3 ms·
> Actuarially speaking, the 2,372 American deaths So what about the Afghan civilians? That there is no obvious gain for the country at large means the gain is
by r00fus 7y ago
> Actuarially speaking, the 2,372 American deaths
So what about the Afghan civilians?
That there is no obvious gain for the country at large means the gain is either so subtle as to be imperceptible, or that the people who gained don't want it known that they did.
- foxyv 7y agoThe economic cost in lives for Afghanistan is either incredibly high, or incredibly low, depending on how you look at it. Afghanistan is ridiculously poor. We spent $3 trillion dollars, invading a country that has a GDP of $2 billion. Life is cheap in such countries, both economically and figuratively. Pre war Afghanistan had a pre-war per capita GDP of $112 or about $10,000 lifetime earnings per person. At 250,000 Afghan lives lost this is about $2.5 billion in lost productive effort by a mixture of insurgents and civilians who are hard to separate out. Post war Afghanistan has a Per Capita GDP of $600. Economically speaking Afghanistan is about 5 times better off. Whether that means they are actually better off is a matter of opinion. Is that worth the lives of a quarter million of your citizens? Is it better to be an independent but poor country? Or to be a country dependent on aid from a richer nation that invaded you?