COMMENTARY | The United States has been at war in Afghanistan for 10 years; that’s longer than any other war in our country’s history. Two presidents from opposing parties have managed the war, each with victories and defeats. A series of high-profile generals have led the battles with mixed successes, including one that was fired by his commander-in-chief. So, what has a decade of war meant to a country embroiled in political gridlock?
The Budget Debate –– The cost of a high-tech, modern-day war is staggering. Spending for military operations in Afghanistan has been growing steadily, most significantly after the 2010 troop surge. From 2001 to 2006, American taxpayers paid $95.6 billion in military expenditures. In 2010, they paid nearly $94 billion alone. Fiscal year 2011 expenditures are estimated to be $118.6 billion — approximately 10 percent of the entire U.S. budget deficit for that year.
Military spending in Afghanistan will surely be a focal point of deliberations this fall as Congress searches for nearly $1.5 trillion in budget cuts over the next decade. Withdrawing military forces and the presumed end to the conflict in the next decade will make spending in the Afghan theater of operations prime pickings for congressmen interested in saving other budget programs.
Pentagon spending in Afghanistan is not included in the Defense Department authorization, but is approved as a supplemental appropriation. Some costs, such as military personnel, are included in the Pentagon budget; therefore determining exact areas to slice is more complicated than simply cutting funds for the battle against al-Qaida.
Final costs for the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are estimated to hit $4.4 trillion, not including long term health care for wounded troops. Early troop draw-downs and reduced spending on Afghan civilian projects could save nearly $1.3 trillion over the next decade by some estimates.
Shifting Attitudes – The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists was passed by the U.S. House with only one dissenting vote, U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif, and passed the Senate with no dissenting votes. Since its enactment in 2001, political opinions have changed for both Republicans and Democrats, with leaders in each party becoming increasingly critical as budget constraints tighten.
Sen. Bernie Sander, I-Vt., who generally caucuses with the Democrats, has been critical of the war for years. “We’ve been there eight years…how many more years are we supposed to be there?” he asked on the Senate floor in 2009.
Shortly after the killing of Osama bin Laden in May 2011, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., told a Senate hearing that Afghanistan held no strategic importance to warrant 100,000 American troops and $100 billion a year in spending.
President Barack Obama has promised a gradual troop reduction — which started earlier this summer — and is scheduled to be completed by April 2014. Whether circumstances on the ground will allow him to keep that promise is yet to be seen, but Americans are growing tired of the prolonged conflict.
Patriotism – Americans continue to support troops in the field as much today as they did at the start of the conflict. But, like retired U.S. Army First Sergeant Donald LePrell of Jacksonville, Fla., they grow weary of an endless fight.
“We can’t win in Afghanistan,” he said. “We can’t leave there by giving them a deadline. The Taliban will just wait until we’re gone and start fighting again.”
LePrell, a combat engineer that saw action in Panama, the first Gulf War and throughout the Cold War, said the U.S. military has gotten more high-tech in its attacks as circumstances on the ground have warranted.
“You’ve got to root out the enemy and sometimes that takes high-tech warfare,” he said. “Drones and missiles are expensive…but necessary.”
LePrell said using more expensive weaponry saves lives — and that’s the important thing to consider.
St. Louis resident Stephen Barnett, 34, a former U.S. Navy officer, said supporting the troops in the field must be the primary focus until they are all brought home.
“They are the instruments of policy,” he said. “But policy is made in Washington and at the White House.”
LePrell said he is concerned that the upcoming presidential election could bring major change in U.S. policy.
“Obama is running for re-election, so there is no telling what he will do,” he said.