• 1 min PDVSA Booted From Caribbean Terminal Over Unpaid Bills
  • 2 hours Russia Warns Ukraine Against Recovering Oil Off The Coast Of Crimea
  • 4 hours Syrian Rebels Relinquish Control Of Major Gas Field
  • 5 hours Schlumberger Warns Of Moderating Investment In North America
  • 6 hours Oil Prices Set For Weekly Loss As Profit Taking Trumps Mideast Tensions
  • 7 hours Energy Regulators Look To Guard Grid From Cyberattacks
  • 9 hours Mexico Says OPEC Has Not Approached It For Deal Extension
  • 10 hours New Video Game Targets Oil Infrastructure
  • 12 hours Shell Restarts Bonny Light Exports
  • 13 hours Russia’s Rosneft To Take Majority In Kurdish Oil Pipeline
  • 19 hours Iraq Struggles To Replace Damaged Kirkuk Equipment As Output Falls
  • 1 day British Utility Companies Brace For Major Reforms
  • 1 day Montenegro A ‘Sweet Spot’ Of Untapped Oil, Gas In The Adriatic
  • 1 day Rosneft CEO: Rising U.S. Shale A Downside Risk To Oil Prices
  • 1 day Brazil Could Invite More Bids For Unsold Pre-Salt Oil Blocks
  • 1 day OPEC/Non-OPEC Seek Consensus On Deal Before Nov Summit
  • 1 day London Stock Exchange Boss Defends Push To Win Aramco IPO
  • 1 day Rosneft Signs $400M Deal With Kurdistan
  • 2 days Kinder Morgan Warns About Trans Mountain Delays
  • 2 days India, China, U.S., Complain Of Venezuelan Crude Oil Quality Issues
  • 2 days Kurdish Kirkuk-Ceyhan Crude Oil Flows Plunge To 225,000 Bpd
  • 2 days Russia, Saudis Team Up To Boost Fracking Tech
  • 2 days Conflicting News Spurs Doubt On Aramco IPO
  • 2 days Exxon Starts Production At New Refinery In Texas
  • 3 days Iraq Asks BP To Redevelop Kirkuk Oil Fields
  • 3 days Oil Prices Rise After U.S. API Reports Strong Crude Inventory Draw
  • 3 days Oil Gains Spur Growth In Canada’s Oil Cities
  • 3 days China To Take 5% Of Rosneft’s Output In New Deal
  • 3 days UAE Oil Giant Seeks Partnership For Possible IPO
  • 3 days Planting Trees Could Cut Emissions As Much As Quitting Oil
  • 3 days VW Fails To Secure Critical Commodity For EVs
  • 3 days Enbridge Pipeline Expansion Finally Approved
  • 3 days Iraqi Forces Seize Control Of North Oil Co Fields In Kirkuk
  • 4 days OPEC Oil Deal Compliance Falls To 86%
  • 4 days U.S. Oil Production To Increase in November As Rig Count Falls
  • 4 days Gazprom Neft Unhappy With OPEC-Russia Production Cut Deal
  • 4 days Disputed Venezuelan Vote Could Lead To More Sanctions, Clashes
  • 4 days EU Urges U.S. Congress To Protect Iran Nuclear Deal
  • 4 days Oil Rig Explosion In Louisiana Leaves 7 Injured, 1 Still Missing
  • 5 days Aramco Says No Plans To Shelve IPO
Economywatch

Economywatch

On EconomyWatch.com, you will find a comprehensive mix of news, analysis, reference, articles, data, charts and tools. These have been provided both by our core…

More Info

How Long Can the Spending in Afghanistan Continue?

How Long Can the Spending in Afghanistan Continue?

With all the debate in the United States over raising its debt ceiling, politicians and lawmakers are once again fighting over national spending. Democrats are sore that the US$2.4 trillion in savings will not include any mandated tax increases, while the Republicans are worried about the US$350 billion cut in the defense budget. Why is the United States perpetually policing the world at the expense of the American people and global markets?
The US debt ceiling negotiations kept nations and financial markets on their toes over the course of the past few weeks. As US President Barack Obama said in his address to the American nation,

“Debt negotiations have held our economy captive to Washington politics once again … for all the intrigue and drama that has taken place on Capitol Hill right now, I am confident that common sense and cooler heads will prevail.”

Meanwhile, war torn Afghanistan is facing a deepening financial crisis that requires an estimated US$820 million in bailout money. Yet, the country is as corrupt as it is bankrupt. Although the war-torn country’s largest bank nearly collapsed last September, the government of Hamid Karzai and international stakeholders are still splitting hairs over how to raise funds and confidence over the intended bailout vision, as well as how to deal with its former leaders and rebels who siphoned off millions of dollars, and plenty of illegal gemstones and timber from Afghanistan to the outside world.

After a decade of US-led war in Afghanistan, US officials are still determined to keep its troops stationed there – amid heavy defense budget cuts and declining public support.  Why is the US bent on throwing more money (which they do not have) at defense?

Growing opposition towards the war stems from the high costs involved, in both monetary sense and in terms of lives. Since the Afghan war began a decade ago, approximately 1,600 American soldiers have been killed and 12,000 wounded. Through the end of the year, the war is expected to incur a bill of US$1.29 trillion, combined with the cost of military operations in Iraq. This year alone, US$119 billion will be spent in Afghanistan.

Could that money have been better spent to avoid the current debt crisis in the US?

Indeed, there seems to be a quiet hesitance about funding a war programme during a time of economic distress. As Senator Joe Manchin said,

“We can no longer, in good conscience, cut services and programmes at home, raise taxes or lift the debt ceiling in order to fund nation-building in Afghanistan. The question the President faces is quite simple: Will we choose to rebuild America or Afghanistan? In light of our nation’s fiscal peril, we cannot do both.”

Many leading economists agree on the effects of the economics of war, and it is not only the American nation that has to pay for these ugly outcomes.

A study by the Congressional Budget Office revealed that the price of war would amount to US$2.4 trillion through 2017, averaging out to a total cost of US$7,973 per US citizen. Yet, this figure does not include interest payments on the debt, which amounts to an additional US$700 billion.

According the Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz and Havard economist Linda Bilmes, the amount spent on war could have been better channeled towards the recovering US economy. They explain,

“The money spent on Iraq could have been spent on schools, roads, or research. These investments yield return. As the private sector competes for funds with the government, private investment gets crowded out. As a result, output is lower and the forgone output could be as high as US$5 trillion.”

For the embattled Afghan nation, it stands to face substantial economic disruption when the war eventually winds down.

The war economy acts as Afghanistan single largest employer on the construction and supplies front. Suffice to say, the Afghan economy is also heavily dependent on the US, in the form of military expenditure and financial aid.

Experts have suggested that the withdrawal of troops would plunge Afghanistan into a period of “very slow” progress, where only a small percentage of Afghans have found suitable and sustainable employment in areas like public health and education.

Yet, even when the war ends, Americans will still be faced with the hefty bill for many years, argues William R. Keylor, international relations professor at Boston University.

“The total cost of the war, the longest in American history and one that was paid for by borrowing rather than by increased taxation, should not be measured solely by the costs of financing the troops and the extensive aid programs administered by the State Department. It should also include long-term costs of the war, primarily veterans’ benefits for the returning soldiers, who will require medical and mental health services for many years to come. Long after the last troops depart from the country, that hidden part of the bill will come due.”

By. Michele Lin

Source: Economywatch




Back to homepage


Leave a comment
  • Anonymous on August 04 2011 said:
    The veterans from the present war deserve every penny that they get from the American taxpayers. Moreover, if they get the right kind of counseling, encouragement and recognition, they can make an invaluable contribution to the future of the US - a much more valuable contribution than the ignorant academics who are allowing the American educational system to move into disrepair.I was expelled from engineering school for poor scholarship, spent six years in the army, mostly in the infantry, received six years in universities on the GI Bill of Rights, and the next thing I knew I was writing PROFESSOR in front of my name. Veterans should take note, rather than thinking about the time wasted in Afghanistan.
  • Anonymous on August 04 2011 said:
    If we are to cut military spending, whether by pulling out of Afghanistan or by cutting funding for weapons, the money saved should be returned to the American people either as lower taxes or a lower deficit. I see no point in cutting x billions from the Department of Defense budget, only to spend said money on domestic pork-barrel boondoggles.
  • Anonymous on August 04 2011 said:
    Alex, I wouldn't exactly call rewarding war veterans a 'boondoggle'.
  • Anonymous on August 04 2011 said:
    Providing for the needs of those who have been wounded in the line of military duty is indeed no boondoggle. But here are some things I would like to see cut: The whole Department of Education. Do adolescents today know geometry, trigonometry, chemistry, physics and history, any better than before 1977 when said department was established? Another expenditure we don't need: Sending spacecraft to the distant planets. If Star Wars/Star Trek enthusiasts want to see spacecraft launched to the stars and planets, let them pay for it with their own money. And then too, let's cut out such expenditures as high-speed rail. Its too costly for whatever good it would do. Here's one more idea: Start billing shipping companies for naval protection for oil tankers. Taxpayers in general shouldn't pay for naval protection for said ships. Let those who consume the most petroleum, pay for said naval services.
  • Anonymous on August 05 2011 said:
    I wasn't talking about wounded veterans Alex. I was talking about anyone who puts on the uniform, and willingly or not finds himself or herself participating in one of the stupid wars that America is in some ways involved in at the present time, and may be involved in tomorrow. That includes protecting civilians on the other side of the world.As for protecting ships from pirates, the inability to do that is just another sign of the stupidity that has overtaken our political leadership.

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News