(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); You must login or register to view this content.


You must login or register to view this content.


WASHINGTON — The monthly cost of the war in Afghanistan, driven by troop increases and fighting on difficult terrain, has topped Iraq costs for the first time since 2003 and shows no sign of letting up.
Pentagon spending in February, the most recent month available, was $6.7 billion in Afghanistan compared with $5.5 billion in Iraq. As recently as fiscal year 2008, Iraq was three times as expensive; in 2009, it was twice as costly.

The shift is occurring because the Pentagon is adding troops in Afghanistan and withdrawing them from Iraq. And it's happening as the cumulative cost of the two wars surpasses $1 trillion, including spending for veterans and foreign aid. Those costs could put increased pressure on President Obama and Congress, given the nation's $12.9 trillion debt.

"The overall costs are a function, in part, of the number of troops," says Linda Bilmes, an expert on wartime spending at Harvard University. "The costs are also a result of the intensity of operations, and the number of different places that we have our troops deployed."

MORE: U.S. reviews Afghan watchdog authority
DATABASE: A look at lives lost in Iraq, Afghanistan
THE OVAL: Play-by-play of Obama, Karzai meeting
Obama made clear Wednesday that the U.S. role in Afghanistan would remain long after troops are withdrawn, a process planned to begin in July 2011. "This is a long-term partnership," he said during a news conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Continued American support will be crucial as U.S. troop levels and costs in Afghanistan escalate:

•The number of U.S. servicemembers in Afghanistan has risen to 87,000, on top of 47,000 from 44 other countries. At the same time, the number of U.S. servicemembers in Iraq has dropped to 94,000. By next year, Afghanistan is to have 102,000 U.S. servicemembers, Iraq 43,000.

•Afghanistan will cost nearly $105 billion in the 2010 fiscal year that ends Sept. 30, including most of $33 billion in additional spending requested by Obama and pending before Congress. Iraq will cost about $66 billion. In fiscal 2011, Afghanistan is projected to cost $117 billion, Iraq $46 billion. To date, Pentagon spending in Iraq has reached $620 billion, compared with $190 billion in Afghanistan.

•Costs per servicemember in Afghanistan have been roughly double what they are in Iraq since 2005. That is due to lower troop levels, Afghanistan's landlocked location, lack of infrastructure, high cost of fuel and less reliable security. "The cost just cascades," says Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. "That's always been an issue in Afghanistan."

"Iraq, logistically, is much easier," says Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress. "You get the stuff to Kuwait and just drive it up the road."

Source:
You must login or register to view this content.

When the hell did countries become private police departments? Dont get me wrong, I agree in doing what ever it takes to protect our country and its citizens, but what happened to fighting a war? Back in the day (WWI and WWII) countries did not send troops to show how many they had. They send troops to fight and get out and did so in such a manner that countries bonded together. After both world wars, there was a appriciation between countries, now however, there's recentment. If countries (mainly the US) would go in and take care of business, then left as soon as it was pausable, the wars would cost less, countries would not over stay their welcome and IMO less people would lose their lives.

Good post, thanks for sharing

You must login or register to view this content.

The Taliban and AL Quida attacked us, so we are removing them from the face of the Earth.

They think they can get off with doing this sorry shit, think again.

no I agree, what Im saying is: to get in, finish it and move on, if we went in with the mind set to finish it, (now Im not talking about our soldiers-they're doing their job, its all in Washington) then something would get done. Look at WWII-we went in, we did our job and left, we did not linger around allowing the enemies to strengthen in forces every other month, then re-fight them. The soldiers at that time, went in, killed as many enemies and forced them to forfeit. This is the way the war should be fought and IMO we wouldnt need to fight a losing battle year after year. Im all for the war to eliminate the threat of our country

Sounds good.

Sorry, theres so many people that lost sight of what happened that day, or they think it was a government conspiracy. I see peace stuff on clothing everywhere, and when I see that I see that your going against the soldiers and what they are there for. Peace is good, but wearing a peace sign during war doesn't do well with me. It reminds me a lot of Vietnam where the vets fought for their country and were spit on when they came back.

Well this 'war' is really unorganized. In Iraq we are more of a policing unit than anything and in Afghanistan you just got some radicals.