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 With more than 80 percent of ground troops now withdrawn from their 2019 level, much of this cost savings is well on the way to being realized.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
Why SCOTUS won’t deter Trump’s desire to weaponize trade
Top image credit: U.S. President Donald Trump talks to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts on the day of his speech to a joint session of Congress, in the House Chamber of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., March 4, 2025. (REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque)

Why SCOTUS won’t deter Trump’s desire to weaponize trade

QiOSK

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court today ruled against the White House on a key economic initiative of the Trump administration, concluding that the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA) does not give the president the right to impose tariffs.

The ruling was not really a surprise; the tone of the questioning by several justices in early November was overwhelmingly skeptical of the administration’s argument, as prediction markets rightly concluded. Given the likelihood of this result, it should also come as no surprise that the Trump administration has already been plotting ways to work around the decision.

keep readingShow less
Trump Iran
Top image credit: Lucas Parker and FotoField via shutterstock.com

No, even a 'small attack' on Iran will lead to war

QiOSK

The Wall Street Journal reports that President Donald Trump is considering a small attack to force Iran to agree to his nuclear deal, and if Tehran refuses, escalate the attacks until Iran either agrees or the regime falls.

Here’s why this won’t work.

keep readingShow less
Russia McDonald's
Top image credit: A view shows self-service kiosks advertising the Big Hit burger, the new alternative to the Big Mac, at a restaurant of the Vkusno & tochka fast food chain, the Russian successor brand to McDonald's, in Moscow, Russia March 1, 2023. REUTERS/Evgenia Novozhenina

After four years, Russian inflation may be key to ending the war

Europe

This article is the first in a special series recognizing the four-year anniversary of the Ukraine War

Western travelers to Moscow often remark, with complete justification, on the sense of normalcy that the government has been able to sustain four years into the most dangerous, destructive war in Europe since 1945.

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.