Afghanistan: The Economic Argument against Escalation | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED


Afghanistan: The Economic Argument against Escalation

President-elect Obama promises to “refocus our resources on Afghanistan,” a nation he refers to as “the central front in the war on terror.” But his alternative to the Bush Administration’s tunnel vision on Iraq - a “surge” into Afghanistan - will incur even more costs than the Iraq occupation.

Here’s the problem, via Thom Shanker at The New York Times:

“It is significantly more expensive to sustain each soldier in Afghanistan than in Iraq because of Afghanistan’s landlocked location and primitive road network.”

That one line spells out succinctly why we cannot afford an escalation in Afghanistan, but it only reflects the overt budget costs of redeploying American troops into the Afghan warzone.

Comments

SHARE THIS ARTICLE WITH YOUR SOCIAL MEDIA