Outside The Beltway | OTB » Washington

How Much Will Escalation Cost?

Alex Knapp — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:13:44 +0000

The L.A. Times has a fascinating article about the difficulties in accounting for estimated costs in a troop surge in Afghanistan.

The calculations so far have produced a sweeping range. The Pentagon publicly estimates it will cost $500,000 a year for every additional service member sent to the war zone. Obama’s budget experts size it up at twice that much.

[...]

The Office of Management and Budget says adding 40,000 troops would cost about $40 billion a year, or $1 million each. White House officials included in their estimate everything they consider necessary to wage war, including troop housing and equipment.

[...]

The Pentagon arrived at its much lower estimate by dividing its war funding request by the number of troops throughout the region: 68,000 in Afghanistan and up to 95,000 in supporting roles elsewhere, such as on nearby ships or in surrounding countries.

The Pentagon cost includes higher combat wages, extra aircraft hours and other operations and maintenance costs, but omits such items as new weapons purchases — one-time costs that vary by year — and support equipment like spy satellites and anti-roadside-bomb technology.

The Pentagon also does not try to estimate costs of new bases for additional soldiers.

But in a memo early this month, obtained by The Times’ Washington bureau, the Pentagon’s own comptroller produced an estimate that broke with the customary Defense formula and did include construction and equipment.

That memo said the yearly cost of a 40,000-troop increase would be $30 billion to $35 billion — at least $750,000 a person. An increase of 20,000 would cost $20 billion to $25 billion annually, it said — a per-soldier cost equal to or greater than the White House estimate.

Keep in mind that these are per year figures, and most discussiosn of troop escalations involve deployments for longer than that–possibly much longer.

As for which figures to go with, I have to say that I’m going to be inclined to go with the OMB on this. Indeed, I’d be perfectly willing to bet that the OMB is underestimating the costs, and the Pentagon almost definitely is. The appropriations required for combat have, in my experience, often exceeded the initial estimates. After all, who can forget this famous estimate?

Q: Mr. Secretary, on Iraq, how much money do you think the Department of Defense would need to pay for a war with Iraq?

Rumsfeld: Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that’s something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question. I think the way to put it into perspective is that the estimates as to what September 11th cost the United States of America ranges high up into the hundreds of billions of dollars. Now, another event in the United States that was like September 11th, and which cost thousands of lives, but one that involved a — for example, a biological weapon, would be — have a cost in human life, as well as in billions, hundreds of billions of dollars, that would be vastly greater.

As a refresher:

The cost of the Iraq War to date: over $700 billion.

The number of biological weapons that were found in Iraq: zero.

Link via Spencer Ackerman. Photo by Flickr user basheem under Creative Commons license.

Obama’s Europe Neglect Could Bring Bush Nostalgia

James Joyner — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:10:00 +0000

My first piece for ForeignPolicy.com, “Europe’s Obama Fatigue,” is online.

Despite George W. Bush’s defiant “you’re with us or you’re against us” public stance, he actively solicited advice and input from his NATO partners. Obama, by contrast, is saying all the right things in public about transatlantic relations and NATO but adopting a high-handed policy and paying little attention to Europe.

[...]

It would be ironic, indeed, if the Europeans started longing for the good old days of the Bush administration. But that nostalgia is closer than you might think.

Supporting arguments at the link.

UPDATE: As one might expect, this piece is generating some strong rebuttals.

Daniel Larison argues:

You cannot gauge the importance or unimportance of Europe to the United States on the largely cosmetic, superficial and procedural clashes Washington has had with various European states in the last nine months. Under the previous administration, Europe continued to be “important” to the U.S. even when major EU powers opposed administration policy in very public, dramatic ways. To the extent that Obama is losing ground with Europeans, he had far more goodwill and support to lose; in almost every European country, he continues to rate higher after the drop-off from unrealistic expectations than Bush did at almost any point. Obviously relations were and remained far more strained under the last administration than they have been so far under this one. We notice the minor clashes that have taken place because there was a widely-shared, unreasonable expectation that amity and concord with Europe would prevail under Obama.

[...]

European and especially German interests were flatly ignored by Bush when it came to handling Russia. Promises to Ukraine and Georgia of eventual membership in NATO were given over strenuous German opposition. Were European interests and opinions being heeded then? No. The missile defense ploy prompted Moscow to threaten abandoning its commitments under the European conventional forces treaty and elicited a great deal of bluster from Medvedev about targeting Russian missiles on European soil. Was European security strengthened by any of this? No. What matter then if Bush went through the motions and observed the right formalities when he was getting the major decisions wrong?

Most western European allies were not seriously consulted, nor were their objections given much weight, when the Bush administration decided to push ahead with the missile defense plan. In all of the new commentary claiming that Europe has soured on Obama, this seems not to count at all.

Judah Grunstein adds:

[I]f George W. Bush learned to listen to Europe, and in particular NATO, it was largely after he’d been chastened by the failure of the Iraq war and the 2006 mid-term elections. Up until his final NATO summit, Bush continued to talk loudly about the largely unpopular measures of NATO expansion and missile defense. He listened in the sense that he allowed the alliance — led by France and Germany — to turn him back, but it was out of weakness, not out of strength. There was no movement at all when it came to climate change, which is a major driver of public opinion here.

As for Obama’s handling of Europe, I’d agree with the characterization of his aloofness, especially with regard to the current Afghanistan strategic review. But while my sympathies would normally be with Europe on this sort of thing, I do think that Obama invited the NATO allies last April to assume greater ownership of the Afghanistan war. Given their refusal to do so, I don’t blame him for the freeze-out now. That said, Obama’s brush-off of the U.S.-EU summit is inexcusable and reflects a myopic view of the EU’s potential, especially with the advent of the Lisbon Treaty.

I actually don’t disagree with either Dan or Judah on most of these points and think some of the disagreement comes from the provocative title the FP folks chose. My argument is neither that the Europeans have tired of Obama or even that Bush was particularly adept at transatlantic diplomacy. Rather, it is that Bush cared more about Europe — and particularly the UK and New Europe — than Obama and therefore invested more of himself in the relationship.

It’s true that Obama’s stance on, for example, missile defense and NATO expansion is more popular in some quarters than Bush’s. Indeed, I prefer his approach on the latter and quibble with him on the former mostly on how the rollout was done vice the policy itself. But the policy differences are a reflection of Obama’s prioritizing Russia’s views over that of Europe, especially East and Central Europe. I think Bush was ultimately wrong in his zeal to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO but it was a policy preference motivated by the stated ideals of the Alliance of “a Europe whole and free.”

Protests and Media Coverage

James Joyner — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 11:27:57 +0000

A meme is developing among a handful of Progressive blogs, with Media Matters, Hullabaloo, Discourse.net, and Brad Blog all complaining that the Washington Post and NYT gave A1 treatment yesterday to the 9/12 protests while relegating anti-war marches in 2002 and 2005 to the inside pages. Steve Benen follows up and observes,

There are competing angles to explain something like this, and some can make a compelling case that the media just overcompensates — outlets are so afraid of being accused of “liberal bias,” they go out of their way to promote one side’s concerns over the other.

But I still think it gets back to the fact that D.C. is just “wired” for Republicans. Anti-war protestors, the thinking goes, were liberal hippies out of step with the mainstream. After all, there was a Republican president and Republican House in 2002, and polls showed reasonably strong support for the war in Iraq. Why pretend the liberal protestors are important?

In contrast, seven years later, Tea Baggers have to be considered a major political movement. There’s a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress in 2009, and polls show reasonably strong support for the administration’s economic agenda, but the right-wing cries can’t be relegated to a few throw-away paragraphs in the Metro section.

My snarky reaction is that groups on the left have been staging protest rallies about every other weekend since the 1960s, making it a dog bites man story. Conservatives marching on Washington is at least novel. Beyond the snark, there’s actually a bit of truth to that: Given that there were numerous anti-war rallies, they did become old hat after awhile. And they were being compared to the much more massive anti-Vietnam rallies of the 1960s and seemed tepid by comparison.

My secondary reaction is to wonder whether we’re comparing apples to apples here. The above posts are all self-referencing, giving very little factual information. When were the other rallies held? What else was going on? They don’t say.

The 9/12 rally was held on a Saturday, meaning print coverage was going to be on Sunday — typically a soft news day. Were the other rallies held on Saturday? Further, the 9/12 protesters lucked out and nothing much happened to knock it inside. Maybe Iraq War protests were knocked off the front pages by, say, developments in Iraq itself?

Amusingly, Tim Graham at NewsBusters is complaining that the liberal Washington Post buried the 9/12 story on its website and that the story contained a lot of editorializing that suggested the protesters did not represent mainstream opinion.

UPDATE: Several readers assure me that the anti-war rallies in question happened on weekends. Which stands to reason, since weekends are the easiest time to stage rallies. But that hardly settles the issue. Here, according to Wikipedia, are the protests against the Iraq War:

That’s a flippin’ lot of protests! Granted, the list covers even relatively minor gatherings and some that took place overseas.

I have no idea which protests the posters linked in the opener are complaining about, let alone images of the front pages of the Washington Post and NYT on those days. Most of the protests in 2002 in fact did take place during the week. Only two were on Saturday, the September 29 event that attracted “roughly 5000″ demonstrators and a huge demonstration on October 26.

Since the latter appears to be the only significant domestic protest from that year, I’ll assume it’s the one being complained about. I don’t have a copy of the WaPo or NYT from that day but have ascertained that there was a feature in the Sunday WaPo headlined “Antiwar Protest Largest Since ’60s” but I don’t know on what page it appeared.

What else happened that day? I was able to find a listing of stories that appeared in the Saturday and Sunday editions. As it turns out, the competing stories were actually much, much bigger than I’d have guessed.

The DC sniper’s rampage had just been ended, with his arrest of October 24, generating dozens of stories covering every detail and nuance. Believe me, having just moved to the DC area two months prior, I can attest that that story was occupying the minds of those of us living in the DC area.

Oh, and another story took place that likely dominated the Sunday edition and that the Left couldn’t possibly object to having been covered on the front pages: Senator Paul Wellstone was killed in a plane crash. (Oddly, that happened the morning of Friday the 25th but it looks to have been covered in the edition of Sunday the 27th. The archived WaPo version isn’t showing up for me in Google but two reprints of it, both dated 10/27, do. Regardless, it was a huge story with ripple effects that went on for weeks. )

I don’t have time to comb the stacks to figure out what 2004 protest was minimized. But, again, looking at the list above, I’m guessing that protest stories had become decidedly less interesting by that point.

Planning: USA vs. China

James Joyner — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:48:15 +0000

Matt Yglesias notes that Shanghai has a long-term plan for expanding their subway system and laments that we’re not so forward thinking here in America.

What’s striking is the extent to which we don’t operate like that here in the United States. I think everyone believes that over the next couple of decades the Washington, DC metro area will continue to add population. And people likewise clearly envision there being additional square feet of office space in the District and they’re also envision an increase in the District’s population. On top of that, we’re also trying to envision a less carbon-intensive future. All this pretty clearly implies that there ought to be some sort of plan in place for building additional Metro capacity through the central city.

My initial reaction was that, yeah, authoritarian states run by Communist parties tend to be better than democracies at producing long-term plans. After all, it’s easier to plan if you are going to be in office for the foreseeable future and don’t have to worry about public reaction to your policies.

Amusingly, however, his commenters have already pointed out that:

The Census Bureau [Excel spreadsheet] actually predicts a significant decline in DC’s population over the next two decades.

U.S. metropolitan areas with subway systems, including DC, in fact have plans locatable in seconds via the Internet. LA. NYC. DC. Seattle.

As I understand it, you can also get good Chinese food in those cities.

DC Most Dangerous Driving City

James Joyner — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:27:41 +0000

Aaron Brazell passes along word that DC and Baltimore are the most dangerous driving cities, as calculated by Allstate Insurance. Bengt Havorson has the list:

The Safest Driving Top Ten

1. Sioux Falls, SD
2. Fort Collins, CO
3. Chattanooga, TN
4. Cedar Rapids, IA
5. Knoxville, TN
6. Fort Wayne, IN
7. Lexington-Fayette, KY
8. Eugene, OR
9. Boise, ID
10. Colorado Springs, CO

Bottom of the List – Riskiest Driving Cities

1. Washington, D.C.
2. Baltimore, MD
3. Glendale, CA
4. Hartford, CT
5. Newark, NJ
6. Philadelphia, PA
7. Elizabeth, NJ
8. Providence, RI
9. San Francisco, CA
10. Los Angeles, CA

I’ve lived and driven in Chattanooga and now live in the DC suburbs and commute into the city most days. While I found both aggravating, mostly because constant construction projects added to traffic congestion, there’s not much doubt in my mind that DC is a worse place to drive.

Looking at how these are calculated, though, I’m a bit dubious.

To arrive at its lists, Allstate, which has about 11.3 percent of U.S. auto-insurance policies, analyzed its claim data for all collisions resulting in property damage claims. To help reduce the chances of influences like weather or construction, Allstate looked at a period of two years from January 2006 to December 2007. The figures were calculated toward “average years between collision” for drivers, and though they might represent an element of relative risk they’re not being used to determine rates.

Let’s presume that Allstate has representative policy holdings across the states. Wouldn’t “accidents per mile driven” or “accidents per hour driven” by more useful than “years between accidents”?

UPDATE: Steve Bainbridge thinks it may be no coincidence that DC is both the most dangerous city to drive in and that “DC also has more red light and speed cameras than almost any metro area in the country. Indeed, DC has nearly 10% of all the traffic cameras in the United States.”

Meanwhile, Stacy McCain has some, um, interesting suggestions on how to solve the problem.

DC Thriving During Recession

James Joyner — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:19:27 +0000

NYT urban planning professor Mitchell Moss has taken to the pixels of something called New Geography to point out what most of us already knew: Washington, DC thrives during bad times for the rest of the country. His historical discussion of the District’s evolution from swampy backwater to major city is interesting.

But this, I think, goes too far:

Washington has always been a one industry town: that’s why it has an intrinsically self-absorbed monotonic culture. Everyone there depends on government for their livelihood. It is fundamentally not a city of competitive industries, but a giant taxpayer-funded office park, surrounded by museums and memorials.

That’s pretty much what I thought, too, before moving to the area seven years ago. There’s no doubt that DC only exists because it’s the seat of national power and that lobbyists, lawyers, contractors, and others are employed in lucrative jobs serving or seeking to influence government.

But the vast number of people here, as in most major cities, are employed in the service economy. I’m not sure why dry cleaners, car salesmen, restaurant managers, pet groomers, golf pros, auto mechanics, gardeners, HVAC technicians, barbers, or whathaveyou who work in a metroplex where government is the chief employer are any different than those in towns where banking, manufacturing, or some other line of work is central.

Now, it is true that those of us who work in the general public policy nexus are more absorbed by national and international politics than the average Joe. There’s a veritable army of think tankers, journalists, and activist types who derive little or no money directly from government but who are nonetheless deeply engaged in wonkish activity. And wonks tend to hang out with other wonks and talk about wonkish things. I don’t know that this amounts to being “self-absorbed” but it’s somewhat monotonic.

This one, though, is bizarre:

There is one unambiguous measure that signals the growth of business activity within a city. Until recently, taxi fares in the nation’s capital were based on zones. These made it very inexpensive for members of Congress to go to and from the Capital. Today, every DC taxi has a meter and the old-fashioned zone-based system has been abolished. Both the municipal government and taxi drivers understand that there are more dollars to be made from those seeking to influence government than those who actually make the laws.

Apparently, Moss doesn’t read the Washington Post and has never ridden a DC cab. The taxi companies fought metering hammer and tong, going so far as to engage in strikes over the policy change. The zone system was hated by tourists and other infrequent users because two trips of identical distance could have wildly different charges. Locals would have the cabbie stop a couple blocks away from their final destination to avoid going into another zone; others had no clue.

Photo by Flickr user Kevin H under Creative Commons license.

State Liquor Stores

James Joyner — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:17:49 +0000

Glenn Reynolds points to a story by Doug Winship about Washington State’s liquor stores running out of, um, liquor just in time for the July 4th weekend during which all good Americans celebrate their country’s independence by getting hammered. Naturally, all liquor stores in Washington State are run by the government of the state of Washington who 1) screwed up royally and 2) don’t really care because, after all, they don’t have a lot of competition.

While I’ve seldom had difficulty getting the beverages needed to restock our bar at Virginia’s ABC stores, having a state-run monopoly does have its quirks. For example, I went in the other day to procure some Angostura bitters. You know the brand that’s synonymous with bitters and that’s a key ingredient in many classic cocktails. It seems that, for reasons unknown to the manager of my local ABC store, the Commonwealth has decided not to stock Angostura bitters but rather Peychaud’s. Both are esteemed brands that have been around nearly two hundred years but Peychaud’s is much less, er, bitter than Angostura. True connoisseurs of such things, of which I am decidedly not one, tend to keep a supply of both on hand as the properties of each go better with different cocktails.

Certainly, if this were the worst thing the Commonwealth’s government were doing, I’d be quite pleased. But there’s no obvious reason why private individuals shouldn’t be able to open liquor stores and supply a wider variety of products.