The latest Afghanistan and Iraq cost analysis by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) will not sit well with many Americans living on a tight budget. Though the war in Iraq is costing less and less, the US military is basically transferring these saved funds to the Afghan conflict.
Between 2009 and 2010, the average monthly cost of the Iraq war fell $1.8 billion to $5.4 billion, a 25% drop. But increased spending in Afghanistan ate up that savings–and a bit more. Monthly costs rose $2.2 billion to $5.7, billion, a 63% increase.
The average cost per service member is $694,000 per year, much less than the Obama administration’s stated $1 billion, but when you times this by the approximately 100,000 American soldiers in the country right now, the costs are unsurprisingly substantial. The American public is already facing the emotional and moral toll of a large spike in US casualties, as the nightly news usually features a report about another soldier or two falling and August saw 56 American soldiers killed in action. The American public has a history of being willing to shoulder a tremendous burden when the costs seem appropriate with the mission’s national security implications, but the Afghan war is putting an awful lot of pressure on America’s strong back.
A new cog in this wheel, is the rising emphasis on excessive government spending from our nation’s voters. Only 24% of polled Americans wanted a more active government that provided more services and levied more taxes and this trend has been palpably felt across the country for some time now. This matters because when the Iraq war was in disarray in the mid-2000s there were many pronouncements about the costs of the war with marginal political impact, but if these were made today it would have more political meaning. For the first time that I can remember, many in the American public will vote with the national debt and spending as key drivers of their decision.
The Obama administration is definitely aware of this trend and continues to voice that the Afghan war is not ‘an open-ended’ conflict (Iraq withdrawal speech) and just recently stated that American troops will be coming home starting July 2011 (same speech). Unfortunately, in my opinion, it is the administration’s two-way street (trying to bring stability and victory in Afghanistan while telling the American public we are coming home soon=July 2011 deadline) is making everyone unhappy and is likely making the military’s job that much more difficult.
The costs of the Afghan war, both material and human, are substantial and are only increasing. The American public’s stomach for these costs will be a trend worth following. And this will be an issue for quite some time, as a NATO training mission document stated that it will cost about $6 billion dollars every year until 2015 (further?) to maintain the Afghanistan military and police. Ka-ching, ka-ching, Ka…….
With all the hub-bub about the Wikileaks (shame, shame), tragic death of ten humanitarian workers, President Karzai’s anti anti-corruption crusade, etc. an important seachange in the Obama administration’s Afghan strategy has appeared; The administration is discreetly walking back its July 2011 drawdown date. Here is Defense Secretary Robert Gates last week [my emphasis]:
“I think we need to reemphasize the message that we are not leaving Afghanistan in July of 2011. We are beginning a transition process,” Gates said on the ABC News program “This Week.”
“Drawdowns early on will be of fairly limited numbers,” he said. “It will depend on the conditions on the ground.”
And as Faheem Haider discussed on our Afghanistan blog, here is Gen. David Petraeus on ‘Meet the Press‘ yesterday [emphasis mine]:
'We're going extra innings, folks.'
MR. GREGORY: General Petraeus says he supports the beginning of troop withdrawal next July, but it’s a qualified response to a highly charged issue back in Washington.
GEN. PETRAEUS: Vice President Biden has also commented on it. He said recently, I think, it could be as little as a couple of thousand troopers who go home next July. Again, that remains to be seen, and it would be premature to have any kind of assessment at this juncture about what we may or may not be able to transition. What the president very much wants from me, and, and what we talked about in the Oval Office is the responsibility of a military commander on the ground to provide as best professional military advice, leave the politics to him. Certainly I’m aware of the context within which I offer that advice, but that just informs the advice, it doesn’t drive it. The situation on the ground drives it. That’s what he wants, that’s what he, he told me to provide, and that’s what I will provide.
And last, but not least, a withdraw date was not even mentioned in President Obama’s Iraq Withdrawal speech two weeks ago. Why would he talk about Afghanistan anyways, it was a speech about Iraq? Well, strange rhetorical voice out of no where, first, President Obama has often contrasted the two wars it would have been a seamless maneuver after discussing the US withdrawal from Iraq to his stated withdrawal timeline for America’s other war. Secondly, up to this point President Obama hasn’t spoken about his Afghan policy without mentioning the withdrawal that was key to his plan. I’ve been highly critical of the second as inevitably, that’s the part of the speech/press conference/memo that everyone focused on.
Do I think the administration is doing an about face and fundamentally changing their Afghan strategy? Not really. I think troops will be withdrawn at the July 2011 date, but the administration is preparing the American public for it not to be a substantial one. This does not mean the administration can’t once again change its mind, and its rhetoric accordingly, but these current pronouncements from the policy’s leaders and implementers signals a longer term commitment to a substantive military presence in Afghanistan.
Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations and former Bush administration national security leader, has come out with a sobering critique of the current war in Afghanistan. Off the bat, he discusses how the war has changed from one of necessity to know one of choice. Here’s Haass:
The war being waged by the United States in Afghanistan today is fundamentally different and more ambitious than anything carried out by the Bush administration. Afghanistan is very much Barack Obama’s war of choice, a point that the president underscored recently by picking Gen. David Petraeus to lead an intensified counterinsurgency effort there. After nearly nine years of war, however, continued or increased U.S. involvement in Afghanistan isn’t likely to yield lasting improvements that would be commensurate in any way with the investment of American blood and treasure. It is time to scale down our ambitions there and both reduce and redirect what we do.
The first thing we need to recognize is that fighting this kind of war is in fact a choice, not a necessity. The United States went to war in October 2001 to oust the Taliban government, which had allowed Al Qaeda to operate freely out of Afghanistan and mount the 9/11 attacks. The Taliban were routed; members of Al Qaeda were captured or killed, or escaped to Pakistan. But that was a very different war, a necessary one carried out in self-defense.
As one might expect, because Haass views the war as now one of choice not necessity, he offers up various policy/strategy changes for the situation. One needs to read the whole article (a little long, but highly worth it) to go through them all, but the one them that rides through them all is a United States taking on a lesser role than the current Obama administration strategy. Here is Haass’ blunt conclusion:
All this argues for reorienting U.S. Afghan policy toward decentralization—providing greater support for local leaders and establishing a new approach to the Taliban. The war the United States is now fighting in Afghanistan is not succeeding and is not worth waging in this way. The time has come to scale back U.S. objectives and sharply reduce U.S. involvement on the ground. Afghanistan is claiming too many American lives, requiring too much attention, and absorbing too many resources. The sooner we accept that Afghanistan is less a problem to be fixed than a situation to be managed, the better.
Haass is the latest from the right side of American politics to come out in favor of walking back the size of our commitment to Afghanistan. This political happening, the lurch of more on the right away from nation building in Afghanistan, is one on the move and to be watched just as close as President Obama’s liberal, anti-war base. To be continued….
Charles Krauthammer chimes in on ‘Flight of the Intellectuals’ main theme:
The Pentagon review of the Fort Hood shooting runs 86 pages with not a single mention of Hasan’s Islamism. It contains such politically correct inanities as “religious fundamentalism alone is not a risk factor.”
Of course it is. Indeed, Islamist fundamentalism is not only a risk factor. It is the risk factor, the common denominator linking all the great terror attacks of this century — from 9/11 to Mumbai, from Fort Hood to Times Square, from London to Madrid to Bali. The attackers varied in nationality, education, age, social class, native tongue and race. The one thing that united them was the jihadist vision in whose name they acted.
Obama-McChrystal seemed to be on same page in terms of actual Afghanistan war strategy/policy - This has been an underreported aspect of the whole incident. McChrystal and his aides were mainly critiquing (if ‘bite me’ is a critique) the political process and not the actual policy strategy. President Obama emphasized this nicely in his address yesterday. Now can Gen. Petraeus be successful with the same group of civilian politicans (Biden, Eikenberry, Holbrooke) in his Afghan camp?
President Obama took some serious hits - Also underemphasized was part of the article where one of McChrystal’s aides stated that the General was disappointed in his first one-on-one meeting with the President to discuss the Afghan strategy. The aid called the meeting a ‘10 minute photo-op’ where the president appeared ‘unattentive’. This story does not make those of us who believe that President Obama has not spent enough time and political capital selling his strategy to the American public feel much better.
‘While McChrystal and his men are in indisputable command of all military aspects of the war, there is no equivalent position on the diplomatic or political side‘ - This key quote is connected to my first bullet. There does not seem to be a productive line of command between Obama, Biden, Holbrooke, Eikenberry, Clinton, Karzai, etc. A change of personnal or more clear authority lines could do some good here too.
McChrystal’s aids do most of the trash talk - For all the talk about McChrystal’s big mouth, it was his aides that did most of the blabbing in the article. This is no excuse, however, as McChrystal prided himself on being a man of discipline and authority and these afterall were ‘his’ aides.
Gen. McChrystal-Ambassador Eikenberry spat still vibrant - These two have been at loggerheads ever since Eikenberry’s leaked letter to the President arguing against McChrystal’s counterinsurgency surge plan and the article showed that this relationship was not improving. The leader of the US military and diplomacy in this country were not on the same page and this needs to change. Hopefully, Gen. Petraeus and Eikenberry (or his replacement) can have a more productive, cohesive relationship.
McChrystal has rather strong relations wth President Karzai, at least the best among the American officials - This was proved further true by Karzai’s very public (including a letter to President Obama) support for Gen. McChrystal to keep his job. This is one instance where Gen. Petraeus will have to work hard to keep up a fruitful relationship. Thankfully, Petraeus has the diplomatic and personal skills to do so.
McChrystal’s civilian protection policies are a tough swallow for troops in danger - This has been a growing story the last couple months and Hastings goes out of his way to show that American soldiers are very discouraged to be fighting with one hand (or several bombs, bullets) behind their back. Gen. McChrystal, and now Gen. Petraeus, had the challenging task of communicating to our soldiers on the ground that there are small and larger battles to be won in this fight. Once again, this is a developing story.
Lastly, Hastings is clearly against the current mission in Afghanistan and this impacts his story greatly - Hastings pessimesstic view of the American presence and current strategy in Afghanistan is plan to see from the get go. He calls the Marja offensive ‘doomed’ while not really showing any specific expertise or experience on the mission. His bias is shown clearly in this quote: ‘So far, counterinsurgency has succeeded only in creating a never-ending demand for the primary product supplied by the military: perpetual war. There is a reason that President Obama studiously avoids using the word “victory” when he talks about Afghanistan. Winning, it would seem, is not really possible.’ This is a pretty simplistic view of a complicated situation from a reporter with obvious preconceived views of the American military and the war in Afghanistan.
So Gen. McChrystal is now a goner and Gen. Petraeus is back to save the day yet again. Anyway you cut it, this is a sad situation that can only make a difficult situation even worse. Gen. Petraeus is obviously a capable leader and he fits in well with the counterinsurgency strategy which we are smack in the middle of implementing, but this whole incident reaks of an overall policy in dissarray. The three month review process by the Obama administration, culminating the announcement of a troop surge with a definite time limit, created fissures that have obviously not been filled. Vice President Biden, Envoy Richard Holbrooke, and Ambassador Eikenberry, all targets of Gen. McChrystal and his aides in the Rolling Stones article, in one way or another voiced reservations about Gen. McChrystal’s plan for the Afghan war effort, with Biden and Eikenberry being outright opposition. Gen. Petraeus is adeft at Washington DC politics as he is at counterinsurgency and we can only hope that he and Obama’s civilian team can finally get on the same page. The only winners in this embarrassing incident are the Taliban.
I’ll have some more comments on the Rolling Stone article, McChrystal, Obama, Petraeus in a little bit
The world today is making me nervous. Though pundits have been predicting troubled times and imminent catastrophes for years and this has only increased with the rise of China and the financial crisis, I have felt that the world, due mainly to US security power blankets and the growth of globalization, was stable and major crises were for the most part, unlikely to occur. The events of the past few weeks have caused this feeling to fade, however. Turkey and Brazil’s confident move to make a deal with Iran over the wishes of nearly all the world’s major powers, especially the superpower United States, joined the Times Square attempted bombing, a growing oil crisis in the Gulf of Mexico that the US government seems incapable of stopping, Greek financial tragedy seemingly bringing the EU down with it, the North Korean sinking of Cheonan, Japan’s Prime Minister merry-go-round, Chinese-US military relations faltering, and now we have the flotilla incident raising all kinds of hell. It just seems like no one is at the wheel of a truck that may be veering of the highway. Or as Walter Russell Mead recently stated, ‘The world is getting more complicated — and more dangerous — all the time.’
In many ways this is what a multi-polar world would start to look like. A problem occurs and no one is really sure who to turn to and therefore each actor quickly looks out for the their own best interests. At times this can lead to a stable equilibrium, however in other periods it can breed miscalculations that lead to tragic conflicts. Before I get too alarming here, I should note that a serious international conflict does not appear imminent, no matter how many ‘humanitarian’ flotillas head to Gaza. But the apprehension in the air is real and I think it accurate to state that there are more unknowns in our current international security apparatus than known’s.
Speaking of Mead, he has a fascinating analysis of Turkey and Brazil’s recent aggressive foreign policy moves and what it means for and says about the United States. Here is an excerpt:
Both Turkey and Brazil are at a point in time when both their external and internal situations favor anti-US foreign policy moves. In the Middle East, taking an anti-American line builds Turkish influence and opens doors across the region. Fading Russian and European power in the Middle East creates a vacuum which a newly ambitious Turkey can hope to fill; anti-American and anti-Israel policies win friends and supporters for Turkey as it flexes its regional muscles. (Fading Russian power also makes Turkey less afraid of its northern neighbor; Turkey feels increasingly confident that it can manage its relationship with Russia without an American big brother to protect it.) In Latin America, strategic neglect and strategic failure by three American administrations (Clinton, Bush, Obama) have left the United States with fewer friends, more enemies, and less leverage than at any time since World War Two. Argentina, Brazil’s historical rival in South America, is confused and distracted with a weak political establishment and weak economy; alienated from the United States and concerned with internal economic issues, Argentina is in no position to undercut Brazil’s latest attempt to establish itself as the leading power in South America. By playing an anti-American card, Lula builds support for his vision and his party in Brazil, even as he relegates Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez to the second division in Latin America. In the short run, the Brazilian economy has managed the global downturn well; in the long term, the continuing rise of India and China mean that there will be more foreign consumers for Brazil’s exports and investors in its enterprises. Add to that the impact of massive off-shore oil discoveries, and it is not surprising that Brazil is feeling feisty.
So we have two countries who increasingly want to defy the United States, are able to do so, and find at least in the short term that an anti-American stance enhances their political prospects. Under these circumstances, we ought not to be surprised by the new directions in Turkish and Brazilian foreign policy.
Do yourself a favor and read the whole darn thing. So do you feel ‘nervous’ about today’s global security environment or I am just being a chicken little here? What makes you especially apprehensive? What calms you down (besides a hot bath, that is)? What are Turkey and Brazil up to and what does it mean for the US? Are the two growing powers really doing what’s in their best interests or can these moves backfire?
Below is a must-read article by the Washington Post’s Fred Hiatt about the disappearance of debate and discussion about America’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Like I, he sees this as a detriment to our policy making process and a disservice to all our servicemen in harm’s way. Here is a portion of the article, but please read the whole thing:
You would hardly know, from following this year’s election campaign or the extensive coverage of last week’s primaries, that America is at war.
Those elected to Congress in November will face fateful decisions on the continued deployment, or not, of U.S. forces in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet those wars, and the wisdom of committing to or withdrawing from them, have hardly been mentioned in the hard-fought campaigns of the spring.
Look at some candidate Web sites. Sen. Blanche Lincoln, forced into a runoff in Arkansas’s Democratic primary, lists 10 categories of issues, none of which are defense or national security. Under “Veterans and National Guard,” she does mention the war in Iraq but not the war in Afghanistan. For her opponent, Lt. Gov. Bill Halter, “National Security, Veterans and the Military” comes eighth on a list of nine issues and begins, “Arkansas is home to military bases that are critical to our nation’s security.” “Ensuring success in Iraq and Afghanistan” is the entirety of his platform on those conflicts.
In Pennsylvania, Joe Sestak, who rode a wave of opposition toward the Iraq war into Congress in 2006, includes defense (fifth out of five topics) on his site but writes mostly about properly equipping and caring for the force and accountability in weapons purchasing. For his Republican opponent, Pat Toomey, “National Security” comes 10th out of 10 (just after “Second Amendment”) with no mention, as far as I could see, of Iraq or Afghanistan.
In a time of joblessness and home foreclosures, it’s not surprising that politics would focus on the economy more than on national security. And maybe, in a time of toxic partisanship, we should be grateful for this inattention to the wars, taking the absence of debate as a sign of rare bipartisan consensus. Certainly few would miss the vitriol of the Iraq debate of a few years back.
Yet there’s something disquieting about the quiet. For one thing, it’s yet another reminder of American society’s separation from its professional military. As the November elections approach, candidates across the spectrum will ostentatiously wear their support for “our warriors” like body armor, which I suppose is better than the alternative. But as the troops become props, the real men and women who are sweating and taking fire and sleeping on hard ground 7,000 miles away are oddly missing from the conversation.
Why do you think American politicians and the populace at large has moved their attention elsewhere? Poor economy? Current state of the wars? President Obama’s rhetorical downplaying? Partisan consensus? War fatigue? Justin Bieber?
PS: Also check out this other WaPo news article stating that the US has no Plan B if the Kandahar offensive does not go as planned.
In the past couple days, the world’s great powers have been busy courting and challenging the Middle East’s prospective regional power, Iran. To most people’s surprise, the leaders of Turkey and Brazil reached an agreement with Tehran to transport and hold about half of Iran’s enriched uranium, but the details are still thin. In the deal, it is believed that there are no limits to how high Iran can continue to enrich their kept uranium and unlike the US/European/Russia led deal which Tehran reneged on last year, it would allow Iran to still keep enough uranium to make a nuclear weapon. This announcement has been followed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s proclamation that the UN Security Council 5 permanent members plus Germany have reached an agreement on a fourth round of sanctions on Iran. It is unknown how extensive the sanctions are as Russia and China have likely watered them down. In any case, it is hoped that if the sanctions are passed, they could be followed by additional individual pressure from the US and European states.
Are these two great power plays contradictory or compatible? The real fear about the Turkey-Brazil-Iran deal is that it will allow Iran to continue its nuclear weapon buildup while having the cover of international legitimacy bestowed on it by Rio and Ankara. Unfortunately, nearly the same thing can be said about the sanctions. The US/EU/Russia/China can look like they are ‘doing something’ to stop Tehran’s nuclear pursuit, but the bottom line is that the Islamic Republic is still in the drivers seat. From what I’ve read, the Turkey-Brazil-Iran deal does not do enough to really stop Iran’s nuclear efforts. As Greg Scoblete of Real Clear World stated: ‘this is the kind of deal that is okay to countries - like Brazil and Turkey - that aren’t terribly concerned with Iran’s nuclear program.’ If this is true, then the deal made could really cause problems for the US, Israel, Europe, Egypt, and all others who fear a nuclear Iran. Apparently, the Obama administration tacitly supported Brazil and Turkey’s rapprochement to Tehran on this issue, but they surely are backtracking now. Clinton has been timid in her remarks about the 3-way deal and stated that ‘the details matter’.
There is hope that the UNSC sanctions are indeed a strong step forward in this process and can lead to further steps that can push Iran into a deal that can keep Iran from weaponizing and a physical confrontation from occurring. Of note, both Turkey and Brazil are currently 2 of the 10 non-permanent members of the UN Security Council and along with the 5 permies, 5 more votes will be needed to pass the sanction resolution. Even if the resolution passes without Turkey and Brazilian support it will suffer some international legitimacy and the Islamic Republic leaders can yak and yak about being unfairly targeted after they already made a ‘fair deal’.
If Turkey and Brazil indeed push against the UNSC sanctions and actively promote their Iranian deal as the only way forward it will be quite the gamble. In effect, they will be choosing the side of Iran. Turkey’s government has been lurching towards south and east and away from the US, Europe, and Israel so this is not that surprising, but Brazil’s choice in the matter is a bit more puzzling. Brazil has a not insignificant amount of trade with Tehran and has butted heads with the US on several minor issues (Honduras election, Colombia basing rights), but this move could really put it on the opposite side of the US on a major foreign policy issue that could become a crisis.
Alas, these moves are still in their early stages and it would not be surprising to see Brazil and Turkey come back into the fold during the coming UNSC resolution debates. We shall see.
In essence, the person in charge of American law enforcement and legal systems cannot say that ‘radical Islam’ played even a part in the three latest terrorist attacks by………….radical Islamists! The Times Square failed bombing, Christmas Day Panty-bomber, and Ft. Hood shooting spree have all more than enough evidence already uncovered for this to be obvious, but Attorney General Eric Holder appears to not get it. A flight of the intellectuals indeed. If no American ever again said aloud the words ‘radical’, ‘extremist’, ‘violent’ before the word Islam, attacks would still be coming our way. I am sympathetic to staying away from inflammatory or all encompassing language regarding this war and believe the Obama administration has the best intentions in their fight to keep America safe, but how can you defeat an enemy when you can’t say his name aloud?
USA
China
Russia
Japan
Germany
India
Brazil
France
UK
Turkey
