U.S. Dilemma of Cost Benefit Analysis of Afghanistan War

As the U.S. grapples with other pertinent issues such as wage stagnation, healthcare funding, and education, the billions that were spent on the Afghanistan War has detracted from governmental investment in other vital areas.
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

In response to the September 11th attacks that resulted in 2,752 American deaths , then President Bush declared in a Presidential Address to the Nation in October of 2001 that he had ordered the U.S. military to begin strikes in Afghanistan. The purpose of these strikes, according to President Bush, was to degrade the military capabilities of the Taliban and prevent Afghanistan from being used as a base for terrorism ; although the perpetrator of 9/11 Osama Bin Laden and his Arab cronies had crossed the Afghanistan border in December of 2001 through Tora Bora into Pakistan where they were granted hideout for approximately 10 years. The U.S. war in Afghanistan should have ended at that time. Instead it became embroiled in domestic tribal discord and U.S. security concerns

Since 2001-14, more than 2,000 Americans soldiers have died and Afghanistan civilian causality is estimated to be around 26,000 (underestimated by some accounts), nearly 13 times greater. Moreover, the U.S. has invested upward $680 billion in the Afghanistan war effort known as Operation Enduring Freedom , yet the abuse and efficacy of those funds is startling. Despite such sacrifice and tremendous spending, the Afghanistan government continues to be unstable and the Taliban is still far from submissive. After 14 years of engagement in Afghanistan, U.S. intelligence agencies have contended that further U.S. military involvement and spending will not be a productive use of our resources and will further harm our ability to contain domestic discourse and tribal hostility.

To be clear, this paper does not detract from the incredible sacrifice made by U.S. troops, on the contrary, we honor it by exposing the incredible losses suffered and critiquing a war policy that will put more American soldiers and Afghan civilians in danger. As reported by the Department of Defence, 2,215 American soldiers have been killed and 20,027 wounded in action in Operation Enduring Freedom . Those who returned home have faced long waits, inadequate treatment, and a bureaucracy, as evinced by the Veteran Affairs debacle of 2013, which has not shown veterans the respect that they deserve. On the Afghanistan front, the United Nations estimated that there was 14,064 civilian deaths and 23,107 injuries from 2009-2013. Neta Crawford of Boston University approximates that in total 26,270 Afghanistan civilians have died since the 2001 invasion . This bloodshed demands an honest evaluation of American policy and should not be used as an excuse to continue the engagement in Afghanistan on the pretext of "finishing the fight" when we have not clearly set out what we are fighting for.

The colossal expenditure, astounding waste, and enormous damages sustained by both parties, that the U.S. has committed to the Afghanistan war is immoral. According to the Congressional Records Services, Congress has allocated a whopping $686 billion to Operation Enduring Freedom. More than $104 billion has been allocated for Afghanistan reconstruction from 2002-2014 , an amount that is larger than the entire Marshal Plan, even when adjusted for inflation. Yet, there is absence of substantial, successful reconstruction. The waste and egregious lack of accountability astounds: the United States Special Inspector General of Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) who revealed in April that an audit of the Army legacy east project found that $134 million in unsupported costs ; a $12 million slaughterhouse project for the Afghan army was later scrapped because it was found that an existing facility would suffice ; $488 million has been invested in Afghanistan oil, gas, and mineral industry projects that have been riddled, according to SIGAR, with a lack of US coordination, strategy and sustainable planning.

Yet this sacrifice and seemingly carefree expenditure has not resulted in a stable, independent Afghanistan government and has not brought the Taliban into peace negotiation. The Congressional Research Services has described the new Afghanistan government as "paralyzed" and "constrained." In addition, fourteen years after the invasion, the most powerful military in the world continues to be resisted by these tribal groups, in fact the Taliban seemingly have expanded their hold in villages and provinces. Even though President Obama officially ended Operation Enduring Freedom, U.S. Special Forces are still in Afghanistan have continued to combat the Taliban. American presence will only further beget animosity and undermine our counter-terrorism measures as the collateral deaths from drone strikes and military engagements provoke otherwise peaceful Afghanis to join resistance movements aligned against U.S. presence in Afghanistan; the U.S. is viewed as a foreign occupier.

Ultimately, as the U.S. grapples with other pertinent issues such as wage stagnation, healthcare funding, and education, the billions that were spent on the Afghanistan War has detracted from governmental investment in other vital areas. The sordid fact is that military and developmental projects in Afghanistan have not added incredible value to the Afghan society nor to U.S. security or the economy back home. The minimally estimated $ 3.7 trillion spent on both wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) has in no small part contributed to the explosion of U.S. national debt over the last decade. While the aim of the Afghanistan War is to make America safer by combating terrorism, we should not grant a carte blanche check, especially for a strategy that has an ill-defined purpose and exit strategy. This war is not over until it is over. If the U.S. intends to guard against Taliban takeover, it may have to station its limited military contingent there in perpetuity.

NAKE M. KAMRANY IS A PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, MEMBER OF CALIFORNIA BAR, AND FOUNDER OF GLOBAL INCOME CONVERGENCE GROUP (GIC-G) IN SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA.
SAM KOSYDAR IS A USC GRADUATE IN ECONOMICS AND LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS, AND A SENIOR RESEARCHER AT GIC-G.

NOTES:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/27/us/september-11-anniversary-fast-facts/

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011007-8.html

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

http://www.defense.gov/news/casualty.pdf

http://unama.unmissions.org/Portals/UNAMA/human%20rights/Feb_8_2014_PoC-report_2013-Full-report-ENG.pdf

http://costsofwar.org/sites/default/files/articles/14/attachments/War%20Related%20Casualties%20Afghanistan%20and%20Pakistan%202001-2014%20FIN.pdf

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

www.sigar.mil/pdf/special%20projects/SIGAR-15-40-SP.pdf

www.sigar.mil/pdf/quarterlyreports/2014-07-30qr.pdf

www.sigar.mil/pdf/audits/Financial_Audits/SIGAR-15-43-FA.pdf

www.sigar.mil/pdf/inspections/SIGAR-15-51-IP.pdf

www.sigar.mil/pdf/audits/SIGAR-15-55-AR.pdf

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS21922.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/world/asia/more-aggressive-role-by-us-military-is-seen-in-afghanistan.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/29/us-usa-war-idUSTRE75S25320110629

Popular in the Community

Close

What's Hot