, 2013 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

As a side note, if by some miracle it was a first in history, and everything was hunky dory and a smashing success by all accounts ten years after the war began, I'm sure it wouldn't be being heralded as "U.S.' success in Afghanistan."

[bleeding heart]

As a side note, if by some miracle it was a first in history, and everything was hunky dory and a smashing success by all accounts ten years after the war began, I'm sure it wouldn't be being heralded as "U.S.' success in Afghanistan."

[Hudson Jones]

No, there are no millions of Afghan refugees, and no there wasn't a society destroyed. All that's complete nonsense.

What? Are you trying to deny facts? How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

There are around 3 million Afghani refugees living in the surrounding countries and 1 million refugees inside Afghanistan.

[Guest American Woman]

The International Rescue Committee calculated that there are nearly 3 million Afghan refugees, outside and 1 million internal refugees since the U.S. invasion. This is all due to U.S. attack on Afghanistan. U.S. has destroyed the society.

More than 5.7 million refugees have voluntarily returned to Afghanistan in the last 10 years.

Edited July 27, 2013 by American Woman

[PIK]

After 12 years of war, with thousands of innocent Afghanis killed, thousands of American soldiers killed, trillions of money spent fighting against the Taliban, the U.S. is pulling out and is now trying to negotiate with the Taliban.

How many more times should we see failures like this before the war advocates realize that it's a failing system?

Hey hudson ever hear about korea , maybe you should read up on what happened there.

[carepov]

As a side note, if by some miracle it was a first in history, and everything was hunky dory and a smashing success by all accounts ten years after the war began, I'm sure it wouldn't be being heralded as "U.S.' success in Afghanistan."

Isn't Operation Desert Storm heralded as a U.S. Success?

[carepov]

Yeah basically what you are saying is that if the war was managed better it would have gone better, and held up better to a cost/benefit analysis. Im pretty sure you are right about that.

But no... I still wouldnt consider that a success, although it might have a positive outcome for some people.

A plan/project has to be judged based on what the architects planned. You have to weigh it against its own goals, not look post-hoc and try to gather up a justification for it after the fact.

The stated goals of the project were to irradicate the Taliban, and fight terrorism... And administration officials projected the war would cost very little.

The first goal is mostly successful.... The taliban are still a regional power but clearly have taken a beating. Id give them a 70% on that one. The second goal... righting terrorism... Id give a failing grade on. The Dod actually reported the threat of terrorism was increased by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Theres terrorism attacks in these places CONSTANTLY since we invaded. The cost projection is out of the park... The US will be paying for this war for most of the next century... plus interest.

Thats how I evaluate the success of a project. So the project was a failure and still would have been if it took half as long and cost half as much.

But theres a different question... Its entirely possible that a failed project, that was poorly planned and poorly executed, and way over budget and severly delayed.... might actually have a net positive effect, YOu could certainly make that case... the war in afghanistan regardless of how botched it was has certainly resulted in a lot of money being invested there and at the very least a temporary boon to the economy. And it has definately resulted in at least the tempory liberalization in some aspects (people brought up improved rights for women).

Well the commitment to rebuild Afghanistan was made in 2002, and should therefore be considered a goal as well.

The 11+ year long war has likely increased terrorism, but had it been done right, it would not have.

In the long term, reducing terrorism and rebuilding Afghan society become one and the same goal.