What Did the U.S. Get for $2T in Afghanistan?
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
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.
Guardian link to the same story:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1
363 tons of $100 bills!
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-sent-two-more-planeloads-of...
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...
Obvious question - cui bono?
My uncle was in a few cash-heavy businesses (laundromat + plumber) he was audited annually, especially on the laundromat side.
Edit: Woah, HN, you have truly gone crazy. My comment is an explanation for why accountability is so much harder in Afghanistan than the developed world. It is not a general defense all US tax-collection procedures, and it is especially not a place for you to vent frustration about how the lack of pre-filled-out returns in the US benefits tax software makers.
Arghhh this frustrates me every tax season.
https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-turbotax-20-year-f...
https://priceonomics.com/the-stanford-professor-who-fought-t... (and lost)
Your tax return includes all those that might not be reported.
For example of you are doing small non w2 jobs on the side that you haven't received a 1099 for, the IRS had no way of knowing about those without an audit.
I'm guessing a bunch of that money never made it to the intended targets.
I think this was highly dependent on a) where you were in-country and b) when you were there. There were some controls put in place, and a lot of it came from the State Department (?), by the time I left. Asking for “progress reports” would’ve been a completely futile endeavor though. It’s hard to describe ... they just don’t keep records, and the ones they kept were usually fake or highly “influenced”. I remember one “contract” we gave out to some locals for building culverts in roads with drainage problems (Afghanistan is pretty mountainous in places, so only dirt roads exist and the soil isn’t that great). They built a couple and then just disappeared. When we asked some folks about where they went we’d get blank stares, like they didn’t know who we were talking about.
Wild place.
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.
US didn't have to invade Afghanistan, but it did.
US doesn't have to provide free health care, and it probably won't.
Of course we can afford free health care for our citizens in the US -- but our leadership favors corporate welfare over citizen welfare and that is unfortunate. Corporate welfare is also welfare, it just doesnt get evenly distributed across US citizenry. You need to drive around McLean Virginia and see the houses to see the types of places where the money ends up.
On a side note -- many of the giant figures are not cash that we literally give from US coffers, but loans to these countries that come right back to companies in the US. The loans have a side "benefit" in that the loans allow us to dictate affairs overseas via loan covenants we can relax for this or that. If the loan cannot be repaid, only then it comes from US coffers (but the money never really went overseas, it just got re-distributed in the US.)
I think that's dramatically underselling the American voter's role in all of this. Many, many Americans balk at the prospect of raising taxes to pay for universal healthcare. But those same people shrug indifferently to the enormous costs to sustain the US military and the tremendous costs of campaigns such as Afghanistan.
So yes there is a whole segment of American politicians who are working hard to carve out tax cuts for billionaires while having not a care for the millions without healthcare. But I find that a lot of people are actively opposed to the government 'taking over healthcare' or they're scared of the price tag for universal healthcare. They're part of the reason we don't have it.
I think that's dramatically understating these American voters' role in this and their reaction to anything that can be dubbed "socialism". They happily vote for candidates who push for enormous "corporate welfare" to defense contractors, and scream bloody murder if anyone suggests using any public money at all to pay for someone else's healthcare.
American voters are getting exactly what they're voting for.
>They're part of the reason we don't have it.
They are the reason we don't have it.
As I frequently like to remind people, every nation gets the government it deserves.
We have a serious information problem, or lack thereof.
If people were truly informed on some of the issues, I can't imagine soany issues would be so divisive.
I think setting up some kind of reporting requirents to divorce opinion and pundits from actual journalistic news would be a start.
A perfect example is the turmoil inside the fox news network right now. If you watch the actual newscasters/journalists you will believe the obvious truth that Trump was ordering funds withheld to get negative press for the Democrats and Bidens from Ukraine. (Whether that rises to impeachment level is up for debate and tangential to my point).
If you watch only the fox news pundits (which are most of the primetime lineup) you will believe that it's all totally made up and even that the impeachment process itself is somehow unconstitutional and some sort of coop. Which is just completely divorced from reality.
This same thing plays out everyday on countless issues on both sides and is being controlled by a small handful of powerful people that are manipulating viewers for their own gain.
I seem to remember multiple presidential primaries in the US where progressive candidates get side-lined within the party as either un-electable (long before actually competing at polling stations) or get kicked out due to technicalities meant to steer watered-down right-centrists into the general election.
I'm not talking about some right-wing conspiracy, I'm talking about basic mechanics of the electoral process that are unfair at the party level, in media, etc.
As one example, I might cite how current candidate Andrew Yang barely gets time to speak at debates while others polling at the same level get 2x or 3x as many minutes to speak.
Another example might be the way Bernie Sanders was all but eliminated by backstage machinations in the Democratic party in 2015/2016. How are voters supposed to vote for true progressive candidates who want to change the system in a major way if they cant even compete on an even playing field
The fact that voters don't have much choice is their own fault. It's their job to reform the system if they don't like it.
>I seem to remember multiple presidential primaries in the US where progressive candidates get side-lined within the party as either un-electable
Again, this is the voters' fault. If they don't like it, they should do more to change it.
>How are voters supposed to vote for true progressive candidates who want to change the system in a major way if they cant even compete on an even playing field
If the citizens of a country don't like the way the elections are run, it's their job to change it, by whatever means are necessary. That is what it means when I say that every nation has the government it deserves. This applies to every nation (except maybe occupied ones), no matter what kind of government it has. The citizens are the ones who ultimately have the power, so if their government sucks, it's their own fault.
I find that Libertarian leaning people definitely look at the universal healthcare as something that shouldn't be a public good.
Each state could make its own laws and to that point I think some will make some movement on that front if universal healthcare efforts falter.
I don't know much important it was, I also don't don't if he or Obama fulfiled the promise to any degree. But it was there.
Not just McLean. Google "wealthiest counties in the US". It's no surprise they're in VA and MD, all suburbs of Washington DC.
It doesn’t come close to covering all of it.
There are 3M nurses and 1M doctors in the US. That $100B/yr could pay each $25k in salary, and cover no equipment.
Let’s say we want to pay nurses $150k and doctors $250k, good middle class salaries comparable to tech incomes. You need $700B per year.
That’s not impossible to find at https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/US_fed_spending_pie_cha..., and I think we should—but it’s not obvious how to do so or what to sacrifice.
Many people stay at their jobs because of healthcare. Period. Either they don't want to lose it, or don't want to lose some aspect of it. How many startups aren't started? How many dreams aren't filled? How much value isn't created?
That’s not enough for one full monthly premium payment on the ACA exchanges.
However, the average ACA subsidy per person on the marketplace varies tremendously by State, but is typically well above $333 per month.
https://www.kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/average-mo...
What would the additional costs of universal health care be, and would 100B/year cover it? Currently about 27m Americans do not have health insurance. 100B would yield about $3,700 per person which is probably about enough to do it.
Regardless of the rest of the logic, those are not middle class salaries. They aren't even middle class household (i.e. 2x earners) incomes in almost all of the country.
Tech salaries are a terrible benchmark for a lot or reasons, but those are well above average tech salaries also.
There is a LOT of room for lowering your costs and improving your outcomes when you’re ready to redesign it. But yeah, if you just try to duct tape over a crack here, and bolt a new feature on there, nothing seems to work.
None of this necessarily means we shouldn't do it. Healthcare is expensive, but certainly many countries do have more of the cost covered by the government, but you can't see a big number and assume that was paid and assume it would pay for healthcare
The plan Warren is suggesting which I think would closest fit the definition of "free health care for all" - though not perfectly [1] would be 59T over 10 years or 5.9T/year.
Note also that the way these programs are funded is very different [2]. Things in the "Mandatory" funding category like Social Security and Medicare aren't funded year to year, but are ongoing expenses that you have to change entitlement laws to make changes to, so they are incredibly hard to change.
The Department of Defense is funded out of the "Discretionary" category which can change from year to year and is based on a different process which is not subject to the same laws.
[1] https://www.vox.com/2019/11/1/20942587/elizabeth-warren-medi...
[2] https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/topics/federal-e...
[1] https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/R143.pdf#page=20
[2] https://www.ssb.no/nasjonalregnskap-og-konjunkturer/statisti...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-30/study-med...
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-a...
So, the difference may not be much... But consider it's the cost of the entire war every single year, that's just insane at any level.
I think the only solution is to lower the actual costs. No where else in the world does it cost so much. Something is fishy...
Add to this the unquantifiable lost opportunity from dead civilians, dead soldiers...
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".
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.
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?
[1] https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/af...
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.
Oh, but we do. All the 5000 sq ft McMansion houses in and around the DC area (NoVA & Potomac mostly), built and owned by employees of defense contractors, and the inheritance that their kids will get in a few decades.
And some trickle down of course, in areas where those people choose to spend their money, restaurants and hotels.
1) Increased military presence allowing us to extend our economic power to the region.
2) Increased perception of our willingness to engage in war, reducing other nations willingness to increase tariffs on the USA or argue with our own.
3) Stronger hold on oil producing regions, reducing OPEC and Iranian influence on energy production.
4) Intimidation of nations willing to engage in war on our military and economic allies.
5) Etc...
-Dwight Eisenhower farewell address
I assume we got $2 trillion transferred to Halliburton and associated war companies.
War in the United States exists now largely as a money laundering scheme to transfer taxpayer dollars to military contractors.
Someone should start an ETF focused on regulatory capture.
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-w...
- 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.
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.
No, not really. Have you forgotten about the Gulf War Illness?
In the 25 years since Desert Storm, about 250,000 of the almost 700,000 involved in the Gulf War 1 theater have suffered from some version of the complex of symptoms now called Gulf War Illness. This illness was discussed in a recent symposium co-hosted by the Brookings Institution and Georgetown University Medical Center.
While Desert Storm battle casualties were light, military personnel were exposed to various chemical and biological agents. These included Pyridostigmine Bromide, to prevent the effects of nerve gases which had been used previously by Iraq; organophosphate pesticides (such as DEET) which were embedded in clothing; particulate airborne matter from oil fires; and, possibly sarin exposure from a plume arising from an Iraqi munitions depot at Khamasiyah.
https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20160804.05603...
There's also new studies claiming Gulf War vets are aging faster as well:
“Gulf War veterans are showing accelerated aging patterns resulting in more and earlier chronic medical conditions than the general population of civilians,” says study senior author Kimberly Sullivan, research assistant professor of environmental health. “There is precedent for this type of toxicant-induced disorder in veterans from other wars. For instance, many Vietnam veterans developed chronic conditions of high blood pressure, diabetes, and many types of cancers that were related to exposure to Agent Orange.”
https://www.bu.edu/sph/2019/03/18/gulf-war-veterans-aging-fa...
No, I didn't forget, but I disagree that it cost much to deal with. As I remember, the VA just completely ignored it, so it probably didn't cost the taxpayer much at all. Sure, it was terrible for the vets who suffered with it, but that's a different matter.
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.
It's a balancing act on a razor's edge.
How are you defining "we" here?
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.
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.
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.
The Princess Bride, 1987: 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_Asi...
And that the Soviets and the British ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Anglo-Afghan_War ) both found this out the hard way.
Apparently that hasn't changed yet.
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/...
[2] 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:Vlad...
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.
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.
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.
They have a $400b economy, trillions in wealth, and are set to become one of the 10 or 15 most affluent nations in world history. Their GDP per capita has gone from $20k in 2005 to $43k today (roughly passing Britain) and will soon surpass Canada, Germany, France etc. on its way to $60k in the next dozen years. The development approach they've been running is working extremely well (combined with a small population). If we were speaking only in economic terms, you'd need $10+ trillion to do it.
Now add on to that that the Israelis specifically want to be there for serious religious reasons and there is no way they're ever leaving willingly.
Baja Mexico would be a more logical relocation btw, assuming Mexico would sell the territory for some very large price.
There is virtually no benefit for Americans to be in Afghanistan.
Invading Iraq was broadly popular among Americans with strong interests in Israeli security, but it was broadly unpopular in Israel’s military establishment. The closest thing to the Israeli military establishment’s consensus view was that invading and occupying Iraq was a poor choice for their own security. Given that, I cannot see why they would agitate for it. I also cannot see how, since the US decision processes that lead to Iraq 2, which were farcical, are well documented and do not suggest that Israel agitated for the invasion and occupation.
There are plenty of things to be mad at the Israeli government for. This is not one of them.
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).
Mission accomplished.
Western countries collectively do the same thing again and again in Iraq, Libya, Syria (these are obvious list) and ....
edit:fix typo
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.
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.
Is that really surprising? The 1% still pays ~38% of taxes by the way.
> We definitely don't have a modern day Robin Hood.
And we shouldn't. Stealing from the rich is still stealing.
They also have 40% of the wealth, so I think that's pretty reasonable.
I was speaking of "modern day Robin Hood" as a concept. It is implemented via taxes, but this whole example shows how flawed it is. Also who are you? the Robin Hood story characterizes Robin Hood as the hero because the rich were taking money in bad and terrorizing ways. If you want to take my robin hood concept literally, then take my example of the rich implementing programs and policies as literally terrorizing too.
The purpose of taxes isn't to take from the rich and give to the poor.
> Also who are you?
Huh? I'm nobody, why are you asking?
For example: Want to take out Mawlawi Hibatullah Akhundzada? Offer $40MM for the head. Has to be literally turned in.
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.
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?
I'd be shocked if Afghanistan would ever be able to repay that amount of money.