Kabul Press, on September 30, 2010, published an article by this author detailing the best estimate of Taliban killed per year (2,000) divided by a portion of the direct costs that the Pentagon is spending each year in Afghanistan ($100 billion). The resulting statistic suggests that it costs $50 million to kill each Taliban soldier. This number is very conservative. If all NATO and American costs (direct and indirect) were included, the analysis would reveal that it actually costs about $150 million.The military says that this is the product of an over simplified analysis, which is true, but the trend reflected here is correct, and we are not winning "hearts and minds" and cannot win "hearts and minds" because the populace opposes occupying forces, and our man in Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai is so indescribably incompetent and corrupt.
The present article examines spending from the Taliban side in order to comparatively determine what it costs to kill each NATO soldier. The Brookings Institution is the consulting firm with the best political access to the Obama Administration and the U.S. State Department. In September 2009, it published a report on Taliban annual revenue, based in part on data gathered by the Congressional Research Service. Brookings estimated Taliban annual income at between $140 and $200 million. The Taliban have already inflicted over 600 deaths on NATO soldiers and more than twice that number of fatalities on Afghan army and police personnel. By the end of the year, total Coalition deaths are expected to reach 3,000. The math is unfortunately easy. Assuming Taliban revenue of $150 million divided by 3,000 = $50,000 to kill a NATO, American or Afghan soldier.
07 November 2010
We Know Who is Going to Win This War
Killing each Taliban soldier costs $50 Million; Killing each NATO soldier costs $50 Thousand:
Labels:
Afghanistan
,
Budget
,
War
2 comments :
> We Know Who is Going to Win This War
The military-industrial-congressional complex?
I'm sure that the British thought that in the 1950s pre Suez as well.
Post a Comment