Analysts Expect Long-Term, Costly U.S. Campaign in Afghanistan

[jakeXT]

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 9, 2009


As the Obama administration expands U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, military experts are warning that the United States is taking on security and political commitments that will last at least a decade and a cost that will probably eclipse that of the Iraq war.

Since the invasion of Afghanistan eight years ago, the United States has spent $223 billion on war-related funding for that country, according to the Congressional Research Service. Aid expenditures, excluding the cost of combat operations, have grown exponentially, from $982 million in 2003 to $9.3 billion last year.

The costs are almost certain to keep growing. The Obama administration is in the process of overhauling the U.S. approach to Afghanistan, putting its focus on long-term security, economic sustainability and development. That approach is also likely to require deployment of more American military personnel, at the very least to train additional Afghan security forces.

Later this month, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is expected to present his analysis of the situation in the country. The analysis could prompt an increase in U.S. troop levels to help implement President Obama's new strategy.

..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/08/AR2009080802283.html

[bemildred]

1. But we can't afford health care for everyone.

Empires are expensive.

[nightrain]

2. Obama's war. What a horrendous mistake to think that the US could

do in Afghanistan what others previously could not.

All that money could go into healthcare services.

[Lasher]

3. Don't think so.

Americans can be pretty gullible but we know a long war is a foolish proposition. And already most of us are about as weary of the one in Afghanistan as we are of the one in Iraq. Go ahead and open a serious can of whupass if you have to, then get the hell out.

[tj2001]

4. Afghanistan will be Obama's Vietnam

That was a stupid move on his part.
Al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11, not the Taliban.

[jakeXT]

5. I don't buy the Al Qaeda 911 connection, but they are renaming the global war on terror

Even the Afghanistan connection is questioned by the mainstream, because of the predominant Saudi presence among the supposed hijackers

Obama replaces 'global war on terror' in strategy shift: aide

(AFP) – 3 days ago

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is replacing the "global war on terror" with a new US strategy more narrowly focused on Al-Qaeda and relying more on a broader effort to engage the Muslim world, a top aide said Thursday.

John Brennan, Obama's chief counter-terrorism advisor, said Al-Qaeda remains a "persistent and evolving threat" to the United States and is being aggressively targeted by the new administration.

"But describing our efforts as a 'global war' only plays into the warped narrative that Al-Qaeda propagates," Brennan said in comments to a think tank here.

"It plays into the misleading and dangerous notion that the US is somehow in conflict with the rest of the world," he said.

..

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iHLAaZamQgt35p-txCK8nYwXNA3g