Afghanistan: Each added soldier costs one million per year

There are signs popping up all over that Obama is going to change gears in Afghanistan. This Spring and during the campaign he was gung ho for a surge and sounded very much like Bush on steroids. Now the Obama administration is mounting all sorts of arguments as to why any new commitments to troops or spending must be limited. Also, there is a clear cry for an exit strategy and also reduction in aims. Clinton just said today that the main emphasis should be to get those who attacked the US. Of course that was Al Qaeda and there are estimated to be only about one hundred of them in Afghanistan! This NewYork Times article is virtually a compendium of arguments and rationales for a new policy. Obama may be about to make a great leap backwards as far as offensive warfare in Afghanistan is concerned. It seems that he is looking for some policy that will be the least damaging politically. As the article shows he is facing considerable resistance in his own party to any increase in troop levels. On the other hand the demand for more troops come from his own hand picked general. Obama faces a lose lose situation no matter what he does. Perhaps this explains the length of time it is taking to make a decision. Obama wants to make a decision that is least politically damaging to him at a time when he is losing popularity because of a number of different issues.

November 15, 2009
High Costs Weigh on Troop Debate for Afghan War
By CHRISTOPHER DREW
While President Obama’s decision about sending more troops to Afghanistan is primarily a military one, it also has substantial budget implications that are adding pressure to limit the commitment, senior administration officials say.

The latest internal government estimates place the cost of adding 40,000 American troops and sharply expanding the Afghan security forces, as favored by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top American and allied commander in Afghanistan, at $40 billion to $54 billion a year, the officials said.

Even if fewer troops are sent, or their mission is modified, the rough formula used by the White House, of about $1 million per soldier a year, appears almost constant.

So even if Mr. Obama opts for a lower troop commitment, Afghanistan’s new costs could wash out the projected $26 billion expected to be saved in 2010 from withdrawing troops from Iraq. And the overall military budget could rise to as much as $734 billion, or 10 percent more than the peak of $667 billion under the Bush administration.

Such an escalation in military spending would be a politically volatile issue for Mr. Obama at a time when the government budget deficit is soaring, the economy is weak and he is trying to pass a costly health care plan.

One senior administration official, who requested anonymity in order to discuss the details of confidential deliberations, said these concerns had added to the president’s insistence at a White House meeting on Wednesday that each military option include the quickest possible exit strategy.

...

.... some costs are unique to Afghanistan, where it can cost as much as $400 a gallon to deliver fuel to the troops through mountainous terrain.

..said Friday that it planned to cut up to 5 percent at domestic agencies in fiscal 2011 as part of an effort to reduce the federal budget deficit, which rose to $1.4 trillion with the economic stimulus and financial bailouts.

Several leading Republicans have criticized Mr. Obama’s willingness to spend more freely on domestic programs and urged him to provide General McChrystal with the resources he is seeking in Afghanistan.

.....
Representative John MurthaJohn Murtha, Democrat of Pennsylvania and chairman of a subcommittee on defense appropriations, said in an interview that because of concerns about President Hamid KarzaiHamid Karzai of Afghanistan, he thought a majority of the 258 Democrats in the House would vote against any bill to pay for more troops. “A month ago, I would have said 60 to 70,” he said.

...“....
During the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama was careful to say that he would not cut military spending while the nation was engaged in two wars. He also said it was important to shore up the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan. And shortly after he took office, he approved sending an additional 21,000 soldiers there, bringing the total American force to 68,000.

... he recently signed a $680 billion military authorization bill for fiscal 2010 that represented a 2.7 percent increase over the 2009 spending level and a 1.9 percent increase over President BushPresident Bush’s peak budget in fiscal 2008.

...