Logistics Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics
There's Gold In Them Afghan Hills
   Next Article → SUPPORT: How The War On IEDs Is Fought
May 19, 2010: One reason the United States wants to get out of Afghanistan soon, is because, on a per soldier basis, it's more than twice as expensive as Iraq operations. That's mainly because it's much more expensive to move supplies into Afghanistan, which has no ports or railroads, and few hard surface roads. Thus, starting three months ago, it now costs more to run operations in Afghanistan ($6.7 billion in February), versus Iraq ($5.5 billion). There were about the same number of American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan last February, and troops in Afghanistan, who have served in Iraq, note that living conditions are not nearly as comfortable in Afghanistan.

It's expected that total 2010 costs for Afghanistan operations will be $105 billion, while Iraq will cost $66 billion. By the end of the year, there will be 102,000 American troops in Afghanistan, versus 43,000 in Iraq. So far, the U.S. has spent $620 billion for Iraq operations, versus $190 billion for Afghanistan. Annual costs in Iraq peaked in 2007, at $140 billion. By next year, annual costs in Iraq will be $46 billion, versus $117 billion for Afghanistan.

 

Next Article → SUPPORT: How The War On IEDs Is Fought
  

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
blkfoot    Just curious   5/19/2010 6:46:38 PM
But several months Ago General McCrystal was searching for a way to reduce the footprint of troops in Afghanastan by "Sending home unnessary troops". Basially troops whose MOS's were either not needed for the Operation in hand or were duplicate duties proformed by other Units.
 
Basically trying to shorten the "Spear Shaft to Pointy end of the Stick ratio"...
 
I wonder how many troops/ MOS's or jobs were redundant or totally unnessary but due to Unit T.O & E's were sent to Afghanastan anyways.
 
Anyone want to take a crack at this?
 
Quote    Reply

Ashley-the-man       5/21/2010 11:39:16 AM
It is never clear what are included in the "costs" of maintaining troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.  At a troop level of 102,000 troops, it costs $1.15 million per year per trooper.  The salary per soldier is the same whether they are in Afghanistan or the U.S., unless it could be argued that a peace time army would exist with 102,000 fewer soldiers - implausible.  So the marginal costs total well over a million dollars per year.  Some of these costs include transport of the troops over and back, the extra costs of shipping food and personal items, but likely the most expensive "marginal" cost would be fuel, and ammunition, and the extra wear and tear on equipment.  B.H. Liddel Hart would have been very familiar with the long tail that consumes personnel and supplies. 
 
A field army gorges on material and money.  One would think/hope a counterterrorism force could operate on a leaner budget.  Imagine an army in Afghanistan of 102,000 with 500 tanks, a fleet of helicopters and close attack aircraft, artillery, and the expense of fuel and ammo for this force.  The Afghan drug gangs and Taliban don't make more than a couple of billion off the poppy crop.   Like in Viet Nam, it may cost less to subsidize a farmer to grow wheat, than for the $50 million dollar bullet it took to kill him. 
 
Quote    Reply