Once a week.
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
The true costs of the Afghan war, America's longest and most invisible war
The costs of the War in Afghanistan are astounding and without end, with the war about to enter its 17th year.
How we got here
The War in Afghanistan began with the invasion of the country by U.S. forces on October 7th, 2001. It followed the shock of 9/11 and the decision by President George W. Bush to destroy the terrorist network al-Qaeda, headed by Osama bin Laden, which was blamed for the horrendous attack on American soil. Bin Laden was reportedly hiding in Afghanistan, protected by the Taliban, which then ruled the country.
Nearly 17 years and several presidents later, amassing the staggering costs of 2,372 American military deaths, 1,720 U.S. civilians contractor fatalities, over 20,000 troops wounded and likely trillions of dollars spent, the war is still not over.
The War in Afghanistan can be regarded as the longest war the U.S. has ever been involved in. While the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War started in 1954, American troop levels and casualties went up from the early 1960s, with the war ending in 1975.
The fight in Afghanistan, divided between Operation Enduring Freedom (2001–2014) and Operation Freedom’s Sentinel (2015–present) is still continuing to cause American casualties. The U.S. suffered 17 casualties in 2017 and four so far in 2018 (as of mid-July). 2017 also saw 10,000 civilian casualties, including those caused by U.S. airstrikes.
What's the current situation?
At its peak in 2010-2011, the U.S. presence in Afghanistan numbered over 100,000 soldiers. Under President Obama, the troop levels had gone down to 8,400 by 2016. Still, recognizing the fragility of the situation on the ground, Obama did not authorize a complete pullback of the American forces.
In August 2017, President Trump intensified the airstrikes and called for sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan in a strategy to train, assist and advise more Afghan fighters. The plan has no end date and increased the number of forces in the country from 8,400 to 14,000. It must be noted that the Taliban, now numbering about 60,000 fighters, rules over a larger amount of land now than it did since when it was kicked out by the initial U.S. war effort in 2001.
How much does the war cost?
As things stand, the Pentagon announced that in 2018, that the war in Afghanistan will cost the taxpayers $45 billion just this year alone. The amount includes about $13 billion for U.S. forces in the country, $5 billion for Afghan forces, $780 million for economic aid and the remaining $26.22 billion for logistical support. If you want to add the costs up, to arrive at some overall figure for the war, estimates range from $841 billion to trillions, depending on the number of factors counted.
“One of the striking aspects of American military power is how little serious attention is spent on examining the key elements of its total cost by war and mission, and the linkage between the use of resources and the presence of an effective strategy,” writes Cordesman in his report.
Neta Crawford, the co-director of the Cost of Wars Project at Brown University, sees the spending on the War in Afghanistan to approach $2 trillion since 2001. That doesn’t even include future costs of up to $7.9 trillion like the spending by the Department of Veteran Affairs and the interest on the money Americans borrowed to pay for this military effort. Notably, the U.S. Congress did not pass a tax to finance the war and instead passed the Bush tax cuts.
Reports by the Watson Institute also put the true costs in the trillions. The Institute estimated that $4.8 trillion was spent through 2016, while Harvard economist Lina J.Blimes puts that cost from $4 to $6 trillion.
The exorbitant costs also bear many inefficiencies and wasteful spending, reported by the government accountability agency SIGAR. The overseer found half a billion dollars squandered on planes unusable in Afghanistan, millions spent on unused command and control centers, gas stations that cost almost 90 times more than necessary, among other instances of “outrageous misuse of U.S. taxpayers’ money,” as it states in its 2018 report.
What’s next for this war that will not end? Despite the Trump-ordered troop surge, the situation on the ground has not changed much, leading some observers to think that the president is ultimately impatient to have a resolution to the war and will pull back the U.S. forces eventually. Indeed, the White House ordered direct talks with the Taliban, which currently controls from 10% to 45% of the territory, depending on whom you ask, in an effort to create a breakthrough. The Taliban appears willing to talk but no concrete plans have been announced yet.
The finding is remarkably similar to the Dunning-Kruger effect, which describes how incompetent people tend to overestimate their own competency.
- Recent studies asked participants to rate the attractiveness of themselves and other participants, who were strangers.
- The studies kept yielding the same finding: unattractive people overestimate their attractiveness, while attractive people underrate their looks.
- Why this happens is unclear, but it doesn't seem to be due to a general inability to judge attractiveness.
There's no shortage of disparities between attractive and unattractive people. Studies show that the best-looking among us tend to have an easier time making money, receiving help, avoiding punishment, and being perceived as competent. (Sure, research also suggests beautiful people have shorter relationships, but they also have more sexual partners, and more options for romantic relationships. So call it a wash.)
Now, new research reveals another disparity: Unattractive people seem less able to accurately judge their own attractiveness, and they tend to overestimate their looks. In contrast, beautiful people tend to rate themselves more accurately. If anything, they underestimate their attractiveness.
The research, published in the Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, involved six studies that asked participants to rate the attractiveness of themselves and other participants, who were strangers. The studies also asked participants to predict how others might rate them.
In the first study, lead author Tobias Greitemeyer found that the participants who were most likely to overestimate their attractiveness were among the least attractive people in the study, based on average ratings.
Ratings of subjective attractiveness as a function of the participant's objective attractiveness (Study 1)
"Overall, unattractive participants judged themselves to be of about average attractiveness and they showed very little awareness that strangers do not share this view. In contrast, attractive participants had more insights into how attractive they actually are. [...] It thus appears that unattractive people maintain illusory self‐perceptions of their attractiveness, whereas attractive people's self‐views are more grounded in reality."
Why do unattractive people overestimate their attractiveness? Could it be because they want to maintain a positive self-image, so they delude themselves? After all, previous research has shown that people tend to discredit or "forget" negative social feedback, which seems to help protect a sense of self-worth.
To find out, Greitemeyer conducted a study that aimed to put participants in a positive, non-defensive mindset before rating attractiveness. He did that by asking participants questions that affirmed parts of their personality that had nothing to do with physical appearance, such as: "Have you ever been generous and selfless to another person?" Yet, this didn't change how participants rated themselves, suggesting that unattractive people aren't overestimating their looks out of defensiveness.
The studies kept yielding the same finding: unattractive people overestimate their attractiveness. Does that bias sound familiar? If so, you might be thinking of the Dunning-Kruger effect, which describes how incompetent people tend to overestimate their own competency. Why? Because they lack the metacognitive skills needed to discern their own shortcomings.
Greitemeyer found that unattractive people were worse at differentiating between attractive and unattractive people. But the finding that unattractive people may have different beauty ideals (or, more plainly, weaker ability to judge attractiveness) did "not have an impact on how they perceive themselves."
In short, it remains a mystery exactly why unattractive people overestimate their looks. Greitemeyer concluded that, while most people are decent at judging the attractiveness of others, "it appears that those who are unattractive do not know that they are unattractive."
Unattractive people aren't completely unaware
The results of one study suggested that unattractive people aren't completely in the dark about their looks. In the study, unattractive people were shown a set of photos of highly attractive and unattractive people, and they were asked to select photos of people with comparable attractiveness. Most unattractive people chose to compare themselves with similarly unattractive people.
"The finding that unattractive participants selected unattractive stimulus persons with whom they would compare their attractiveness to suggests that they may have an inkling that they are less attractive than they want it to be," Greitemeyer wrote.
Every star we can see, including our sun, was born in one of these violent clouds.
This article was originally published on our sister site, Freethink.
An international team of astronomers has conducted the biggest survey of stellar nurseries to date, charting more than 100,000 star-birthing regions across our corner of the universe.
Stellar nurseries: Outer space is filled with clouds of dust and gas called nebulae. In some of these nebulae, gravity will pull the dust and gas into clumps that eventually get so big, they collapse on themselves — and a star is born.
These star-birthing nebulae are known as stellar nurseries.
The challenge: Stars are a key part of the universe — they lead to the formation of planets and produce the elements needed to create life as we know it. A better understanding of stars, then, means a better understanding of the universe — but there's still a lot we don't know about star formation.
This is partly because it's hard to see what's going on in stellar nurseries — the clouds of dust obscure optical telescopes' view — and also because there are just so many of them that it's hard to know what the average nursery is like.
The survey: The astronomers conducted their survey of stellar nurseries using the massive ALMA telescope array in Chile. Because ALMA is a radio telescope, it captures the radio waves emanating from celestial objects, rather than the light.
"The new thing ... is that we can use ALMA to take pictures of many galaxies, and these pictures are as sharp and detailed as those taken by optical telescopes," Jiayi Sun, an Ohio State University (OSU) researcher, said in a press release.
"This just hasn't been possible before."
Over the course of the five-year survey, the group was able to chart more than 100,000 stellar nurseries across more than 90 nearby galaxies, expanding the amount of available data on the celestial objects tenfold, according to OSU researcher Adam Leroy.
New insights: The survey is already yielding new insights into stellar nurseries, including the fact that they appear to be more diverse than previously thought.
"For a long time, conventional wisdom among astronomers was that all stellar nurseries looked more or less the same," Sun said. "But with this survey we can see that this is really not the case."
"While there are some similarities, the nature and appearance of these nurseries change within and among galaxies," he continued, "just like cities or trees may vary in important ways as you go from place to place across the world."
Astronomers have also learned from the survey that stellar nurseries aren't particularly efficient at producing stars and tend to live for only 10 to 30 million years, which isn't very long on a universal scale.
Looking ahead: Data from the survey is now publicly available, so expect to see other researchers using it to make their own observations about stellar nurseries in the future.
"We have an incredible dataset here that will continue to be useful," Leroy said. "This is really a new view of galaxies and we expect to be learning from it for years to come."
Tiny specks of space debris can move faster than bullets and cause way more damage. Cleaning it up is imperative.
- NASA estimates that more than 500,000 pieces of space trash larger than a marble are currently in orbit. Estimates exceed 128 million pieces when factoring in smaller pieces from collisions. At 17,500 MPH, even a paint chip can cause serious damage.
- To prevent this untrackable space debris from taking out satellites and putting astronauts in danger, scientists have been working on ways to retrieve large objects before they collide and create more problems.
- The team at Clearspace, in collaboration with the European Space Agency, is on a mission to capture one such object using an autonomous spacecraft with claw-like arms. It's an expensive and very tricky mission, but one that could have a major impact on the future of space exploration.
This is the first episode of Just Might Work, an original series by Freethink, focused on surprising solutions to our biggest problems.
Catch more Just Might Work episodes on their channel: https://www.freethink.com/shows/just-might-work