Afghanistan: The Economic Argument against Escalation

by Alex Thurston :: Filed Under Middle East / South Asia :: November 11th, 2008 @ 11:59 am EST

Derrick Crowe makes the economic argument against escalation in Afghanistan, and it’s a solid one:

If we cannot afford an extended, costly occupation of Iraq, we certainly can’t afford to escalate our presence in Afghanistan.

[snip]

President-elect Obama promises to “refocus our resources on Afghanistan,” a nation he refers to as “the central front in the war on terror.” But his alternative to the Bush Administration’s tunnel vision on Iraq - a “surge” into Afghanistan - will incur even more costs than the Iraq occupation.

Here’s the problem, via Thom Shanker at The New York Times:

“It is significantly more expensive to sustain each soldier in Afghanistan than in Iraq because of Afghanistan’s landlocked location and primitive road network.”

That one line spells out succinctly why we cannot afford an escalation in Afghanistan, but it only reflects the overt budget costs of redeploying American troops into the Afghan warzone.

In addition to the much higher logistical costs, the combat environment in Afghanistan is much more lethal for U.S. troops than Iraq. During 30 days ending on September 24, 2008, the hostile fire death rate for U.S. forces in Afghanistan was fifteen times higher than Iraq. Thus, in addition to a higher monetary cost, the Afghanistan occupation carries a much higher proportional cost in human lives, and that’s true even if we ignore a staggering civilian casualty rate.

Democratic critics of the current Iraq policy are correct: We can’t afford a long, expensive war in that country. But their proposed alternative strategy in the so-called War on Terror(TM) ignores the fact that an escalated Afghanistan occupation will be more expensive and more deadly than the Iraq war. If we cannot afford to continue President Bush’s Iraq policies, we certainly cannot afford an escalation in Afghanistan.

Now, I think the counter-argument would likely come in the following manner:

Who are you to put a price tag on freedom? We need to finish the job in Afghanistan in order to keep America safe.

But the economic argument is not the only piece of the puzzle. Rather, the economic argument complements the others that have been made against escalation. As British commanders have said, as Secretary Gates has said, as experts on the region have said, a diplomatic resolution will be necessary to end the conflict, not a purely military victory.

The economic argument adds urgency to the need for diplomacy. In human terms, we cannot afford to wait (or escalate) given the risks of completely destabilizing Pakistan and losing more American lives in a grueling, interminable conflict. And in financial terms, we also cannot afford to “stay the course” - or undertake a “surge” which many believe would not work.

And I don’t think that Derrick or I are going out on a limb for pointing these things out. The US military retains its capacity to defend our country, whether or not we occupy Afghanistan. If we ask the man or the woman in the street whether their desire for continued revenge against the Taliban or their economic worries here at home loom larger, I’d wager they care more about the latter. An endless occupation of Afghanistan has not made us safer; we should focus on coming to a diplomatic resolution, further isolating and destroying the remaining elements of Al Qaeda, and then bringing our soldiers home.