U.S. spending $1.4 billion per al-Qaeda fighter in Afghanistan

[bearice]

It has been a week since it was announced Osama bin Laden was killed within the borders of Pakistan. And since then, the idea that the United States no longer needs to be in Afghanistan is becoming more and more popular.

“Well, it’s our longest war now,” Will said. “It’s ten years old, longest in our national history. Do the arithmetic. There are 140,000 coalition forces there. There are at the top estimate about 100 al-Qaeda fighters there. That’s 1,400 soldiers at $ 1 million per a year, $1.4 billion per al-Qaeda fighter. The arithmetic doesn’t make sense.”

According to Will, the real reason America remains in Afghanistan is because there’s a fear that instability in Afghanistan might spread to nuclear Pakistan.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/08/g...qaeda-fighter-in-afghanistan-2/#ixzz1LqqzUBvS

 

[stopnlimits]

I did some fact checking. Looks like Bearice is on to something.


Number of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/06/cia-at-most-50100-al-qaeda-in-afghanistan.html

 

[toc]

Let's say US is spending $10B a month in Afghan war. This does not mean that US is throwing away $10B. Nearly 50 to 80% of this figure is recycled back into the US economy. Soldiers getting paid plus battlefield allowances, Independent US contractors, ammo used means US suppliers were paid, Medical services meaning equiptment bought and transported via US Navy or US shipping contractors.

War is a way of propping up the economy just the way WWII pulled the US from the depression.

20% or so figure is being thrown away when US pays foreign workers to support its military machine in Afganistan. Also may be they also buy some food items although I doubt it highly given the security concerns.

So until and unless there are some really 20% annual ROI type investments available, US is just giving its economy a stimulus package each month all the while keeping men and manufacturers employed and their wallets recycling consumer items mostly.

War really hurts when infrastructure is blown up. Then the buildings and factories dissappear before they have even returned the initial investment put into them. Factories blown up results in thousands unemployed which further relates to lower consumption and economy takes a good hit. Not in this case when US is fighting overseas. Only infrastructure hurting here is probably soldiers getting tired of being overseas and in constant battlefield environment. That is not good for the psychology and that is why short tours and return for rest is always recommended.