Afghanistan and Iraq: The Cost of the Forgotten Wars and Al Qaeda

By Brigitte L. Nacos

In a 2004 videotape message, Osama bin Laden boasted that it was easy to provoke the U.S., “lure it into perdition,” and inflict “human, financial, and political losses on America.” More importantly, he threatened that “[w]e are continuing to make America bleed to the point of bankruptcy, by God’s will.”

Certainly, the endless fight against bin Laden’s Al Qaeda, the terrorist group’s Taliban allies, and a host of other warlords of old and new jihadi cells has weakened America’s financial muscles. The fiscal situation of the United States has deteriorated in the years after the 9/11 attacks—in large part because of the horrendous costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. While news of those two wars have all but disappeared from the front pages and seem of little interest to the American public, the total cost of the Iraq and Afghan wars have surpassed the $1 trillion mark and are rising steadily. According to a recent count by the National Priorities Project, “[t]o date, the total cost of war that has been allocated by Congress is $1.05 trillion, with $747to Iraq and $299 to Afghanistan.” But there is is now a reversal in the spending for the two wars in that more is spent for the Afghan war than for the Iraq deployment. As USA TODAY reported, “Pentagon spending in February [2010], the most recent month available, was $6.7 billion in Afghanistan compared with $5.5 billion in Iraq.” In other words, the two wars combined cost the American taxpayers $12.2 billion in one single month! 

The question is: for what?

Iraq, at least, seems to be at a stage that allows further troop withdrawal and disengagement—although there is hardly a day without lethal political violence somewhere in the country.

Afghanistan looks like a bottomless hole that swallows $billions and $billions without changes for the better. It was telling that U.S. Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the commander of U.S.-led international forces in Afghanistan, characterized the situation in the Afghan war as a draw between coalition forces and insurgents during an interview with Jeffrey Brown of PBS the other day. This is an excerpt from the transcript of that conversation on the PBS NewsHour:

JEFFREY BROWN: As we sit here now, is the U.S., along with its allies, winning the war in Afghanistan?

GENERAL STANLEY MCCHRYSTAL: Well, I think that, in the last year, we have made a lot of progress.

I think I would be prepared to say nobody is winning, at this point. Where the insurgents, I think, felt that they had momentum a year ago, felt that they were making clear progress, I think that's stopped.

So, the U.S. has spent around $275 billion for the Afghanistan war so far—and more than 8 ½ years after that war began weeks after 9/11—to achieve a military draw with Taliban fighters and warlord gangs. If that and the fact that by now more than one thousand U.S. soldiers—1,069 to be precise and a total of 1,762 coalition troops--have been killed in Afghanistan does not give pause, what will?  

Inviting President Hamid Karzai and his cabinet to a Washington love-in after a period of tension between Washington and Kabul will not turn a thing around. Policy-makers need to reconsider what can and what cannot be achieved in Afghanistan. Pumping more troops and money into a country and a government that will not change with or without outside pressure does not make sense.

The original goal of the Afghan war was to go after Al Qaeda and Taliban in response to their roles in the 9/11 terrorist catastrophe. That objective has not been accomplished and cannot be accomplished in Afghanistan since the leaders of both groups are in neighboring Pakistan. In short, the original motive for going to war in Afghanistan needs to be the centerpiece of a new strategy for the region.

To return to the cost of the two wars and bin Laden’s desire for a war on terrorism that drives the United States into bankruptcy, the idea is not as ridiculous as it may seem at first sight. After all, paying for the war on terrorism abroad and at home has taken a bit bite of America’s financial resources.

Greece is today’s poster child for states that spend far more than they can afford, carry a heavy debt burden, and would be forced into bankruptcy without outside aid. But as David Leonhardt of the New York Times noted the other day, the fiscal situation of the United States is strikingly similar and may be worse in the future. According to Leonhardt, debt of the U.S. “is projected to equal 140 percent of gross national product within two decades. Add in the budget troubles of state governments, and the true shortfall grows even larger. Greece’s debt, by comparison, equals about 115 percent of its G.D.P. today.”

To be sure, paying for the two wars is not the only reason for America’ problems—George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the highest income groups and the introduction of private prescription drug insurance for Medicare recipients—a windfall for the insurance industry—are also part of the budget mess. 

Tell that to the Republican Tea Party crowd that relentlessly attacks the hated policies of the federal government. These patriots support the two wars. They do not want to repeal Bush’s tax cuts for the rich. And considering that many of them are of Medicare/Social Security age, they do not want to correct the prescription drug insurance gift to the insurance industry.

In short, whether there is a massive congressional turnover this fall or not--nothing drastic will be change in favor of domestic and security policies guided by reality and reason.