Amid the tragic scenes from Kabul this week in the aftermath of the Taliban’s complete takeover of Afghanistan, those on cable news programs and beyond claiming the U.S. military should never have left are rarely, if ever, asked key questions about what that actually would mean in practice.
How long would we have to stay? And at what cost?
Aside from American military casualties that would result in the likely event that the Taliban begin attacking U.S. troops again after having broken the 2020 Doha peace deal, or the billions upon billions it would cost to maintain an indefinite presence in Afghanistan propping up an illegitimate government rotted to the core with corruption, a new report from Brown University’s Costs of War projects points to perhaps another hidden price tag: long-term care for veterans.
The report estimates that from 2001 to 2050, it will cost U.S. taxpayers between $2.2 and 2.5 trillion to care for veterans of America’s post-9/11 wars, and that “the majority of the costs associated with caring for post-9/11 veterans has not yet been paid and will continue to accrue long into the future.”
According to the Costs of War project, “Expenditures to care for veterans doubled from 2.4 percent of the federal budget in FY 2001 to 4.9 percent in FY 2020, even as the total number of living veterans from all U.S. wars declined from 25.3 million to 18.5 million.” The total costs won’t peak “until decades after the conflict, as veterans’ needs increase with age.”
The report recommends establishing a fund to track and set aside money that will be needed for the long-term care of these vets.
Ben Armbruster is the Managing Editor of Responsible Statecraft. He has more than a decade of experience working at the intersection of politics, foreign policy, and media. Ben previously held senior editorial and management positions at Media Matters, ThinkProgress, ReThink Media, and Win Without War.
President Joe Biden talks with Ret. Michigan Army National Guard Cpl. Bobby Body Friday, Jan. 29, 2021, at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. Cpl. Body was injured in February of 2006 while deployed to Iraq where he suffered a left above knee amputation and multiple other soft tissue injuries from a mounted improvised explosive device. (Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz)
Donald Trump’s nominee for U.S. secretary of state said this week that he wants the war between Ukraine and Russia to end.
“It is important for everyone to be realistic: there will have to be concessions made by the Russian Federation, but also by Ukrainians,” said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) during his Senate confirmation hearing on Wednesday. “There is no way Russia takes all of Ukraine.”
He added that “there's no way Ukraine is also going to push these people all the way back to where they were on the eve of the invasion.”
He also said sending American aid to Ukraine “for however long it takes” is “not a realistic or prudent position,” sentiment that echoes what Trump has said.
Trump had previously promised to end the conflict within 24 hours of taking office, but his incoming Ukraine envoy, Keith Kellogg, later amended that timeline to 100 days.
The establishment consensus in the U.S. and Europe on the Ukraine war has slowly evolved as the conflict moves increasingly toward Russia’s favor.
“We need a cease-fire line, and of course ideally this (the Ukrainian part) should include all areas currently under Russian control. But we see that this may not be realistically achievable in the immediate future,” former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said in December. He added, “if the cease-fire line means that Russia continues to control all occupied territories, this does not mean that Ukraine has to give up the territory forever.”
Ukrainian officials have also reportedly been discussing the option of allowing for a ceasefire, with Russia still controlling part of Ukraine, although not officially or legally. Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenskyy even admitted, "if we want to stop the hot phase of the war, we should take under NATO umbrella the territory of Ukraine that we have under our control. That’s what we need to do fast. And then Ukraine can get back the other part of its territory diplomatically.”
During his hearing this week, Rubio emphasized this growing emphasis on diplomacy over a complete Ukrainian victory, saying that ending the war will not “be an easy endeavor… but it's going to require bold diplomacy, and my hope is that it can begin with some ceasefire.”
“Rubio's remarks reflect a pragmatic, constructive approach toward ending the Ukraine war — one that, encouragingly, the administration seems intent on institutionalizing throughout the foreign policy/national security bureaucracy,” said Quincy Institute research fellow Mark Episkopos. “The upcoming peace talks will demand an all hands on deck approach across the agencies if they are to succeed, and Rubio, as the nation's chief diplomat, is poised to play a major role in this difficult but necessary process.”
In other Ukraine war news this week:
Moscow accused Washington of assisting in attempting to sabotage the TurkStream pipeline, the only remaining pipeline that brings Russian gas into Europe. Russian Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov called the attack “energy terrorism”
The attack was thwarted, according to Al Jazeera, as the pipeline only suffered minor damage. Ukraine has thus far rejected claims of its involvement in the attempted attack.
This comes at a time when Ukraine has halted gas transits from Russia to Europe sparking a war of words and potentially an energy crisis this winter, wrote Stavroula Pabst in Responsible Statecraft this week. Despite claims from Zelenskyy that the gas transit halt was “one of Moscow’s greatest defeats,” the rest of Europe seems to be bearing the brunt of the consequences, facing high energy prices and outages in some countries.
The New York Timesreported on Monday that Ukraine launched a large drone barrage deep into Russian territory. According to the Russian Defense Ministry, more than 140 drones were launched from Ukraine, and U.S. and UK-made ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles were included in the attack. The strikes were in three Russian regions, with some hitting over 700 miles into Russian territory. Industrial and military sites were reportedly damaged, with no reported casualties.
Russia responded the next day by launching dozens of missiles at Ukraine’s energy grid. President Zelenskyy responded to the attacks on social media, “It’s the middle of winter, and the target for the Russians remains unchanged: our energy infrastructure. Among their objectives were gas and energy facilities that sustain normal life for our people.”
There was reported damage but no casualties.
United Kingdom Prime Minister Kier Starmer says that he will deliver new mobile air defense systems and “more support to Ukraine than ever before,” according to The Guardian. This announcement is part of a 100-year partnership agreement between the two nations, meant to secure previously promised aid in addition to further military assistance under the shadow of Trump’s return to the White House. The deal, which also includes health care and agriculture partnerships, must be approved by the British parliament in the coming weeks.
From this week’s State Department briefing on 01/15
A journalist asked spokesperson Matthew Miller if the United States was considering designating Russia as a state sponsor of terror. Miller indicated that the U.S. had determined that the sanctions already in place were more effective. “If you look at the combined regime that we have put into place – sanctions and export controls – we determined that that would have more of an impact than a state sponsor of terrorism designation.”
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: U.S. President Joe Biden, flanked by U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, speaks after negotiators reached a phased deal for a ceasefire in Gaza between Israel and Hamas, during remarks at the White House in Washington, U.S., January 15, 2025. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
The achievement of a Gaza hostage deal and temporary ceasefire ahead of Trump's inauguration demonstrates the power that the U.S. had all along. The Biden administration simply refused to use American leverage to push Netanyahu, despite U.S. officials’ assertions that they were “working tirelessly towards a ceasefire.”
In his remarks about the deal, and in his response to journalists afterwards, President Biden sought to take full credit. He pointed out that this was the deal he proposed in May, yet did not acknowledge that it was Trump’s willingness to pressure Israel to reach a ceasefire in time for his inauguration that actually achieved the deal, which Biden had failed to for months. "A diplomat briefed on the ceasefire negotiations between Israel and Hamas credited progress in the talks in part to the influence of President-elect Donald Trump, saying it was 'the first time there has been real pressure on the Israeli side to accept a deal’,” according to the Washington Post.
Unfortunately, despite the jubilation of the population in Gaza as well as that of the families of hostages held by Hamas, there have already been signs that Netanyahu has no interest in a lasting ceasefire. Last month, Netanyahu told Channel 12 news that the Israeli military would resume fighting even if a deal were achieved.
“If there is a deal — and I hope there will be — Israel will return to fighting afterward,” he said. “There is no point in pretending otherwise because returning to fighting is needed in order to complete the goals of the war.”
This statement ignores the reality that Secretary of State Blinken acknowledged on Monday, that Israel’s war in Gaza has generated more recruits for Hamas than it had before October 7, 2023, demonstrating that Israel’s actions have been counterproductive to its alleged goal of reestablishing Israeli security. Bezalel Smotrich, Israel’s far-right Minister of Finance, stated on Tuesday that “the war must continue,” but did not indicate if he would exit Netanyahu’s government, as he had previously threatened to do if the prime minister agreed to a ceasefire.
In contrast to Israeli politicians’ pledges to keep fighting, and Biden’s efforts to take credit, President-elect Trump expressed his intention to build on the ceasefire. On Truth Social, Donald Trump posted, “This EPIC ceasefire agreement could have only happened as a result of our Historic Victory in November, as it signaled to the entire World that my Administration would seek Peace and negotiate deals to ensure the safety of all Americans, and our allies…”
Trump said that he would build on the ceasefire’s momentum to expand the Abraham Accords, something the Biden team tried and failed to accomplish. In particular, both Biden and Trump hoped to facilitate the normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia. With Israel engaged in a brutal campaign of violence and starvation against civilians in Gaza, normalization with Saudi Arabia was impossible. If the ceasefire holds, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman may be more willing to normalize, although that agreement would be jeopardized by Israel’s ambition to annex the West Bank.
News of the ceasefire broke on the same day a new poll came out finding that the genocide in Gaza was the number one issue that kept Biden’s supporters from voting for Harris. Twenty-nine percent of those who had voted for Biden in 2020 but did not vote for Harris in 2024 cited Gaza as the reason. This outranked the economy (24 percent) and immigration (11 percent), according to the poll from YouGov and the Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU).
Trump’s success in achieving a temporary ceasefire and hostage deal, combined with the disastrous political effects of Harris’s unwillingness to break with her boss on foreign policy, both demonstrate the folly of Biden’s unconditional support for Israel. If Biden had used the United States’ considerable leverage to achieve a ceasefire, his party might not have lost the election.
The question that remains now is how long the ceasefire will last. The terms stipulate a six week cessation in fighting and an exchange of hostages by both sides, primarily 33 hostages held by Hamas over 42 days, in exchange for approximately 1,000 Palestinian prisoners.
Speculation on social media and after Biden’s remarks was rife about how long the deal is likely to last. After boasting that he achieved his goal of a ceasefire by his inauguration, Trump may lose interest in reining in Israel’s military operations in Gaza. The deal may last through the first phase of 42 days, but beyond that the Israeli press has reported that Netanyahu promised Smotrich that the fighting would resume.
If he wished, Trump could contribute to a more lasting ceasefire by maintaining pressure on Netanyahu and upholding U.S. laws that would end American security assistance to Israel due to its human rights abuses and blocking of humanitarian aid.
At his Senate confirmation hearing for secretary of state on Wednesday morning, Florida GOP Senator Marco Rubio called for an end to the war in Ukraine, including possible Ukrainian concessions to Russia.
Reflecting the views of his soon-to-be Commander in Chief Donald Trump, the Florida senator has become increasingly critical of the nearly three-year-long conflict in Ukraine, voting against a $95 billion Ukraine aid package in April of last year.
“I think it should be the official position of the United States that this war should be brought to an end,” Rubio said, while emphasizing the conflict’s collateral damages for Ukrainians. “The destruction that Ukraine is undergoing is extraordinary. It’s going to take a generation to rebuild it.,” he said.
“Millions of Ukrainians no longer live in Ukraine…how many of them are going to come back, and what are they going to come back to?” Rubio asked, noting that Ukraine’s infrastructure, especially energy infrastructure, has been decimated.
“The problem with Ukraine is not that they’re running out of money, but that they’re running out of people.”
Achieving an end to the war will not “be an easy endeavor… but it's going to require bold diplomacy, and my hope is that it can begin with some ceasefire,” Rubio said. “It’s important for everyone to be realistic: there will have to be concessions made by the Russian Federation, but also by Ukrainians.”
Interestingly, Trump national security adviser pick Mike Waltz recently pushed for the Ukrainian draft age to be lowered from 26 to 18, arguing Ukraine must be “all in for democracy.”
But if he was emphasizing peace in Eastern Europe, Rubio was pushing something altogether different with China, calling “the Communist Party of China…the most potent and dangerous near peer adversary the United States has ever confronted.”
“We have to rebuild our domestic industrial capacity” to counter China, Rubio claimed. “If we don't change course, we are going to live in a world where much of what matters to us on a daily basis, from our security to our health, will be dependent on whether the Chinese allow us to have it or not.”
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.