Follow us on social

google cta
42673011561_a64b201951_o

Staying in Afghanistan could cost another $49 billion

If Biden increases troops, it'll be more. We should be focused right now on the multiple domestic crises demanding our attention.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

A recent report by Vox suggests that a full troop withdrawal from Afghanistan by May 1 may be “off the table.” What a shame.

Not only would changing course from his predecessor break one of Biden’s campaign promises — his website still calls for an end to the “forever wars in Afghanistan and the Middle East” — it’s also a huge missed opportunity.

The casualties and lives lost over the last two decades are no doubt the greatest hardship to come from the United States overstaying its welcome in Afghanistan. But there’s another cost that is also quite significant — the financial one.

Brown University’s Costs of War project has documented in painstaking detail the sheer amount of money the United States has spent in Afghanistan, and it’s not a pretty picture. As the authors summarize, “Through Fiscal Year 2020, the United States federal government has spent or obligated $6.4 trillion dollars on the wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.” About half of that total can be attributed to Afghanistan alone.

Yet, perhaps more important than what has already been spent is how much could be saved. One of the issues with war spending is that costs don’t just stop when the military conflict comes to an end. Expenses compound over time, yes, because of accrued interest, but also because of ongoing expenses like physical and mental health care for injured veterans. For that reason, figuring out potential savings can be a challenge.

By the end of 2019, the Trump administration had done little — rhetoric notwithstanding — to alter the United States’ troop presence in Afghanistan. About 14,000 troops remained on the ground, far below the Obama-era peak, but also significantly above the 8,700 that remained when Trump took office.

A report I authored, Rethinking Afghanistan, estimated at the time that a full withdrawal from 14,000 to no troops had the potential to save between $210 and $386 billion over four years. This included not just direct war costs, but also increases to the base and Homeland Security budgets, additional veteran and disability obligations, and interest on all of the above. With more than 80 percent of ground troops now withdrawn from their 2019 level, much of this cost savings is well on the way to being realized.

But not all of it. That estimate also assumed that the drawdown would continue, leaving only a residual force of 1,000 troops — or none at all. All bets are off if Biden decides to ignore the May 1 deadline, or worse, reverses course entirely and increases ground troops in the name of ensuring the country’s safety.

Rerunning the numbers from that previous analysis gives a sense of what this course change would cost over the next couple of years. Assuming that the Biden administration continues on the current course and maintains a presence of 2,500 troops on the ground during the next two years, the result would be additional fiscal costs of between $33 and $49 billion, relative to a full withdrawal. Compared with a residual force of 1,000 troops, maintaining the status quo would still cost an additional $7-10 billion over the next two years.

Of course, it’s also not a guarantee that Biden would keep troop levels the same. For another point of comparison, it’s worth looking at a cost estimate if the Biden administration decides to double the current troop count to 5,000, maintaining that level through FY 2023. In that scenario, our actions could cost as much as $66-$98 billion, relative to a full withdrawal, and $39-59 billion compared with a more minimal troop presence. All of these costs include direct war expenses, projected increases in the base budget, more disability and mental health treatment for veterans, and of course, expected interest costs from borrowing to make these expenditures.

It’s easy to forget how as simple an action as keeping troops on the ground can have dramatic impacts at home. In addition to increased casualties of Americans and Afghans alike, putting off plans to leave the country also carries substantial fiscal cost at a time when the federal budget is already stretched to the max by the U.S.’s response to the pandemic.

New Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, speaking in his first public press conference last week, stated that “We are mindful of the looming deadlines, but we want to do this methodically and deliberately.” Point taken, but as Washington Post columnist David Ignatius put it recently, even if the cost of keeping a small force “appears relatively low… it’s Biden who will have to write a letter of condolence to the family of the first American who dies on his watch.”

After 20 years, the time has long come to save our lives and our treasure, and withdraw from Afghanistan once and for all.


U.S. Army paratroopers assigned to the 173rd Brigade Support Battalion, 173rd Airborne Brigade in 2018. (U.S. Army photo by Davide Dalla Massara)
google cta
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
As Iran strikes loom, US and UK fight over Indian Ocean base
TOP IMAGE CREDIT: An aerial view of Diego Garcia, the Chagossian Island home to one of the U.S. military's 750 worldwide bases. The UK handed sovereignty of the islands back to Mauritius, with the stipulation that the U.S. must be allowed to continue its base's operation on Diego Garcia for the next 99 years. (Kev1ar82 / Shutterstock.com).

As Iran strikes loom, US and UK fight over Indian Ocean base

QiOSK

As the U.S. surges troops to the Middle East, a battle is brewing over a strategically significant American base in the middle of the Indian Ocean.

President Donald Trump announced Wednesday that he would oppose any effort to return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, arguing that a U.S. base on the island of Diego Garcia may be necessary to “eradicate a potential attack by a highly unstable and dangerous [Iranian] Regime.” The comment came just a day after the State Department reiterated its support for the U.K.’s decision to give up sovereignty over the islands while maintaining a 99-year lease for the base.

keep readingShow less
defense tech trade shows
Top photo credit: United Arab Emirates Dubai October ‎14, ‎2024 GITEX GLOBAL global tech show (Tarek Ibrahim/Shutterstock)

In Silicon Valley, Hegseth is just one link in the brave new kill chain

Military Industrial Complex

The Special Competitive Studies Project (SCSP) expo is the marquee event of the military tech industry. All the big names in the “kill chain-meets-self-checkout” sector gather for this event in the Washington D.C. convention center annually.

Unfortunately I missed this year because they didn’t approve my registration. My article in these pages last year might have something to do with it.

keep readingShow less
Haiti
Top photo credit: A man protests holding a Haitian flag while Haitian security forces guard the Prime Minister's office and the headquarters of the Transitional Presidential Council (CPT) in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, February 6, 2026. REUTERS/Egeder Pq Fildor

Further US intervention in Haiti would be worst Trump move of all

Global Crises

Early last week, U.S. warships and Coast Guard boats arrived off the coast of Port-au-Prince, as confirmed by the American Embassy in Haiti. On land in the nation’s capital, tensions were building as the mandate of Haiti’s Transitional Presidential Council neared expiration.

The mandate expired Feb. 7, leaving U.S.-backed Prime Minister Alix Didier Fils-Aimé in power. Experts believe the warships were a show of force from Washington to demonstrate that the U.S. was willing to impose its influence, encouraging the council to step down. It did.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.