USA TODAY– The monthly cost of the war in Afghanistan, driven by troop
increases and fighting on difficult terrain, has topped Iraq costs for the first time since
2003 and shows no sign of letting up.
Pentagon spending in February, the most recent month
available, was $6.7 billion in Afghanistan
compared with $5.5 billion in Iraq.
As recently as fiscal year 2008, Iraq
was three times as expensive; in 2009, it was twice as costly.
The shift is occurring because the Pentagon is adding
troops in Afghanistan
and withdrawing them from Iraq.
And it’s happening as the cumulative cost of the two wars surpasses $1
trillion, including spending for veterans and foreign aid. Those costs could
put increased pressure on President Obama and Congress, given the nation’s
$12.9 trillion debt.
“The overall costs are a function, in part, of the
number of troops,” says Linda Bilmes, an expert on wartime spending at Harvard University.
“The costs are also a result of the intensity of operations, and the
number of different places that we have our troops deployed.”
Obama made clear Wednesday that the U.S.
role in Afghanistan
would remain long after troops are withdrawn, a process planned to begin in
July 2011. “This is a long-term partnership,” he said during a news
conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
Continued American support will be crucial as U.S.
troop levels and costs in Afghanistan
escalate:
•The number of U.S.
servicemembers in Afghanistan
has risen to 87,000, on top of 47,000 from 44 other countries. At the same time,
the number of U.S.
servicemembers in Iraq
has dropped to 94,000. By next year, Afghanistan
is to have 102,000 U.S.
servicemembers, Iraq
43,000.
•Afghanistan
will cost nearly $105 billion in the 2010 fiscal year that ends Sept. 30,
including most of $33 billion in additional spending requested by Obama and
pending before Congress. Iraq
will cost about $66 billion. In fiscal 2011, Afghanistan
is projected to cost $117 billion, Iraq
$46 billion. To date, Pentagon spending in Iraq
has reached $620 billion, compared with $190 billion in Afghanistan.
•Costs per servicemember in Afghanistan
have been roughly double what they are in Iraq
since 2005. That is due to lower troop levels, Afghanistan’s
landlocked location, lack of infrastructure, high cost of fuel and less
reliable security. “The cost just cascades,” says Todd Harrison of
the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “That’s always been an
issue in Afghanistan.”
“Iraq,
logistically, is much easier,” says Lawrence Korb of the Center for
American Progress. “You get the stuff to Kuwait
and just drive it up the road.”
Photo by US Army
© USA TODAY, 2010