High Costs Weigh on Troop Debate for Afghan War

During his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama genuinely observed to say he would NOT cut military spending while the US was involved in two wars. He then added it was of importance to bolster the intimidating condition in Afghanistan. And not before long he was in office, he approved sending an additional 21,000 soldiers there, making the total American force 68,000.

“The latest internal government estimates place the cost of adding 40,000 American troops and sharply expanding the Afghan security forces, as favored by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top American and allied commander in Afghanistan, at $40 billion to $54 billion a year, the officials said.” (Cited in: High Costs Weigh on Troop Debate for Afghan War, Drew C., Published: November 14, 2009 )

Sending fewer troops would lower the costs but would also place limitations on the buildup strategy. Sending 30,000 more troops, for example, would cost $25 billion to $30 billion a year while limiting how widely American forces could range. Deploying 20,000 troops would cost about $21 billion annually but would expand mainly the training of Afghans, the officials said.

President Obama recently signed a $680 billion military authorization bill for fiscal 2010 that represented a 2.7 percent increase over the 2009 spending level and a 1.9 percent increase over President Bush’s peak budget in fiscal 2008.

The administration has projected that spending on Iraq would drop by $25.8 billion in fiscal 2010, to $60.8 billion, as most of the troops withdraw.

It also expected spending on the Afghanistan war to increase by $18.5 billion in fiscal 2010, to $65.4 billion, for a net savings on the two wars of $7.3 billion, if no more troops were added.

What do Democrats think of this?

Some liberal Democrats asserted if Mr. Obama approves of this, he is most likely to lose the support of those voters who were attracted to his against-war spirit.

“In the times we’re in right now, I just totally believe that the public that elected President Obama really wants to see something different,” said Representative Lynn Woolsey, Democrat of California. (Cited in: High Costs Weigh on Troop Debate for Afghan War, Drew C., Published: November 14, 2009 )

What is Republican idea?

Several leading Republicans are against Mr. Obama’s tendency to spend on domestic programs and are in favor of him to provide General McChrystal with the resources needed in Afghanistan.

“Keeping our country safe: Isn’t that the first job of government?” said Senator Christopher S. Bond, a Republican from Missouri and the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. “If we have just a minimalist counterterrorism strategy, the Taliban will come back over the mountains from Pakistan, and they will be followed by their co-conspirators from the Al Qaeda organization.” (Cited in: High Costs Weigh on Troop Debate for Afghan War, Drew C., Published: November 14, 2009 ).

The debate was intensified last week after the United States ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl W. Eikenberry, sent cables to Washington expressing his reservations about deploying additional troops, citing weak Afghan leadership and widening corruption

Such an increase in military spending is considered to be a politically unpredictable decision for Mr. Obama, especially when the government budget has hit $1.4 trillion, the economy is unbelievably weak and of course a notably costly health care bill is on the verge of passing.