ASB WI: In 2001 United States successfully predict cost of 20 year war in Afghanistan as $978 billion and decide to pay the Taliban instead!

[PakistaniGuyUK]

A few days ago I saw a tweet from a disgruntled individual bemoaning the American 'failure' in Afghanistan. It went along the lines of "Our (American) government sunk $978 billion on this pointless war and the Taliban are back anyway... might as well handed it to them instead so they invested it in 2001."

Ah... that would make a great WI I thought!

(Yes its ASB guys and girls so don't get too preoccupied with the 'hows' and 'whys' and 'why nots') Here goes:

The United States administration in September 2001 are handed future cost projections of a War in Afghanistan - lasting 5 years, 10 years, 15 years and so on. A senior advisor accurately predicts OTL - he states after 20 years the United States will have spesnt $978 billion, many Americans would have died, hundreds of thousands of Afghans, yet in 2020 the Taliban would simply regroup and once again attempt to take over the country. Pressed about the fate of Al Qaeda and Bin Ladin the advisor again is remarkably accurate in predicting OTL. "He'll eventually be recovered by Marines in a Secret Op under cover of darkness from leaked intelligence. He cannot go on hiding forever, eventually one of these leaks will prove effective." Pressed on conducting a war the advisor jokes: "Yeah, might as well hand over the $978 to the Taliban!"

So the American administration approaches the Taliban with this offer:
(*note: US administration decides $900bn is too costly and settle on making a 20 year offer of $400bn investments instead)

"Hand us Osama Bin Laden by the end of 2002 and we will happily invest $400bn in your country over a period of 20 years ($20bn per year). In order to prove we'll stick to our word, we'll invest $20bn for 2001-2002 no strings attached, into building roads, hospitals, and other infrastructure for your government. If after 1 year we still don't see this getting anywhere, we may consider giving you a further year (and another $20bn). However, 2003-2004 will be pushing the limits of our patience. The sooner you hand him over the better it will be for you and for us."

All talks would be conducted DIRECTLY between the Taliban and the US. Pakistan, Al Qaeda, the Northern Alliance would have no knowledge of them.

What happens next?

 

[The Galaxy]

The cost so far has at least been 2261 Billion, so 2 Trillion and 261 Billion.

The Bill for the Afghanistan War Is $2.26 Trillion, and Still Rising

The greatest single expense came in the Defense Department's Overseas Contingency Operations spending, the report states.

www.military.com

The average YEARLY income in Afghanistan in 2001 was about 100 dollars. The population 20 million.

An alternative to what you propose would be to give each woman 200,000 dollars ( 2000 YEARS worth of salaries) which would be 2 Trillion dollars, and use the other 261 Billion to defend them, as the women spend the money as they wish. Or to give each citizen 100,000 dollars ( 1000 YEARS of salaries) and keep order with the other 261 Billion.


But to answer your question, with investment of 20 billion per year, it would have mean that the economy would have grown and there would have been less radicals, and they would have had less local support because peoples jobs and livelihood would have been affected. It depends on how the investment is handled. The yearly income of 100 dollars, means that to hire all 20 million people would cost of 2 billion per year, and that is still 10x less than the annual investment that you propose. Which means that you can hire the people to do anything, develop any type of economy you like.

You could be looking at a somewhat functioning Afghanistan, or a completely functioning one, it all depends on how it is handled.

 

[PakistaniGuyUK]

The cost so far has at least been 2261 Billion, so 2 Trillion and 261 Billion.

The Bill for the Afghanistan War Is $2.26 Trillion, and Still Rising

The greatest single expense came in the Defense Department's Overseas Contingency Operations spending, the report states.

www.military.com

The average YEARLY income in Afghanistan in 2001 was about 100 dollars. The population 20 million.

An alternative to what you propose would be to give each woman 200,000 dollars ( 2000 YEARS worth of salaries) which would be 2 Trillion dollars, and use the other 261 Billion to defend them, as the women spend the money as they wish. Or to give each citizen 100,000 dollars ( 1000 YEARS of salaries) and keep order with the other 261 Billion.


But to answer your question, with investment of 20 billion per year, it would have mean that the economy would have grown and there would have been less radicals, and they would have had less local support because peoples jobs and livelihood would have been affected. It depends on how the investment is handled. The yearly income of 100 dollars, means that to hire all 20 million people would cost of 2 billion per year, and that is still 10x less than the annual investment that you propose. Which means that you can hire the people to do anything, develop any type of economy you like.

You could be looking at a somewhat functioning Afghanistan, or a completely functioning one, it all depends on how it is handled.

Bloody fascinating answer there! 👍👍

 

[Major Major]

They take the tribute from the unbelievers and continue the struggle.

They think they're entitled to it.

 

[CalBear]

This is actually a not unreasonable Chat subject if the thread was formatted somewhat differently.

Unfortunately as laid out it is neither a proper post-1900 nor ASB subject since it is very much likely to be controversial regarding current/recent U.S. policy.

I urge the OP to rewrite the post as a straight up Chat question and post it in the proper Forum.

That said...

Closed per posted policy on Current Politics.