NATO: Afghanistan Will Need ‘Decades’ of Additional Support
Afghans Expected to Need $7 Billion Annually Just for Military
Top NATO official Sir Simon Gass indicated today the alliance plans a more or less open-ended commitment to funding the Karzai government, saying he believed the nation will require “decades” of support beyond 2014.
Sir Simon insisted that NATO would have to learn the mistake from the failed Soviet occupation — apparently not the “don’t occupy Afghanistan” mistake. Instead, he sees the mistake coming three years after the Soviet troops left, when they withdrew funding from the Najibullah regime.
And there appears to be no chance of that happening here, with the Karzai government expected to be on the dole more or less forever, needing $7 billion annually in foreign funding just to prop up their military.
That funding is going to come in part from NATO, but the vast majority of it will be coming directly from the US, where the Obama Administration seems to have no problem pressing for an occupation through at least 2024. US Officials have argued throwing massive funding at the Afghan military annually is not only sound policy but is America’s “long-term solution” to the war.
Last 5 posts by Jason Ditz
- Centrifuge Glitch Fuels Latest Iran Scare Stories - May 25th, 2012
- Iraq MPs Push Return to Saddam-Era Conscription Laws - May 25th, 2012
- US Negotiator on Iran to 'Reaffirm Our Unshakeable Commitment to Israel' - May 25th, 2012
- UN: Syria Bombings Likely by 'Established Terrorist Groups' - May 25th, 2012
- Military to Avoid Embarrassing Pictures by Banning Photography - May 25th, 2012
skulz fontaine
January 16th, 2012 at 9:37 pm
Sir Simple Simon had best have some really deep pockets. There is no "long-term solution" to the Afghaniscam. NATO and the "western world" need to get out of it and let the Afghans figure out what in hell it is they want.
curmudgeonvt
January 16th, 2012 at 10:18 pm
I suggest that an independent analyst go in there and determine whether "decades" of financial support will garner any more return on the dollar ( or £) than what has already been done. I can't possibly imagine what 7 billion dollars a year is buying us – especially with the very real possibility that they can turn on a dime and throw us out – which they should anyway.
Think about what 7 billion dollars a year can do for our own crumbling infrastructure.
Tom Mauel
January 16th, 2012 at 10:22 pm
U.S. Afghan combat deaths in January, 2012, reached twelve today. The DOD reported a U.S. soldier was shot in a small arms attack in Balkh province on January 9, and died of his wounds on January 15, 2012.
persnipoles
January 17th, 2012 at 3:09 am
" not the “don’t occupy Afghanistan” mistake. " But only slightly less well known is this: never go in with a thithilian … WHEN DEATH IS ON THE LIIIINE!
Anyway, where does this money go? It's the most-corrupt government or one-of-the-most-corrupt governments according to some purportedly objective measure. If we're determined to throw money to that, a natural suspicion is that its purpose is stuff we'd rather not fund on the books. …E.g., (via K. Vlahos) it's heaven for people who like little boys…that'd be a lot of payoffs to make if they have a public image to protect. E.g., heroine. E.g. People we like that they pay off(?)…
mickperry
January 17th, 2012 at 4:08 am
Someone should also check to see how much Karzai's billing us for the Afghan Navy's upkeep.
fenistol
January 17th, 2012 at 6:21 am
On a related note, Goldman Sachs is now trading in dancing boys futures.
andy
January 17th, 2012 at 9:00 am
7 billion dollars just for the military? To chase down some guys in caves? Insanity.
ML3
January 17th, 2012 at 9:20 am
That makes SO MUCH sense! Spend $7 billion a year to prop up a corrupt puppet that needs armed US mercenaries to protect him because he is just that popular with his own people. Can we expect the regional countries nearby to chip in?
HELL NO! They were smart enough not to go in there and not be counted as one of the coalition of the billing. Only the US and UK need be scammed forever by this money pit. What a joke!
Roger Lafontaine
January 17th, 2012 at 9:49 am
Decades of support? The kind of support that was seen in the recent video of GI's urinating on dead Afghans? Decades of that? I pity Afghanistan's people.
pendulum
January 17th, 2012 at 9:57 am
I think they got it wrong. It is NATO that will need decades of support.
Wildey
January 17th, 2012 at 10:54 am
Really. Both American and Russian Geoligist report the Lithium, you know, the stuff they make batteries with today, deposits in Afghanistan are worth at least 6-7 TRILLOIN DOLLARS. As a matter of fact Afghanistan has what could amount to the largest deposits in the world. Could it be that the interest in Afghanistan is it's Lithium deposits? These are published numbers so I'm sure the Taliban knows them. Propaganda stears the people one way but the truth drives other interest another way.
John_Muhammad
January 17th, 2012 at 10:58 am
They can save a lot of trouble- and get some back in taxes- if they just give ME the $7bn and call it a day. I have plenty of worthwhile projects I can direct the money to and at the end of the day they'll bring a better return than dumping it on Afghanistan.
As far as the Afghan military, they might want to hire the Taliban to raise and train the reformed Afghan Army- we already know our brand of training is worthless to them, and the Taliban seem to have the upper hand in-country. To be honest, the Taliban have ALL the hand, upper or otherwise, and we would be wise to study their methods.
ML3
January 17th, 2012 at 11:19 am
If that's the case I hope they do not become the Asian equivalent of the Congo
john_atheist
January 17th, 2012 at 7:50 pm
Don't you suppose some of that 7 bill will find its way back various pols, the rest will be stolen by the Afghan regime and it will roll more or less merrily along. Except for the death and destruction of ordinary lives.