Commentary Magazine


Contentions

Less Expensive to See Afghanistan Through

There may be good reasons to cut the size of our commitment in Afghanistan. The cost of that commitment shouldn’t be one of them.

After all, next year the Department of Defense plans to spend $107 billion on the war effort—which amounts to all of 0.75 percent of the country’s GDP, which is $14.12 trillion. Or, if you prefer, Afghanistan represents 2.8 percent of Obama’s projected 2012 federal budget of $3.7 trillion. Even if the Afghan spending were eliminated completely, it would hardly close a whopping federal deficit of $1.09 trillion. To reduce that sea of red ink, something needs to be done about mandatory spending—Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and others—which will amount to $2.1 trillion this year.

So it is more than a little bizarre to read in the Washington Post that the cost of the war effort could well be the “most influential number” in determining the size of “forthcoming troop reductions,” with “many of the president’s civilian advisers” arguing “that price is too high, given a wide federal budget gap that will require further cuts to domestic programs and increased deficit spending.” One “senior administration official” is even quoted as saying: “Where we’re at right now is simply not sustainable.”

But in point of fact no one suggests indefinitely spending $100-billion-plus on Afghanistan. Gen. David Petraeus’s plan there, as in Iraq, is to stabilize the situation, to improve the quality and quantity of local security forces, and then gradually to stage a responsible drawdown with U.S. troops handing over responsibility to their indigenous allies. That will delay significant cost savings for a few years, but will make the reductions, when they do come, sustainable. That is, an Afghanistan will be left behind that can guard its own soil.

The alternative—a premature withdrawal beginning this summer—risks undoing all of the gains that American and allied troops have fought so hard to achieve. And it will surely cost us more money in the end by allowing Afghanistan to fall back into civil war and possibly turn into a major haven of jihadist terrorists once again. Anyone who remembers the cost of 9/11—in both human and financial terms—should understand that it is less expensive in the end to see our current commitment through rather than abort it too soon and risk the deadly consequences.


Join the discussion…

Are you a subscriber? Log in to comment »

Not a subscriber? Join the discussion today, subscribe to Commentary »





Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.