This article is from the archive of our partner .

"Why," asks blogger Matt Yglesias as he scrutinizes the figures, "are we spending a multiple of Afghanistan's total GDP on fighting a war in the country?" Gripes about the cost of the war are common, but Yglesias is making a subtler point. He thinks over General McChrystal's assertion that the Taliban outpays the Afghan government when it comes to soldiers' wages, and Spencer Ackerman's response that it's clearly a "glaring" problem "if ... many Taliban foot soldiers essentially fight because of economic opportunity."

The problem, says Yglesias, sounds correctable: "If there's anything the international coalition has, it's more money than the Taliban." So he questions the "cost-effectiveness" of the current approach:


Why are we spending a multiple of Afghanistan's total GDP on fighting a war in the country? Couldn't more be done, for cheaper, with cash for bribes and development?

This article is from the archive of our partner The Wire.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.