More

Afghanistan Security Forces Cost: NATO Discusses How To Pay

Afghanistan

SLOBODAN LEKIC and ROBERT BURNS   02/ 3/12 08:16 AM ET  AP

BRUSSELS — NATO's top official said Friday that the alliance expects regional powers to contribute to a multibillion dollar fund to finance the Afghan army and police after they assume full responsibility for the war in 2014.

Since Afghanistan – one of the world's poorest nations – cannot foot the estimated $6 billion (euro4.6 billion) annual bill, NATO nations will have to pay the bulk of it. But austerity measures and budgetary cuts caused by the financial crisis in the United States and Europe are making it difficult to raise the money within the alliance.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen said he was appealing to the entire international community to help finance the force.

Asked whether he was specifically referring to China, India and Russia, he replied: "It's a call on the whole of the international community to contribute to financing the Afghan security forces because I think it is also in the interest of countries in the region to see a stable and secure Afghanistan."

"So my call on the international community also includes countries in the region," he said.

Fogh Rasmussen said defense ministers had also discussed the "sustainable size" of the future Afghan army and police, but that a final decision will be left to the NATO summit in Chicago next May.

The two-day meeting in Brussels of ministers from NATO's 28 nations and 22 other countries taking part in the war in Afghanistan is meant to pave the way for the Chicago summit.

The Afghan army and police are scheduled to grow to more than 350,000 members by 2014. But some have projected that the force can be safely reduced in order to reduce its costs.

"A reasonable number would be 230,000," French Defense Minister Gerard Longuet said after the meeting.

The Taliban insurgents are estimated to have about 20,000 armed men.

A related unresolved question that also will be taken up in Chicago is the number of U.S. and other foreign troops that might remain behind and what missions they would be assigned.

The debate on the costs of the Afghan security forces came after NATO allies agreed broadly on Thursday to step back from the lead combat role in Afghanistan and let local forces take their place as early as next year, a shortened timetable that startled officials and members of the U.S. Congress.

Longuet said Paris would start drawing down its 3,600-strong contingent in March, and expects the withdrawal to be completed by mid-2013.

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta caused a stir when he said that he foresaw American and NATO forces switching from a combat role to a support role by mid- to late-2013. He said this was a natural transition in line with the NATO goal, announced in November 2010, of having every Afghan province placed in government control by the end of 2014.

Until that remark, however, it was widely assumed that NATO forces would remain in the lead until the end of 2014, when most foreign forces are scheduled to be withdrawn.

His remark prompted some Republicans in Washington to complain that the Obama administration was unwisely telegraphing its intentions to the Taliban.

Fogh Rasmussen also announced that NATO would purchase five long-range reconnaissance drones for the alliance's new Ground Surveillance System.

Although the alliance has been planning the purchase for more than a decade, it was only after the recent air war over Libya that the matter received serious consideration. During that conflict, NATO air forces had to depend almost entirely on U.S. drones and surveillance aircraft for targeting information.

A group of 13 nations will purchase the Northrop Grumman drones known as the Global Hawk, which can stay aloft for 24 hours, and NATO will then maintain and operate them on behalf of all 28 allies.

"This will give our commanders the ability to see what is happening on the ground at long range and over periods of time – around the clock, and in any weather," Fogh Rasmussen said.

The NATO announcement came just days after Pentagon officials said budget cuts will force an end to purchases of the Global Hawks for the U.S. Air Force in favor of retaining the less expensive, high-altitude U-2 spy plane.

___

Slobodan Lekic can be reached on Twitter at http://twitter.com/slekich

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

BRUSSELS — NATO's top official said Friday that the alliance expects regional powers to contribute to a multibillion dollar fund to finance the Afghan army and police after they assume full resp...
BRUSSELS — NATO's top official said Friday that the alliance expects regional powers to contribute to a multibillion dollar fund to finance the Afghan army and police after they assume full resp...
Filed by Clare Richardson  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 52
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
AZreb
equal-opportunity Independent heathen
10:51 AM on 02/04/2012
DUH - as the kids would say. Of course we in the US will foot most of the bill.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Steamboater
Forget hope. Agitate.
11:48 PM on 02/03/2012
In the end, we'll wind up paying for most of this, as always. We've paid enough of our blood and blood money for that hellhole. The less troops we leave behind the more at risk they are. Not one American soldier should be left in Afghanistan.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gregory57
Micro-bio, was one of my favorite classes.
11:43 PM on 02/03/2012
Who cares what happens in Afghanistan. Maybe next time they will think twice before harboring a fugitive from American justice. We can help keep the peace with an occasional cruise missile salvo.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jory420
10:41 PM on 02/03/2012
The American tax payer wil end paying for it, like they do everything else.
07:07 PM on 02/03/2012
Probably, shortly after we leave, the bad guys will come streaming back and the local government and their soldiers will be quickly fold because they are too busy getting high on hash to be effective.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/22/afghan-armys-hashish-smok_n_400441.html

On the other hand what goes on on these far off places is not our business. We're not the world's policemen.

We may have a rooting interest but we have no business actively taking sides. We just need to resolve to have good relations with whoever comes out on top.

However, what we can do as a compromise is suggest to our "buddy" their president, Hamid "the Hat" Karzai, that they hire private security to police the country while they try to get themselves into shape. Maybe we can help them pay for it if their poppy revenue falls off.
04:06 PM on 02/03/2012
We should get out of Afghanistan
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Myoho Mod
Nam Myoho Renge Kyo
06:38 PM on 02/03/2012
The sooner the better.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Steamboater
Forget hope. Agitate.
11:57 PM on 02/03/2012
We're theer ntil 2024 at least as reported in The (London) daliy telgraph a few monthsvback. Then there was an ongoing strategic pact in the works with Kabul that was supposed to be finalized by December. It was a little late and now with the announcement that so-called combat troops will come home, the deal is set but what was omitted was the withdrawal date which is 2024. We'll have at least 25,000 troops there until then, dressed up in new gear and called something other than combat troops, and preventing any future president from getting them out and home beforehand unless that president breaks the deal Obama made with Kabul. "“US troops may stay in Afghanistan until 2024 America and Afghanistan are close to signing a strategic pact which would allow thousands of United States troops to remain in the country until at least 2024, The Daily Telegraph can disclose. The agreement would allow not only military trainers to stay to build up the Afghan army and police, but also American special forces soldiers and air power to remain. Both Afghan and American officials said that they hoped to sign the pact before the Bonn Conference on Afghanistan in December. Barack Obama and Hamid Karzai agreed last week to escalate the negotiations and their national security advisers will meet in Washington in September."” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8712701/US-troops-may-stay-in-Afghanistan-until-2024.html
07:42 PM on 03/25/2012
It was reported here as well:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/19/us-troops-afghanistan-2024_n_931970.html
photo
IfIonlyknew
Politics is Hollywood for ugly people.
02:06 PM on 02/03/2012
What the heck is under that burka......?
01:55 PM on 02/03/2012
Afghanistan possesses mineral resources valued at an estimated 3 trillion USD, and appears to be effectively developing these. Certainly NATO must honor and fulfill its obligations, including footing the bill. But Afghanistan is poised to become a wealthy nation, and should be able to find international credit, not only for funding ongoing NATO stability operations, but reimbursing NATO for its well-intended actions.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:53 PM on 02/03/2012
Helping Afghanistan maintain internal security is a noble idea. But poverty does not lend itself to nobility and the wars have left American broke.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
salvy859
war is not the answer
01:24 PM on 02/03/2012
let me see if I got this right, 6 billion to support an Army of farmers who don't want to fight just need a paycheck. The taliban is just waiting till the clueless coalition, mainly Americans leave to take over .

Pakistan takes our billions in aid and then turns around and supplies the taliban with weapons that kill American soldiers. After 11 years our Defense dept seems to have ADD. Bow your heads beg for forgiveness for all of the blood thats on your hands.
03:41 PM on 02/03/2012
Outstanding post. F&F
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cornel
wuf wuf
01:13 PM on 02/03/2012
I say, let them rot
12:39 PM on 02/03/2012
The current security (Army and Police) budget in Afghanistan is about $10 billion a year. The $6.4 billion is estimated what they would need after 2014, with cuts. Considering the total government receipt in Afghanistan (all the money that comes to Afghan government) is $1 billion, no matter how you look at it we have created a monstrosity. If there will be no money for the army and police, where would a guy who knows how to use guns turn? They will join the Taliban. No matter how you cut it the Talibans won and we lost, let's just get the helk out of there tomorrow.
uk progressive
donny you're out of your element
12:24 PM on 02/03/2012
Afghan army numbers 350,000 the Taliban fighters 20,000 I'll back the Taliban every time to defeat those puppet soldiers. This is south Vietnam all over again, as soon as the US and NATO forces leave the afghan soldiers will shed their uniforms and rifles and go home to their villages just like the AVRN soldiers did with the advancing communist forces.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:23 PM on 02/03/2012
America and its allies do not have the courage of their convictions. They are now ratting on Afghanistan.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sconcreteguy
11:47 AM on 02/03/2012
We should not be paying for any of this! We've paid enough already and it's money America didn't have in the first place. How are they so poor when they have all of those oil fields in their country? that makes no sense. Yes. The people are poor.The government is not. Their government is the one who should pay for this. Not any other country. Why do we continually give money to other countries when we are all suffering ourselves? If you want Americans to help foot the bill, get it from the 1%. They're the ones who have all the money. Not the rest of America. Our country keeps telling us to live within our means, don't spend money you don't have, etc. Yet, we give money to other countries like we have never ending supply of it. They preach one thing and do another. Our country needs to practice what it preaches and quit giving out American money that we need here in the US! While the 99% suffer, we're suppose to help foot the bill in countries that allwant to kill us? How does that make any sense? Quit giving money that the US can't afford to other countries and start worrying about the people that live in our own country. I myself am sick of this!! If they were given the chance, they'd murder every one of us. So why help the enemies??