9 ms·
What Did the U.S. Get for $2T in Afghanistan?
- Robotbeat 7y agoRevenge.
- DiabloD3 7y agoBetteridge's law states "nothing".
- yowlingcat 7y agoI'm almost inclined to agree but I think that would be optimistic. The U.S got a lot of collateral damage to itself and that region for $2T. That $2T fed and grew a now hopelessly bloated war-hawk adjacent bureaucracy that continues to weigh the country down and waste a significant portion of the very sizable lower to middle-class tax payments, not to mention stoke nativist fears and increased police militarization domestically and an ever-present domestic surveillance apparatus, which can't even keep its own intel safe. Afghanistan is another step in a long line of post WWII follies that stretches back to Vietnam and earlier. What a tremendous waste of resources.
- Simulacra 7y agoSomething that we did get was better positioning to launch intelligence operations in Iran. Afghanistan and Iran share a considerable border. It would presume that if the United States felt Iran was a threat, building some type of forward intelligence operation Afghanistan might be beneficial.
- jonwinstanley 7y agoIran is as much of a threat as Iraq and Afghanistan were
- at-fates-hands 7y agoThe problem is we want the Iranian people to stand up to the Mullahs, but if we press too much, they are a very, very nationalist people and will side with the Mulahs when push comes to shove for them. It's a balancing act on a razor's edge.
- LarryDarrell 7y agoThat's way too much nuance and understanding of the local setiment for Tom Clancy Strategists (or real generals, judging from the WaPo article today) to grasp.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- gerash 7y agoAre other nations any different? If you had a dictatorship in your country, would a foreign attack win your "hearts and minds"?
- graedus 7y ago> we want the Iranian people to stand up to the Mullahs How are you defining "we" here?
- at-fates-hands 7y agothe US government, the people who are nervous about Iran obtaining nuclear arms capability, the people who think Iran purposefully destabilizes the whole region, the people who don't like the fact Iran supports Russian proxy wars and finance more terrorism in the region and abroad then an other Middle Eastern country??
- georgeplusplus 7y agoYou can make this claim how? Do you have intelligence that supports they are not actively undermining the US and that their capabilities are of no concern? I severely doubt it.
- curiousgal 7y agoWait a minute, this does not sound as romantic as the "protecting our freedom" that gets thrown around whenever army justification is brought up! Are you telling me we've been collectively thanking numerous people for their effort to establish "better positioning to launch intelligence operations"?! /S On a more serious note, the only country with proven history of attacks on U.S. soil is Saudi Arabia and U.S. officials sure seem in bed with its rulers. So honestly, all this Iran crap is nothing but that; an utter load of crap.
- merpnderp 7y agoTo keep the peace the western coalitions have to pick someone. And who's been the better ally for peace, Saudi or Iran? It's fine to say Saudi is corrupt and not a good actor, but stepping away from them would mean widespread war in the ME.
- Spooky23 7y agoRealpolitik. Afghanistan had to be dealt with to avoid having a stateless state where actors like OBL could operate with impunity. US presence there is a thorn in the side of Iran, Russia, China, India and Pakistan. It sucks to be an Afghan, sandwiched between these sparring great powers.
- nine_zeros 7y agoRealpolitik. Since we enforce the standards of realpolitik, we should accept that Iran and North Korea will develop nukes. A real threat is the only way America listens. Unfortunate but America could've been the Dark knight. Instead, we chose to destroy lives, perpetuating the cycle of hatred forever.
- jbob2000 7y agoThey got to feed their industrial machine. That money re-entered the American and Global economies in ways that non-warfare economies could never provide. It was never about making the country peaceful or stopping al qaeda (though I’m sure there were realpolitik reasons, such as staving off Russian influence).
- stanski 7y agoCame here to say exactly this. Trying to quantify any positive effects on the country itself is completely pointless. It was never about helping Afghans. Mission accomplished.
- jjcc 7y agoI think both Bush and Obama administration had the intention to destroy terrorists. Otherwise why they kill Bean Ladden? The real problem is they along with all Western society make the situation worse by misunderstanding the human nature just like most doctors treat cancer by cutting a tumor without knowing more cancer will grow faster. Western countries collectively do the same thing again and again in Iraq, Libya, Syria (these are obvious list) and .... edit:fix typo
- rhacker 7y agoRaytheon, etc.. charge a $90MM for a complex project. They then pay the salaries of 100 people for 3 years for a total cost of $30MM. Where did the other $60M go? Raytheon top executives. To Recap: that $90MM mostly came from the 99% and 60% of it is now permanently in the hands of the 1%. We definitely don't have a modern day Robin Hood.
- wombatpm 7y agoOverhead. You have the salary of the people who do the work. Then the salary of the people who do the oversight, management, accounting, project management, training, compliance etc. So your $30MM in costs + $60MM in overhead (ie 200% which is sadly typical) and you are not even counting the %7 profit that can be baked in on top of the overhead numbers.
- rankingreborn 7y agoIt fuel industrial complex, now they know if they'll need it next time - where the shortcomings lie.
- benmarks 7y ago"The final total is unknown, but experts project another trillion dollars in costs over the next 40 years as wounded and disabled veterans age and need more services." Add to this the unquantifiable lost opportunity from dead civilians, dead soldiers...
- foxyv 7y agoActuarially speaking, the 2,372 American deaths in Afghanistan at 7 million per individual roughly cost about $17 billion dollars. A drop in the bucket compared to $3 trillion dollars. It's hard to see dollar figures and realize we are watching the productive lives of half a million people being spent so easily. Then again, we don't know the economic benefits we gained from the Afghanistan war so it's hard to balance the sheet. Maybe it netted us some benefit with regards to world trade we aren't seeing? Or maybe it only hurt us in that regard and $3 trillion is just the beginning? Then again this is just economics without considering the ethics of such "peacekeeping missions".
- munificent 7y agoWhat about the non-American deaths?
- yyhhsj0521 7y agoAs long as the US does not pay monetarily for non-American deaths, as cruel as it sounds they are not relevant to the US's budget.
- foxyv 7y agoIn my opinion, the US does more to prevent civilian deaths than any other superpower. The evidence is in the fact that an insurgency, using civilians as cover for their operations, and engaging in covert warfare are being routinely defeated by American forces. Of the people killed, only about 3.8% are non-combatants. I don't know how accurate that reporting is, but if true that is amazing. To compare, World War II saw something closer to a ratio of 2:1 civilian to soldier deaths. [1] https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/afghan https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/af...
- 0xADADA 7y agoCheaper heroin
- glofish 7y agobullshit jobs (but necessary jobs)! every $100 toilet lid or $100K grenade launcher purchased by the military trickles down to hundreds of jobs that otherwise would not exist. American capitalism is perhaps the most "socialist" society in the world. Imagine the pandemonium and social unrest that would happen if we wiped out half of the economy that produces weaponry. Literally there would be nothing to do for half of the population. It is the irony of being the world most efficient and productive society that it has to come with a built-in and pre-approved waste that acts as a channel to fund otherwise non-existing jobs. The genius is packaging this waste as "defense" Edit: I am amused by the number of downvotes on the post. Looks like the HN crowd hates the idea that military spending provides actual jobs.
- baybal2 7y ago> Imagine the pandemonium and social unrest that would happen if we wiped out half of the economy that produces weaponry. Take look no further than what has happened to USSR. Double digit of USSR economy was military economy, with most of it being so irrational, unreasonable and wasteful that it would've made F35 program a model of prudence and cadence in comparison. In my hometown we have a patrol boat that did cost the exchequer 160 million Union's roubles (almost $220M) just because it had a "super secret laser pointer" (12081 Aquilon) installed to blind enemy sensors. In real life, it can barely pop air baloons a kilometre away.
- SideburnsOfDoom 7y agoYet more more proof of the adage "never fight a land war in Asia" ?
- dullgiulio 7y agoI don't understand the downvotes, this comment is quite on point. Both the British and the Soviet ended up fighting in Afghanistan and regretting it. It's an historical fact, regardless of what you think of the US invasion.
- SideburnsOfDoom 7y agoI think the downvotes came because it comes across as a mere pop culture reference, which is frowned upon. Sorry. The Princess Bride, 1987: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LUUk6wVNrY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LUUk6wVNrY However when posting it, I was well aware that the quote is older than that: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/never_fight_a_land_war_in_Asia https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/never_fight_a_land_war_in_Asi... And that the Soviets and the British ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Anglo-Afghan_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Anglo-Afghan_War ) both found this out the hard way.
- SideburnsOfDoom 7y agoFurther to that, Afghanistan is sometimes called "The graveyard of Empires". https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Afghanistan-called-the-Graveyard-of-Empires https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Afghanistan-called-the-Graveyar... Apparently that hasn't changed yet.
- jakear 7y ago> $30 billion on other reconstruction programs > Much of that money was lost to corruption and failed projects. Back in HS we had a local veteran/father come in to our classroom to talk about things. What stuck with me the most was his experience with distributing aid funds to Afghan citizens. Apparently there was 0 accountability in this process: he would pick up a package of raw cash, take it to a school/hospital/whatever, hand it to some "in charge" person, and walk away. No contract, progress report requirement, or anything. Further, the recipient didn't even need to sign for the money, because of this he felt concerned that US Govt. might some day come after him on suspect of money mishandling, so he took pictures of him handing the money over to each person. He showed us the photos, but says the Govt. has never requested them, or any other confirmation that he didn't just pocket it all.
- e40 7y agoFurther, the recipient didn't even need to sign for the money I'm guessing a bunch of that money never made it to the intended targets.
- arethuza 7y agoI have a vivid memory of a BBC report where they reported on the scale of the operation for moving cash into Iraq: hundreds and hundreds of pallets of $100 bills - $12 billion in total. Guardian link to the same story: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1 363 tons of $100 bills!
- Fjolsvith 7y agoAnd $1.3b to Iran more recently: https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-sent-two-more-planeloads-of-cash-to-iran-after-initial-payment-1473208256 https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-sent-two-more-planeloads-of...
- iudqnolq 7y agoMoney the old government payed us for airplane parts we didn't deliver to the new government, plus interest, divided by around 10 because we had leverage. Also, (2016). In return, we got hostages on planes. Was it ransom disguised as a legally required transaction? Maybe. Was it effective? Iran did what we were asking in return, so...
- at-fates-hands 7y agoin a nutshell. . - We went after the Taliban and failed to extinguish its power and reach. - We attempted to equip and train afghan forces to defend and maintain peace in their own country and failed. I have several family members who have done numerous tours in the Middle East and they've referred to the Afghan "trainees" as "clowns" who don't care at all about what they've been tasked with doing. All they care about is getting a few extra dollars to give to their family. - We spent a ton of money of economic development but most of it was siphoned off because of corruption. - We spent a ton of money of additional reconstruction programs but most of that money was wasted because of poor planning and corruption. - And we spent a few trillions taking care of the vets who fought in the war. Not sure why this on the list, since you would think we should take care of our veterans regardless of what conflict they fought in. Despite all this money. . . Still, life has improved, particularly in the country’s cities, where opportunities for education have grown. Many more girls are now in school. And democratic institutions have been built — although they are shaky at best. To conclude, it would seem the Afghan people are just fine living under an oppressive regime in the Taliban, delight in taking the US money and siphon it off to their tribal leaders or families who are in positions of power and have no desire to be free or to even fight for their own freedom. The middle east has become a bottomless money pit and its time we get out and let these people fight their own wars and secure their own freedom on their own.
- ilikehurdles 7y agoIn 2004 and 2008, our involvement in and withdrawal from Middle Eastern wars was a divisive political campaign issue that decided the vote for some significant number of voters. Today we are still militarily involved in the same countries (and then some) and neither politicians nor voters seem to even care enough to report on. The time to leave the Middle East was well over a decade ago but no one in the mainstream challenges the state of engaging in perpetual military aggression.
- magduf 7y ago>- And we spent a few trillions taking care of the vets who fought in the war. Not sure why this on the list, since you would think we should take care of our veterans regardless of what conflict they fought in. No, not exactly: in an alternate timeline where we never invaded Afghanistan, the actual costs of taking care of vets would be much, much lower. We wouldn't have had nearly as many vets in the first place (recruiting goes way up when there's a conflict), plus the actual costs to take care of them go way up with a conflict because of all the damage they suffer (injuries, PTSD, etc.). Sure, we should take care of our vets, but the cost to do this is a small fraction when there was active conflict. The costs of taking care of our vets who served in the 1980s, for instance, is probably relatively puny, and the costs for taking care of our vets who served in the late 1990s is probably next to nothing.
- londons_explore 7y agoAm I not mistaken in saying that the USA has gotten the new afghan government to pay all the war costs in the form of issuing sovereign bonds? Those bonds may stay outstanding for decades or even centuries, but if afghanistan is ever successful in the future, they will end up paying for the whole war plus interest.
- yhoiseth 7y agoIt sounds very unlikely to me that the Afghan government would be able and willing to borrow that much money to pay the US. But perhaps you have a source for your claim?
- Analemma_ 7y agoDo you have a source for that claim? Because that's so absurd I think it must've come from one of Trump's 3 AM tweets. Afghanistan is never going to have $2T to give to the United States, and even if they did, they would rather just default on the bonds instead.
- freen 7y agoI wonder, how has that worked in the past? Beyond that, what's the rate of return relative to any other investment we might have made with $2 trillion? For comparison, what would it cost to eradicate hunger? Estimated at about $30 billion a year. I wonder what that would have meant?
- orbifold 7y agoIt did sort of work for Germany and the First World War.
- macintux 7y agoI've not heard anything to that effect, and I don't see any indication of that. Another article with no mention of it: https://newrepublic.com/article/155168/real-costs-war-afghanistan https://newrepublic.com/article/155168/real-costs-war-afghan... I'd be shocked if Afghanistan would ever be able to repay that amount of money.
- hd4 7y agoIsrael ended up a lot safer, so it wasn't all bad.
- nooron 7y agoHey, I don’t think anyone was invading Afghanistan on behalf of Israel, nor would anyone consider Afghanistan a significant security risk to Israel. This is a poor read of the situation
- pnako 7y agoAfghanistan is not a security risk to Israel; Iran is. Thus it's helpful to have aligned governments on both sides of Iran. There is virtually no benefit for Americans to be in Afghanistan.
- nooron 7y agoI hear your point. I agree we have been completely unsuccessful in Afghanistan. My point is that the commenter is naive in making this about Israel. American support for invading after 9/11 was foolish, but it was also extremely high. We did not invade or occupy to support Israeli security interests, we did it in support of our own and we were wrong.
- hd4 7y agoGood to see the satire detection capabilities of HN posters are alive and well :)
- deepgrave4 7y agoThe destruction of the middle east is an Israeli agenda. Thinking that the US government and its media apparatus gave us all the facts of 9/11 is a poor read of the situation. The official story is a farce. The entire explanation is absurd.
- nooron 7y ago
- rhacker 7y agoKnowing a modern war costs $2T means there are probably a lot more effective ways to take out bad leaders (bribes anyone?). What if the future of war was simply monetary leverage - no more boots on the ground. For example: Want to take out Mawlawi Hibatullah Akhundzada? Offer $40MM for the head. Has to be literally turned in.
- WhompingWindows 7y agoGreat, now you've handed $40 million to a bloodthirsty follower and new head of the organization. There's a reason we sent in our own troops to get Osama bin Laden.
- rhacker 7y agoOR That no one will trust and now the new leader is going to be double watching his own back. The corruption will dismantle the organization and lead to infighting and dissolution.
- dpatru 7y agoSending troops is more expensive and less effective. Troops cause collateral damage which results in more terrorists.
- emiliobumachar 7y agoOsama Bin Laden survived for years with a $20M bounty on information leading to his death or arrest, which presumably was also payable to his freelance assassin. He was ultimately killed by US soldiers themselves. No idea if any informants claimed the bounty. Does anyone know this?
- forgetfulusr 7y agoWho would feed the gunsellers then? I think they would very much like to keep the lights on, WaaS anyone?
- logfromblammo 7y agoIt's not like the fedgov spent that entire $2 trillion over there. Most of that got spent into the military-industrial complex, right here at home. The US got a jobs program for veterans, and a graft trough for the politically well-connected, operating "Beltway Baron" companies in the DC Metro, and the cities just outside of all military bases in the continental US. If it wasn't justified by suppressing support for terrorism in Afghanistan, it would have been justified by quashing drug smuggling by rebel factions in South America, or by protecting naval shipping routes near the Philippines, or some other pretext to keep pumping the tax money to the same old people. Not accomplishing the mission as publicly stated is a feature, not a bug, because it obviates the necessity to create some new problem that needs to be fixed with military force.
- abvdasker 7y agoI see astronomical figures like $2T and I wonder how anyone can seriously entertain the argument that the US cannot afford free health care for all of its citizens.
- ng12 7y agoThe US gov certainly can afford it but they'll pass the bill on to taxpayers all the same.
- jtbayly 7y agoThere is literally no other way to do it. The government gets its money through taxes.
- ng12 7y agoOr we could spend less on the military. If they need to raise taxes to pay for it they can't afford it.
- jtbayly 7y agoI think you're missing my point. The money still comes from taxes, which come from taxpayers, no matter what. Saying that the government can afford it is saying that we can afford it. The government doesn't have any money except ours.
- ng12 7y agoI'm not saying it doesn't. The grandparent's point was that the gov could spend the some of the $T it spends on the military on healthcare. My point is the gov is much more likely to fund healthcare through new taxes than to spend less on the military.
- spamizbad 7y agoWe have a tremendous appetite for risk when it comes to intervention. And we're extremely caution and austere when it comes to "investing" in our own citizenry. It's also amusing how we become extremely obsessed with who "deserves" government money, establishing kafkaesque means-testing protocols, but have little issue handing out billions of taxpayer money to non-citizens in foreign countries.
- Ididntdothis 7y agoI bet a significant chunk of the money went into the pockets of well-connected Washington insiders and their friends. People like Paul Manafort who lobby for any dictator who is willing to pay have a lot of influence. Defense companies probably made a lot of money too.
- georgeplusplus 7y agoThe purpose of he US being in the Middle East was, and still is, to challenge opposing interests in the region. Without the US there they would be looking at more russian/Chinese/Iranian influence which is evident by their expansion into Syria after the US’s departure. It’s hard to put a price on what that has meant in terms of was it worth the price they paid, but more stability in the region generally would mean more prosperity for Western developed nations simply from having a more stable dollar.
- JohnJamesRambo 7y ago“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” -Dwight Eisenhower farewell address I assume we got $2 trillion transferred to Halliburton and associated war companies.
- munificent 7y agoThis is exactly right. War in the United States exists now largely as a money laundering scheme to transfer taxpayer dollars to military contractors.
- jcomis 7y agoI've heard it described as we got a bunch of combat experienced veterans.
- paulie_a 7y agoA ton of debt.
- privateprofile 7y agoQuite likely, the US got a few billionaires that are now a bit richer at the taxpayers' expense. US General Smedley Butler explained it in simple terms in "War is a Racket" [1]: "War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes. In the World War a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their income tax returns no one knows. How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dugout? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried the bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle? " [1] https://gutenberg.ca/ebooks/butlersd-warisaracket/butlersd-warisaracket-00-h.html https://gutenberg.ca/ebooks/butlersd-warisaracket/butlersd-w...
- mnm1 7y agoTotally agree. And he's talking about WWII, a war the US was actually attacked in and defended itself, not a war purely for profit like Afghanistan. So knowing this, and you don't need to be a genius to understand his argument, why are we still honoring and thanking people for their "service," when their service is just to get a few people rich? Maybe we ought to consider that without the millions who are willing to fight and die to make a few people rich are part of the problem themselves, useful idiots. And maybe we need to respond to their actions in a more genuine way: with contempt and disdain. After all, all of our armed forces are volunteer based so no one is conscripted to kill for profit. The simply choose to. For their own little profit (free tuition, salary, pension, etc.) and for the profit of their billionaire masters. It's about time we stop glorifying war and the people that participate in it voluntarily.
- CptMauli 7y agoI bet if they would have just given each Afghan a monthly stipend of the same amount, there would have been peace in no time.
- drojas 7y agoWhat the U.S. got was a bad reputation and war profiteers got most of the $2T. Nowadays war is just another neoliberal business scheme
- Balgair 7y agoEveryone really should read the WP documents [0]. Michael Flynn's 'LESSONS LEARNED RECORD OF INTERVIEW'[1] is some astonishing reading. Yes, that Mike Flynn [2]. You really should read it yourself, but I'll summarize my impressions of it [3]. Flynn essentially makes the point that the total war effort was, start to finish, a chuckle-fuck. He goes into a few specific points and events for him. One event (the New Ansari Bank heist) reads more like a Clive Cussler paperback. Though he is picking out events that support his thesis, the summation he has is that The Beltway and White House have all but forgotten him and his efforts. And those sacrifices that others made, not just for the US, but for Canada, the UK, and Afghanistan proper. He specifically calls out the culture of 'blowing smoke up your ass' that was the reporting situation on the ground. Time and again, commanders only choose the rosy bit and leave out the mountain of shit. Time and again, new commanders come in, are flabbergasted at reality, and then do the same to their next in line. Honestly, the tone that I get is one of exhaustion. But, clearly in the RECORD, there is a simmer of hatred for the whole debacle. Personally, I get a whiff of vengeance. That RECORD was taken at 9am EST on Nov 10 2015. Exactly one month and two hours later, Dec 10 2015 7pm MSK, Mike Flynn is at dinner sitting directly next to, shoulder to shoulder with, Putin and Gorbachev[4]. Mike is very likely a traitor. But his testimony in the RECORD shows a very long, clear, logical, and sympathetic path towards his decisions. We should take note here, the Military is becoming frayed, badly so. NFL games and Applebee's discounts aren't making up the difference This war is intolerable to them. And we are seen as complicit. [0] Honestly, they are very approachable. Whomever is on their 'data viz' team is doing a great job. Somehow, very boring text documents become exciting. [1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/afghanistan-papers/documents-database/?document=flynn_michael_ll_11102015 https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Flynn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Flynn [3] Reminder, these records are what WP could publish at all and they state that these records are very 'sanitized'. Also, just reading the red highlights is good too. Really, read it. [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Flynn#/media/File:Vladimir_Putin,_Russia_Today_television_channel_(2015-12-10)_04.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Flynn#/media/File:Vlad...
- lumberingjack 7y agoI don't know what the United States got there but I can tell you I got post-traumatic stress disorder in Afghanistan. Throwing money at the problem was one of the worst things we can do I remember this one time a local Town had just been bought new fire trucks courtesy of the United States government local Taliban stole the trucks filled them with liquid propane and then blew up half our base.