Posted on 12/27/2007 7:27:57 PM PST by canuck_conservative
The latest estimate of the growing costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the worldwide battle against terrorism -- nearly $15 billion a month -- came last week from one of the Senate's leading proponents of a continued U.S. military presence in Iraq. "This cost of this war is approaching $15 billion a month, with the Army spending $4.2 billion of that every month," Sen. Ted Stevens (Alaska), the ranking Republican on the Appropriations defense subcommittee, said in a little-noticed floor speech Dec. 18. His remarks came in support of adding $70 billion to the omnibus fiscal 2008 spending legislation to pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, as well as counterterrorism activities, for the six months from Oct. 1, 2007, through March 31 of next year. While most of the public focus has been on the political fight over troop levels, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reported this month that the Bush administration's request for the 2008 fiscal year of $189.3 billion for Defense Department operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and worldwide counterterrorism activities was 20 percent higher than for fiscal 2007 and 60 percent higher than for fiscal 2006. Pentagon spokesmen would not comment last week on Stevens's figure but said their latest estimate for monthly spending for Iraq, Afghanistan and the war on terrorism was $11.7 billion as of Sept. 30, the end of fiscal 2007.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
We go where they are, we kill them, they don't come here because they're DEAD. That's the plan. Sitting around waiting to be hit is no plan, especially with these guys. If you're dealing with guys who achieve a strategic goal when they blow up a school bus, you literally have to defend everything, and that's impossible.
Lastly, I have to tell you that when I hear folks from the cut-and-run crowd talk about the border, all I hear is "blah, blah, blah." You see, I can't imagine you guys really think any of us who support staying and winning are sitting around thinking "Wow, it's so great that we don't have to defend our borders because we have troops in Iraq." There's no way y'all don't know that without those of us who support the war effort the ruckus that killed amnesty would have been much quieter. So, it really can't be anything more than an empty rhetorical exercise when y'all whip out the border crap, because you'd have to be beyond clueless to think you're making any real point, much less changing someone from open border to border hawk.
1. Anyone who knows anything about insurgencies knows they take a long time to defeat, even when you do everything right from beginning to end.
2. It's also worth considering that in WWII the population centers were considered part of the target list, but in this war damaging the population is counter-productive. There will be no Dresdens in this war.
3. That less than four year speedy war you're talking about cost over 400,000 American lives and years of spending 40% of GDP on war. If this administration was doing that, would you be applauding?
4. This war's been going on since at least 1979. Expecting it to be over on a schedule that we want is pretty much unwarranted.
See posts 7 and 92. If America's going bankrupt, the Iraq War is the last thing that's going to cause it.
Bears repeating.
Larry Lindsay suggested $100-200 billion as a HIGH-end estimate, which was pooh-poohed as too high and cost him his job. Mitch Daniel, who took over from him, said that the Lindsay estimate was "very, very high" and dropped it to $50-60 billion.
Sec. Rumsfeld announced on January 19, 2003 (see http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=1322) that the estimate was "...a number that's something under $50 billion..." (to be shared with other countries).
How about this, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/:
In any event, most estimates put forward by White House officials in 2002 and 2003 were relatively low compared with the nation's gross domestic product, the size of the federal budget or the cost of past wars.Note that this story is nearly two years old.
White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey was the exception to the rule, offering an "upper bound" estimate of $100 billion to $200 billion in a September 2002 interview with The Wall Street Journal. That figure raised eyebrows at the time, although Lindsey argued the cost was small, adding, "The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy.”
U.S. direct spending on the war in Iraq already has surpassed the upper bound of Lindsey's upper bound [...]
Back in 2002, the White House was quick to distance itself from Lindsey's view. Mitch Daniels, director of the White House budget office, quickly called the estimate "very, very high." Lindsey himself was dismissed in a shake-up of the White House economic team later that year, and in January 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the budget office had come up with "a number that's something under $50 billion." He and other officials expressed optimism that Iraq itself would help shoulder the cost once the world market was reopened to its rich supply of oil.
I'm reminded of the shots in Fahrenheit 9/11 of a soldier at Walter Reed who had lost both hands in Iraq. What Michael Moore failed to tell hi audience was that the soldier had one of the main tires on a Blackhawk blow up in his face, an injury that could have easily occurred back at his stateside base. Heck, there was a plaque hanging on the wall of my first crew chief school classroom with broken bolts from an F-15's nose tire on it. The crew chief had blown himself to bits servicing the tire with a high pressure compressor to save time.
He placed a $30 million earmark into the ‘08 budget for a project called Interstate 69.
And with a simple search, you will find that the Trans Texas Corridor, Interstate 69, and the NAFTA Superhighway are all one in the same project.
And please, show me how much military history you know: How many wars have gone on much longer and cost much more than initial estimates? People whought the Civil War would be over in a few months, and the British people were sure their troops would be home from France by Christmas of 1914.
Oh, and if you're going to start counting pennies, take a look at this chart first.
Thanks, will look into that.
I know of numerous training accidents where guys got killed or maimed.
It’s something that happens all the time, and it’s one of the hazards we accept as part of “doing business”.
And it doesn’t surprise me that michael moore would pull such an underhanded stunt as that.
That’s kind of my point though, this war is fundamentally different from WWII so there is little comparison to be made.
Well, we all have our crosses to bear. Try living in Wisconsin as one of the last remaining Republicans in ‘The People’s Republic of Madistan.’
I’m pretty sure they’re expecting me to turn off the last CF bulb as I leave the state. ;)
See posts 7 and 92. If America's going bankrupt, the Iraq War is the last thing that's going to cause it.
Spending a trillion dollars to rebuild Iraq is going to bankrupt us.
If you want to add the costs of the welfare state that is fine, but both represent more spending then the United States can afford.
We can thus conclude that the GDP framework is an empty abstraction devoid of any link to the real world. Notwithstanding this, the GDP framework is in big demand by governments and central bank officials since it provides justification for their interference with businesses. It also provides an illusory frame of reference to assess the performance of government officials. http://www.mises.org/article.aspx?Id=770&month=35&title=What+is+up+with+the+GDP?&id=44
What is costing us in Iraq and Afghanistan is not 'fighting them' it is nation building under the guise of fighting the terrorists.
The enemy has no organized Army, Navy or Air Force, yet it is costing us hundreds of billions to fight him?
Something that the Government does not seem anxious to do.
Oh, Ted is still getting his pork, but now we can add the Iraqi's and their bridges as well.
Conservatives love military spending and liberals love welfare spending, hence the combination of the warfare-welfare state and bankrupting the nation.
A few billion here, a few billion there....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.