iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Cost Estimates Of Afghanistan Troop Buildup Vary Widely

First Posted: 03/18/10 06:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 03:45 PM ET

Afghanistan Troops

President Obama may soon find himself in an increasingly uncomfortable position when it comes to funding the anticipated buildup of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, if recent comments by House Appropriations Chairman David Obey are any indication.

Speaking with ABC News, Obey warned Obama, "There ain't going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan," he said. "If they ask for an increased troop commitment in Afghanistan, I am going to ask them to pay for it."

The tension comes at a moment when the Obama administration has been resisting pressure from Democrats in Congress to increase spending in order to spur job growth. The Obama administration, the Wall Street Journal notes, is favoring "targeted measures that would be less likely to inflate the deficit."

In addition to the debate over war funding, questions remain over the cost of such a troop buildup. As the LA Times noted on Monday, the Obama administration and the Pentagon have produced significantly different price tags for how much it will cost to add troops to Afghanistan. The Pentagon previously released cost estimates of $500,000 per year for each service member, putting the total price tag for an increase of 40,000 troops -- which is what Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal has requested -- at an additional $20 billion a year.

The White House, meanwhile, recently doubled that figure -- a cost of $1 million per new solider, according to the Office of Management and Budget. Interestingly, as the LA Times notes, earlier this month a Pentagon comptroller produced a number much closer to OMB's estimate than that of the Pentagon. 



Here is a helpful explanation of how the numbers were calculated, via the LA Times:



White House officials included in their estimate everything they consider necessary to wage war, including troop housing and equipment.[...]




The Pentagon arrived at its much lower estimate by dividing its war funding request by the number of troops throughout the region: 68,000 in Afghanistan and up to 95,000 in supporting roles elsewhere, such as on nearby ships or in surrounding countries.

The Pentagon cost includes higher combat wages, extra aircraft hours and other operations and maintenance costs, but omits such items as new weapons purchases -- one-time costs that vary by year -- and support equipment like spy satellites and anti-roadside-bomb technology.





FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

President Obama may soon find himself in an increasingly uncomfortable position when it comes to funding the anticipated buildup of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, if recent comments by House Appropriatio...
President Obama may soon find himself in an increasingly uncomfortable position when it comes to funding the anticipated buildup of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, if recent comments by House Appropriatio...
Filed by Nicholas Sabloff  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,701
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (42 total)
12:25 PM on 11/24/2009
why do we need cost estimates?
When the faucet is fully opened the faucet is fully opened.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ergon
Man From Atlan
12:17 PM on 11/24/2009
The "cost of the war"?
An arm and a leg.
05:53 AM on 11/24/2009
I think it's funny how the Democrats are always trying to shift the blame and never take responsibility for anything, not just the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Your guys voted to go to these wars too, when they could have stood up in a united front and said no. Almost two thirds of the Democrat senators in office voted to support the Iraq war. In the vote that allowed the war in Afghanistan, the vote was unanimous 98-0.

You guys could rescind this authorization at any time now if you wanted, instead you are choosing to escalate it. Quit with the blame game, you are in charge now and you have to lead (as hard as that is to imagine).
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:39 PM on 11/29/2009
They were given bogus information and most say that if they knew the truth they wouldn't have supported it. You republicans never take responsibility for your failure to finish the wars you started have never offered a plan on how to pay for them. As usual the cons are conning the American people by putting it onto Obama, it's still bush's war he started it and all Obama is doing is trying to find a way out something you cons neglected to do before you started it.
05:40 AM on 11/24/2009
"There ain't going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan"..........Dave Obey (D)

Truly profound.

Mr. Obey, if you guys keep spending the way you have in Obama's first 9 months in office, $40 Billion on the war is going to be the least of our problems. We could use your phrase and insert the following programs and they would all be true as well:

"There ain't going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into health care"
"There ain't going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into bailing out Wall street"
"There ain't going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into bailing out Detroit and the unions" "There ain't going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into programs like cash for clunkers" "There ain't going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into the cap and tax scheme"
"There ain't going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into stimulus bills"
"There ain't going to be no money for nothing if we tax the rich into the poorhouse"

You guys are not smart.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:42 PM on 11/29/2009
Why did you republicans let it all go to hell?
12:16 AM on 11/24/2009
Remember in peacetime how young men would bury their fathers? Boy that seems like a long time ago.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JoeBlough
The Horror. . .The Horror. . .
08:51 PM on 11/23/2009
How many d. soldiers does it take per square foot to build a new nation n Afgnistan?
08:49 PM on 11/23/2009
It seems clear the Afghanistan will never have peace given its current situation; a government that is one of the most corrupt in the world, a disputed election, a factitious insurgency, and the largest drug production center in the world. Why should our servicemen and women be asked to give their lives to improve Afghanistan as a nation if its people don’t even care enough to help their own nation? Loyalties lie to their village first and country last, which greatly hinders reconstruction and cooperation with Allied forces.
In addition to the human toll of the Afghanistan War, there is the financial toll to consider as well. Recent reports indicate that it may cost up to one million dollars to support a single serviceman in Afghanistan for one year; it cost $400 to bring a single gallon of gas to the forces there. In this age of federal budget deficit and recession, is it worth it to be throwing away all this money down the toilet along with the soldiers’ lives?
The war in Afghanistan has cost hundreds of servicemen and women their lives in a vain effort to unite the disparate regions and loyalties. The Afghan people aren’t even willing to bring their own country out of their dire situation. Our troops should not be asked to lay down their lives, away from home and national interest, for a country that doesn’t even want or thank them?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JoeBlough
The Horror. . .The Horror. . .
08:53 PM on 11/23/2009
That's sums up the situation well. But the war profiteers will have none of it.
05:50 AM on 11/24/2009
Give it up with the war profiteers thing. Your guys voted to go to these wars too, when they could have stood up in a united front and said no. Almost two thirds of the Democrat senators in office voted to support the Iraq war

You guys could end this at any time now if you wanted, instead you are choosing to escalate it. Quit with the blame game, you are in charge now and you have to lead (as hard as that is to imagine).
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
omobob
left coast, usa
08:22 PM on 11/23/2009
The Iraq war was the first war to be waged entirely on credit. It hasn’t seemed to be bother anyone until now? However it does give those who would abandon Afghanistan a good excuse to cut and run.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JoeBlough
The Horror. . .The Horror. . .
08:54 PM on 11/23/2009
It bothered us, but the Republicans labeled anyone who disagreed as Un-America and traitors.
05:44 AM on 11/24/2009
Wars are not typically planned expenses. We've never had a war that was paid in cash so to speak. Democrats refuse to cut spending and funding and make sacrifice like my grandparents did during the world wars. Even with all the purported "green" attitudes of the Dems, can you ever imagine a scenario that they saved their tinfoil and turned it in so that the government could make guns and bullets and other materials used in war?

Hell no.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:44 PM on 11/29/2009
Ever hear of war bonds?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lapdogs
Avid News Reader
08:03 PM on 11/23/2009
Think of this as the Afghanistan War's unique "Draft", without calling up people that are not enlisted.

Once they get their tax bill for the war, the country will start to turn on the war real fast.

Those "Remember The Troops" magnets on people's cars, will suddenly have a price tag for every family and not just the One Percent in the entire country that keeps getting called up - over and over and over again.
07:55 PM on 11/23/2009
I never thought I would resort to begging but here it goes.

Please bring our forces home from Iraq and Afghanistan. We cannot afford these wars anymore. It is killing our economy and our nation. Are our leaders so stupid as to continue this stupid wars with no end in sight. The arab nations do not want us there and as an American I do not want our nation to go there. Its none of our business.
08:12 PM on 11/23/2009
The problem is that retreating from Afghanistan, the resistance point, in the post Cold War and fight against global terrorism will result in Pan-Islamist Jihadi's running over the region and threatening not just US economy but our very freedman and way of life.

Please read my analysis, "Why Afghansitan is the new post Cold War Berlin"
http://ohmygov.com/blogs/general_news/archive/2009/10/30/why-afghanistan-is-the-new-post-cold-war-berlin.aspx
12:41 AM on 11/24/2009
The biggest loudest and richest source of the jihadist movement is Saudi Arabia. They fund Wahabe schools all over the world that teach hatred of Jews and non-Muslims. Unfortunately, they also sell us a lot of oil.
Viper
Former repub, still repenting
07:49 PM on 11/23/2009
Finally, repugs dont like deficits... Neither do I. But it never bothered them in Iraq/Afganistan and 350 billion fighters that can fly or 700 foriegn military bases or missle defense systems that dont work.

Require that Iraq/Afganistan presence be funded with a ten-15 percent sur tax on those making over 500K until the war(s) is/are paid.

See if the repugs will then support the endless wars for profit. We increased taxes to pay for wars always in the past! Its the patriotic thing to do...

If the young can lose their lives and money and have their military families on food stamps... multi millionares can lose some dollars.


Regards
07:40 PM on 11/23/2009
I propose that since the US has committed the most number of troops and spent the most that President Obama urge our NATO allies and powerful countries in East Asia (China, India, Japan, and South Korea) who also have strategic interests in Afghanistan to help build the civilian capacity of Afghans and increase trade so the country can shift away from opium and terrorism and harness a legal economy. This is good strategy for the US and Afghan national forces to overwhelm the insurgency and gradually win in Afghanistan.

Please read my analysis on "Why Afghansitan is the new post Cold War Berlin" http://ohmygov.com/blogs/general_news/archive/2009/10/30/why-afghanistan-is-the-new-post-cold-war-berlin.aspx

Thanks,

Nemat Sadat
07:31 PM on 11/23/2009
Extreme heat turns sand/rock to glass...I say we make AfghaniPak the mother of all window panes..
07:30 PM on 11/23/2009
declare victory...clear out...and nu_ke'em...
photo
JackRusselTerrier
sniff out the truth and chew on facts
07:00 PM on 11/23/2009
If wishful thinking makes good military policy, then we'll be in great shape in Afghanistan.

The reports mock McChrystal's assurances of a quick fix, pointing to mass illiteracy, endemic corruption, profound culture differences, very little will to fight, and "a lack of competent and professional leadership at all levels."

One report notes that while 92,000 Afghans are in the police force, only 24,000 have completed formal training. Even trained, only 10 percent of police units can function independently of U.S. support and direction. Also, one out of every four policemen quit each year, thus requiring massive recruiting and training just to maintain the current force level.

The best military assessments say it will take 10 years – not one – to raise Afghan security forces to a level of basic competence. Why should our troops spend a decade and lose lives to do that? And why is Gen. McChrystal not being honest?

http://www.jimhightower.com/node/6987