Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Funding Afghan Security Forces

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » National Security Donate to DU
Owlet Donating Member (765 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-20-11 08:52 AM
Original message
Funding Afghan Security Forces
Funding the Afghan National Security Forces
September 16, 2011 11:14 PM

It was recently reported that the US is looking for ways to trim the cost of funding the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF). "The new frugality is a necessity, a message reiterated by congressional delegations that visited Afghanistan and reminded U.S. soldiers and diplomats about economic problems back home," according to The Washington Post.

The ANSF currently consist 300,000 troops. The plan is to build the force up to 352,000 troops by October 2012, with the US funding the vast majority of the cost. While the ANSF is being developed, the cost is about $12 billion per year, but once the force is built, the cost to sustain the force will drop to about $6 billion per year. The US is now seeking ways to reduce its contribution once the ANSF reaches its full size in October 2012 to $2-3 billion per year. Is this effort simply "trimming the frills," or is it penny-wise and pound-foolish? An analysis reveals that it is some of both.
The reality of ANSF funding

Afghanistan is a poor country. Afghanistan's GDP is roughly $15 billion per year. The total government income is $3 billion per year, and only a portion of that would be available to fund the ANSF. Realistically, the Afghan government's contribution cannot exceed $500 million per year, an amount that would sustain a force of only about 30,000 troops. In other words, Afghanistan does not have nearly the funds it needs to build or sustain a force of any substantial size on its own, now or at any time in the foreseeable future.

Read more
Refresh | +1 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Arctic Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-20-11 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
1. In a country that is that impoverished any "billions" of military spending is unsustainable.
Why is this hard to understand for the idiots in the MIC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
vets74 Donating Member (714 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-20-11 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
2. The Purpose of This Army Is To Maintain the HEROIN DROUGHT (2009-Present)
The heroin flood had risen to $80-billion a year street value.

Amy Winehouse ain't the only cost of the Bush era drug flood. Russia was seeing a massive new HIV plague, along with the addiction.

Yeah, we can afford whatever it takes to beat down the poppy plants. Bribing Afghan forces to beat 'em down is the game.

Btw: this is a drug war. Started toward that goal in 2005 when EU weighed in.

Obama turned the U.S. in 2009.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jan 18th 2018, 03:40 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » National Security Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC