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 With more than 80 percent of ground troops now withdrawn from their 2019 level, much of this cost savings is well on the way to being realized.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
Ted Cruz
Top photo credit: Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) (Shutterstock/lev radin)

Ted Cruz's anti-Tucker pose for 2028 is truly a Jurassic Park dud

Washington Politics

Ted Cruz is reportedly planning on running for president. But which version?

The Tea Party Republican senator who once called the Iraq war a mistake, tried to appeal to non-interventionist Ron Paul libertarians, questioned Barack Obama’s authority to strike Syria, warned against U.S. military adventurism, who was also once the favored alternative to Donald Trump in the 2016 GOP presidential primary only to eventually capitulate to MAGA even after Trump insulted his wife?

keep readingShow less
Trump XI
Top image credit: Busan, South Korea – October 30, 2025: Chinese President Xi Jinping meets US President Donald Trump. carlos110 via shutterstock.com

Why China is playing it cool amid Trump's chaos

Asia-Pacific

Entering 2026, as President Donald Trump draws global attention to Venezuela, Iran, and Greenland, Beijing has been oddly included in debates over these issues.

Commentators have argued that they could create potential friction between the United States and China over regional influence in Latin America, the Middle East, and the Arctic. However, Beijing so far has largely adopted the “wait and see” approach and has instead been busy with rallying efforts to ensure a good start to its 15th Five-Year Plan and continuing anti-corruption campaign, especially in the military. Over the last weekend, two more members of China’s Central Military Commission were put under investigation, including the senior-most general Zhang Youxia.

keep readingShow less
China panama canal
Top photo credit: Parts of the Mirador de las Americas monument, commemorating 150 years of Chinese presence in Panama since the first migration for railway construction, is seen near the Panama Canal, in Arraijan, on the outskirts of Panama City, Panama, January 24, 2025. REUTERS/Enea Lebrun/File Photo

Panama court could trip Trump's wire over China linked ports

Latin America

During his inaugural address, President Donald Trump made very clear his thoughts on the Panama Canal: “We have been treated very badly from this foolish gift that should have never been made, and Panama’s promise to us has been broken.”

Chief among his concerns was that China was in effect operating the waterway. “We didn’t give it to China. We gave it to Panama, and we’re taking it back,” Trump said. And almost exactly one year later, a court decision may make Trump’s dream a reality.

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.