3 ms·

What about the non-American deaths?

yyhhsj0521 7y ago
As 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 ago
  In 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...
adventured 7y ago
I fully agree with your emphasis about the deaths of non-Americans in the Afghanistan civil war with the Taliban. The US should never have attempted nation-building there, as it was guaranteed to fail (short of a 40-50 year occupation at hyper scale, a million soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars per year in cost; even that might not have been enough). The problem is, there is something dramatically worse than the US presence in Afghanistan and it's waiting in the wings. What do you think will happen to the people of Afghanistan when the Taliban regain control after the US leaves? The civilian deaths in Afghanistan are almost exclusively the result of the US attempting to keep the Taliban at bay, trying to keep them from de facto enslaving the entire population under an extreme theocracy and revoking all human rights. There are few groups more draconian, backwards, or more oppressive on this planet than the Taliban. They will rule Afganistan again in the near future, they'll reclaim all of the country rapidly. The only thing holding them back from mass-torturing the entire country again has been the US. There is nobody else willing to risk so much to try to stop the Taliban, nobody else will lift a finger to do anything about it as the US leaves.
foxyv 7y ago
Calculating economic costs should be done with respect to each nation. I would estimate Afghanistan suffered about $2.5 billion in losses from deaths of civilians and insurgents. However their GDP increased by 5x covering those losses in a month or two. From an economic standpoint losing the war was the best thing to happen to Afghanistan. From the perspective of its citizens and culture though I think you would have to ask them.

As 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 ago
In 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...

adventured 7y ago

I fully agree with your emphasis about the deaths of non-Americans in the Afghanistan civil war with the Taliban. The US should never have attempted nation-building there, as it was guaranteed to fail (short of a 40-50 year occupation at hyper scale, a million soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars per year in cost; even that might not have been enough). The problem is, there is something dramatically worse than the US presence in Afghanistan and it's waiting in the wings. What do you think will happen to the people of Afghanistan when the Taliban regain control after the US leaves? The civilian deaths in Afghanistan are almost exclusively the result of the US attempting to keep the Taliban at bay, trying to keep them from de facto enslaving the entire population under an extreme theocracy and revoking all human rights. There are few groups more draconian, backwards, or more oppressive on this planet than the Taliban. They will rule Afganistan again in the near future, they'll reclaim all of the country rapidly. The only thing holding them back from mass-torturing the entire country again has been the US. There is nobody else willing to risk so much to try to stop the Taliban, nobody else will lift a finger to do anything about it as the US leaves.

foxyv 7y ago

Calculating economic costs should be done with respect to each nation. I would estimate Afghanistan suffered about $2.5 billion in losses from deaths of civilians and insurgents. However their GDP increased by 5x covering those losses in a month or two. From an economic standpoint losing the war was the best thing to happen to Afghanistan. From the perspective of its citizens and culture though I think you would have to ask them.