
What Did the U.S. Get for $2T in Afghanistan? - ssully
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/09/world/middleeast/afghanistan-war-cost.html
======
jakear
> $30 billion on other reconstruction programs > Much of that money was lost
> to corruption and failed projects.

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.

~~~
r00fus
The disparity between that and the government correcting me for being off on
my tax by $500 is breathtaking.

Obvious question - _cui bono?_

~~~
jessriedel
If the government is correcting an error for $500 on your taxes, its almost
certainly doing that using an automated system with very little human-time-
per-case for oversight. This is possible because of developed-world
infrastructure -- all relevant numbers are digitized and entered into
computers, all people are documented and contactable, etc. -- which is missing
in Afghanistan, so it's not super surprising.

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.

~~~
yyhhsj0521
If they have the software why not just send me a rundown of how much I owe and
I could just sign over to them how much they want.

Arghhh this frustrates me every tax season.

~~~
kindatrue
Because Intuit wouldn't make money if that happened.

[https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-
turbotax-20-year-f...](https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-
turbotax-20-year-fight-to-stop-americans-from-filing-their-taxes-for-free)

[https://priceonomics.com/the-stanford-professor-who-
fought-t...](https://priceonomics.com/the-stanford-professor-who-fought-the-
tax-lobby/) (and lost)

------
abvdasker
I see astronomical figures like $2T and I wonder how anyone can seriously
entertain the argument that the US cannot afford free health care for all of
its citizens.

~~~
brians
That’s over twenty years. So $100B/year. There are 0.3B of us. So that’s $3000
per person per year. That’s about what my employer pays for a BCBS elite HD-
HSA PPO for my group of relatively young, affluent, healthy tech workers in
Boston.

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...](https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/US_fed_spending_pie_chart),
and I think we should—but it’s not obvious how to do so or what to sacrifice.

~~~
braythwayt
The US pays more per citizen for healthcare than any civilized country in the
world, and gets poorer outcomes.

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.

------
benmarks
"The final total is unknown, but experts project another trillion dollars in
costs over the next 40 years as wounded and disabled veterans age and need
more services."

Add to this the unquantifiable lost opportunity from dead civilians, dead
soldiers...

~~~
foxyv
Actuarially speaking, the 2,372 American deaths in Afghanistan at 7 million
per individual roughly cost about $17 billion dollars. A drop in the bucket
compared to $3 trillion dollars.

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".

~~~
munificent
What about the non-American deaths?

~~~
yyhhsj0521
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
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/af...](https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/afghan)

------
JohnJamesRambo
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial
complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and
will persist.”

-Dwight Eisenhower farewell address

I assume we got $2 trillion transferred to Halliburton and associated war
companies.

~~~
munificent
This is exactly right.

War in the United States exists now largely as a money laundering scheme to
transfer taxpayer dollars to military contractors.

~~~
e12e
There's a long history of making war in the middle east for profit. See: the
crusades.

------
privateprofile
Quite likely, the US got a few billionaires that are now a bit richer at the
taxpayers' expense.

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...](https://gutenberg.ca/ebooks/butlersd-
warisaracket/butlersd-warisaracket-00-h.html)

~~~
mnm1
Totally agree. And he's talking about WWII, a war the US was actually attacked
in and defended itself, not a war purely for profit like Afghanistan. So
knowing this, and you don't need to be a genius to understand his argument,
why are we still honoring and thanking people for their "service," when their
service is just to get a few people rich? Maybe we ought to consider that
without the millions who are willing to fight and die to make a few people
rich are part of the problem themselves, useful idiots. And maybe we need to
respond to their actions in a more genuine way: with contempt and disdain.
After all, all of our armed forces are volunteer based so no one is
conscripted to kill for profit. The simply choose to. For their own little
profit (free tuition, salary, pension, etc.) and for the profit of their
billionaire masters. It's about time we stop glorifying war and the people
that participate in it voluntarily.

------
at-fates-hands
in a nutshell. .

\- 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.

~~~
magduf
>\- 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.

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.

~~~
at-fates-hands
>> 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...](https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20160804.056038/full/)

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...](https://www.bu.edu/sph/2019/03/18/gulf-war-veterans-aging-faster/)

~~~
magduf
>No, not really. Have you forgotten about the Gulf War Illness?

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.

------
logfromblammo
It's not like the fedgov _spent_ that entire $2 trillion _over there_. Most of
that got spent into the military-industrial complex, right here at home.

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.

------
0xADADA
Cheaper heroin

------
lumberingjack
I don't know what the United States got there but I can tell you I got post-
traumatic stress disorder in Afghanistan. Throwing money at the problem was
one of the worst things we can do I remember this one time a local Town had
just been bought new fire trucks courtesy of the United States government
local Taliban stole the trucks filled them with liquid propane and then blew
up half our base.

------
drojas
What the U.S. got was a bad reputation and war profiteers got most of the $2T.
Nowadays war is just another neoliberal business scheme

------
Simulacra
Something that we did get was better positioning to launch intelligence
operations in Iran. Afghanistan and Iran share a considerable border. It would
presume that if the United States felt Iran was a threat, building some type
of forward intelligence operation Afghanistan might be beneficial.

~~~
jonwinstanley
Iran is as much of a threat as Iraq and Afghanistan were

~~~
at-fates-hands
The problem is we want the Iranian people to stand up to the Mullahs, but if
we press too much, they are a very, very nationalist people and will side with
the Mulahs when push comes to shove for them.

It's a balancing act on a razor's edge.

~~~
graedus
> we want the Iranian people to stand up to the Mullahs

How are you defining "we" here?

~~~
at-fates-hands
the US government, the people who are nervous about Iran obtaining nuclear
arms capability, the people who think Iran purposefully destabilizes the whole
region, the people who don't like the fact Iran supports Russian proxy wars
and finance more terrorism in the region and abroad then an other Middle
Eastern country??

------
Ididntdothis
I bet a significant chunk of the money went into the pockets of well-connected
Washington insiders and their friends. People like Paul Manafort who lobby for
any dictator who is willing to pay have a lot of influence. Defense companies
probably made a lot of money too.

------
jcomis
I've heard it described as we got a bunch of combat experienced veterans.

------
SideburnsOfDoom
Yet more more proof of the adage "never fight a land war in Asia" ?

~~~
dullgiulio
I don't understand the downvotes, this comment is quite on point. Both the
British and the Soviet ended up fighting in Afghanistan and regretting it.
It's an historical fact, regardless of what you think of the US invasion.

~~~
SideburnsOfDoom
I think the downvotes came because it comes across as a mere pop culture
reference, which is frowned upon. Sorry.

The Princess Bride, 1987:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LUUk6wVNrY](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...](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/never_fight_a_land_war_in_Asia)

And that the Soviets and the British (
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Anglo-
Afghan_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Anglo-Afghan_War) ) both found
this out the hard way.

~~~
SideburnsOfDoom
Further to that, Afghanistan is sometimes called "The graveyard of Empires".
[https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Afghanistan-called-the-
Graveyar...](https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Afghanistan-called-the-Graveyard-of-
Empires)

Apparently that hasn't changed yet.

------
CptMauli
I bet if they would have just given each Afghan a monthly stipend of the same
amount, there would have been peace in no time.

------
paulie_a
A ton of debt.

------
Robotbeat
Revenge.

------
Balgair
Everyone really should read the WP documents [0].

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/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/afghanistan-
papers/documents-database/?document=flynn_michael_ll_11102015)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Flynn](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...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Flynn#/media/File:Vladimir_Putin,_Russia_Today_television_channel_\(2015-12-10\)_04.jpg)

------
DiabloD3
Betteridge's law states "nothing".

~~~
yowlingcat
I'm almost inclined to agree but I think that would be optimistic. The U.S got
a lot of collateral damage to itself and that region for $2T. That $2T fed and
grew a now hopelessly bloated war-hawk adjacent bureaucracy that continues to
weigh the country down and waste a significant portion of the very sizable
lower to middle-class tax payments, not to mention stoke nativist fears and
increased police militarization domestically and an ever-present domestic
surveillance apparatus, which can't even keep its own intel safe.

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.

------
glofish
bullshit jobs (but necessary jobs)! every $100 toilet lid or $100K grenade
launcher purchased by the military trickles down to hundreds of jobs that
otherwise would not exist.

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.

~~~
baybal2
> Imagine the pandemonium and social unrest that would happen if we wiped out
> half of the economy that produces weaponry.

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.

------
hd4
Israel ended up a lot safer, so it wasn't all bad.

~~~
nooron
Hey, I don’t think anyone was invading Afghanistan on behalf of Israel, nor
would anyone consider Afghanistan a significant security risk to Israel. This
is a poor read of the situation

~~~
deepgrave4
The destruction of the middle east is an Israeli agenda. Thinking that the US
government and its media apparatus gave us all the facts of 9/11 is a poor
read of the situation. The official story is a farce. The entire explanation
is absurd.

~~~
nooron
I think there is strong contrary evidence for this claim. Please don’t think
I’m shilling for Likud when I share it, I’m also very opposed to US foreign
adventurism.

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.

------
jbob2000
They got to feed their industrial machine. That money re-entered the American
and Global economies in ways that non-warfare economies could never provide.

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).

~~~
rhacker
Raytheon, etc.. charge a $90MM for a complex project. They then pay the
salaries of 100 people for 3 years for a total cost of $30MM. Where did the
other $60M go? Raytheon top executives.

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.

~~~
sdinsn
> that $90MM mostly came from the 99%

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.

~~~
rhacker
> And we shouldn't. Stealing from the rich is still stealing.

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.

~~~
sdinsn
> It is implemented via taxes

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?

------
rhacker
Knowing a modern war costs $2T means there are probably a lot more effective
ways to take out bad leaders (bribes anyone?). What if the future of war was
simply monetary leverage - no more boots on the ground.

For example: Want to take out Mawlawi Hibatullah Akhundzada? Offer $40MM for
the head. Has to be literally turned in.

~~~
WhompingWindows
Great, now you've handed $40 million to a bloodthirsty follower and new head
of the organization. There's a reason we sent in our own troops to get Osama
bin Laden.

~~~
rhacker
OR That no one will trust and now the new leader is going to be double
watching his own back. The corruption will dismantle the organization and lead
to infighting and dissolution.

------
londons_explore
Am I not mistaken in saying that the USA has gotten the new afghan government
to pay all the war costs in the form of issuing sovereign bonds?

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.

~~~
freen
I wonder, how has that worked in the past?

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?

~~~
orbifold
It did sort of work for Germany and the First World War.

