“Cost of War in Afghanistan will be Major Factor in Troop-Reduction Talks”

Proof • May 31, 2011

This is your post Memorial Day “Oh, crap!” moment, brought to you by the Obama administration!

Of all the statistics that President Obama’s national security team will consider when it debates the size of forthcoming troop reductions in Afghanistan, the most influential number probably will not be how many insurgents have been killed or the amount of territory wrested from the Taliban, according to aides to those who will participate.

It will be the cost of the war.

Someone should tell the Commander in Chief, that when you have men and women on the battlefield, some dying for their country, this is not the time to “go cheap”.

Military and civilian officials agree that the cost of the Afghan mission is staggering. The amount per deployed service member in Afghanistan, which the administration estimates at $1 million per year, is significantly higher than it was in Iraq because fuel and other supplies must be trucked into the landlocked nation, often through circuitous routes. Bases, meanwhile, have to be built from scratch.

Here’s a clue for the Obama people:
A) Figure out what your objective is.
B) Figure out how you will accomplish your objective
C) Budget for that

Anything else will be like those commercials where the guy only buys part of a car, or a car without wheels because “it was all he could afford”.

I have the feeling that this country in general and the military in particular “can’t afford” this president.

H/T Memeorandum

Cross posted at Proof Positive

Tags: Barack Obama, Economy, Military, War On Terror

Brenarlo

Yes, listening to Obama talk about costs is goofy. But, the concept is responsible. Who do we think we are that we can continue to fund these wars when we’re right up against the debt ceiling? Is the US immune to economic laws because we are patriotic?

Now certainly, going cheap on the troops is dumb. But, costs should ALWAYS be part of war-making.

http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

“costs should ALWAYS be part of war-making” Yes. “C”. Before you start them. Or before you add to them, such as in Libya. But if you need more money to accomplish “A” and “B”, then maybe you examine other places to cut the budget: ethanol subsidies, PBS, the Federal Bureau of Investigating Whether or Not There are Too Many Federal Bureaus*, to make up the difference. Or you reexamine and change “A”. You don’t short change “B”:

*Closed Captioning for the Humor Impaired: Not the “FBI”, the “FBIWONTATMFB”.
Anonymous

Rational people make decisions on the basis of cost/benefit; so what is the cost of cutting and running from the Islamic terrorists over there? How much more will it cost us to have to fight them here at home, instead? If we allow them to defeat us, nothing else will matter, especially not how much money we “saved” by continuing failed social programs while cutting our defense.

Brenarlo

Sigh… more scare tactics from the supporters of perpetual war. Oh wise nationalist socialist, please tell me what victory is… what cutting and running means… and what the cost will be to the country if we do either of those things.

Anonymous

Thrifty is not in Obamas vocabulary. So why the sudden interest in fiscal sanity? There isn’t any he sees the war against the Taliban and other Islamofascists as unjust. In Lybia, Gaddafi has eliminated them, so he wants to open the way.

http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

Seems to me the last time Big O was cutting the budget, he crowed about reducing the rate of spending domestically, but could demonstrate actual cuts in the military budget. Burning $100 million dollars worth of missiles in a day in Libya can’t have helped the military’s budget any either.

Wonder if he’s figured out “A” for Libya yet?

Anonymous

Unlikely, Obama hasn’t even figured out that raising taxes lowers tax revenue, so we’ve really got no hope that any other reasonable notion has entered in his head.

SigFan

I heard that Obama and the Democrats are proposing that defense spending be limited to 3% of GDP. Not sure how you arrive at that as an upper limit, particularly when you have troops operating in 3 theaters simultaneously. Sounds like someone just grabbed a number out of one of the orifices or another.

FWIW – I do believe that defense cuts can and should be enacted, but I would be much more inclined hearing what the military leadership feels they really need versus setting some kind of arbitrary limit.

http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

“I do believe that defense cuts can and should be enacted” That’s reasonable. To look at the overall budget for the military, assess which expenditures are needed and which can be eliminated and act accordingly. But budgeting for the military in general is far different than determining how you are going to fight a war you’re already in based on what it’s costing you.

Maybe you reexamine if “B” is the most cost effective way of achieving “A”, and change your strategy, but as the front page picture illustrates, if you need a plane with wings, buying a plane without them because it’s cheaper just won’t fly.

SigFan

Sorry soldier, you already used up your allocated budget of bullets for the year. You’ll just have to try to stay alive with your wits and your knife until next year’s budget is approved.

I agree completely. In general I was talking about cuts to “other than hot” activities.

http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

We were going to buy the “desert sand” camo for you, but we got a really good deal on “jungle green”!

http://ndgoon.blogspot.com Goon

You laugh but I got desert camo just before I “Left” Desert Storm for home, they wanted us to have new uniforms when we landed in the USA.
http://ndgoon.blogspot.com Goon

You laugh but I got desert camo just before I “Left” Desert Storm for home, they wanted us to have new uniforms when we landed in the USA.
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

We couldn’t get you an uparmored Humvee, but we found a VW microbus on Craig’s List that’s almost the same thing.

Anonymous

One of my Brothers, a career Marine, says that when going into combat it is not reassuring to know that your weapons were made by the lowest bidder…
I actually have a relatively simple plan to reduce Defense spending while assuring quality of material and construction.
This idea would also supply vocational training to enlistees, thus preparing at least some of them for life after service without wasting money on college ‘educations’ for those who would not profit from it.
studakota

We now know there was quite a discussion amongst Truman and his underlings as to whether using the A-Bomb was the “proper” thing to do. Too many Japanese civilians would be killed, it was argued by the, budding, “America Last” crowd. These were traitors, no other word suffices, who were willing to send our soldiers into unnecessary battle in order to save the enemy, casualties. The same enemy that attacked the U.S. to begin the war. Even then there were those who thought that we had lived “Too Well”, and that our punishment should be, perhaps, 500.000-1.000.000 dead, and wounded. What other conclusion can be drawn? And Joe McCarthy was Crucified for going after that, and worse, crowd? Fast forward to today. How can we be sure that devastating weapons, as the A-Bomb was, are not being shelved? We know Obama, and a majority of his people, are Muslim sympathizers. The same group our troops are firing their guns at, right? What would lead anyone to believe then, with any assurance, that a super weapon is not being held in abeyance at this moment, by our commanders, under orders of the ”Great Appeaser”, Barrack H. Obama? After all we, who have so much, cannot just destroy much, if not all of, the Muslim world, it is reasoned by our CIC. Islam has so much to give, to contribute, to the future of the world, or some such claptrap, is their thinking. We’ve already heard of awarding medals to our soldiers who “Don’t” shoot the enemy. Some concept that is. It’s not hard to believe, then, that secret weapons are not being used because, well, those in charge would like not to cause the enemy undo casualties, again, more claptrap. Or, it may be that “The One” would simply, and sordidly, like to provide more employment to Union nurses in the rehabilitation units at Walter Reed hospital, so as to insure more campaign funds for the coming election.
Anonymous

Everybody knows we have been out foxed and humiliated by a couple of fifth rate nations.
Call it victory and withdraw with honor.

http://ndgoon.blogspot.com Goon

We won the wars… I am not sure how you think we are being out foxed by IRAQ? Haven’t we killed thousands of IRAQI soldiers?

Anonymous

All the blood and money and nothing to show for it but a government hostile to us and friendly to Iran.
An Americans life in Baghdad is not worth an onion.

Anonymous

All the blood and money and nothing to show for it but a government hostile to us and friendly to Iran.

yep. that’s our government.

Anonymous

Everybody knows we have been out foxed and humiliated by a couple of fifth rate nations.
Call it victory and withdraw with honor.
Anonymous

Krauthammer’s Take
June 1, 2011 11:28 A.M.
By NRO Staff

.On the reported push among White House officials to reduce troop levels in Afghanistan in order to cut spending:

“This is an administration that spent $1 trillion on a stimulus that will not leave a trace. Now it’s saying that in order to save a few billion [dollars] — a fraction of a fraction of that — there are people in the White House who want to reduce the war effort.

You have to remember… the overhead and the [military] bases and the infrastructure [in Afghanistan] is almost a fixed cost. That is not going to be reduced. All that you can reduce… would be the number of soldiers, which endangers the soldiers and endangers the mission.

Look, you have to be serious about a war. If you think it’s worth winning, you do what the commanders think you need. If you don’t [think it is worth winning], you leave and then you save a lot of money and a lot of lives. What you don’t do is do half measures to save a fraction of a fraction of what you threw away on domestic programs.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/268551/krauthammers-take-nro-staff

SayAnythingBlog.com

“Cost of War in Afghanistan will be Major Factor in Troop-Reduction Talks”

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments