Billion dollar a week lease/troop deployment in Iraq may persist through 2006

[BaliBabyDoc]

Yahoo
WASHINGTON, Nov. 21 Army planning for Iraq (news - web sites) currently assumes keeping about 100,000 United States troops there through early 2006, a senior Army officer said Friday. The plans reflect the concerns of some Army officials that stabilizing Iraq could be more difficult than originally planned.

 

[LunarRay]

I guess the presumption is that The President will win reelection in '04. This pronouncement has created the basic platform for the democrats in both foreign and domestic economic policy to defeat Mr Bush in '04. It also will determine the Senate and House makeup. Since Mr Bush said he'd be guided by the military opinion and this source apparently reflects the thinking of the Pentagon folks we can now revisit '68. Oh boy! Where are my bell bottoms?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Oh boy! Where are my bell bottoms?

Hell I can tolerate the bell bottoms . . . it's the horrible policy that should remain a memory. The Bush regime has a horrible intelligence/ego conflict. It's clear that Iraq is going to be more of a challenge than they bargained. Despite the strain the occupation places on US forces (not to mention the US Treasury), Bushies are incapable of doing the obvious.

The rest of the world wants us to beg. Hell I was opposed to the war and opposed to the occupation . . . but damn . . . pretty please with sugar on top . . . America needs help in Iraq. And I'm not talking about a donor's conference. Iraqis need a lot more than money, they need faith . . . IMHO, they have none in the Iraqi Governing Council or Coalition Provisional Authority.

 

[Mrburns2007]

Glad there looking at the situation honestly and going to keep 100,000 troops there to keep the peace as best as possible.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Mrburns2007
Glad there looking at the situation honestly and going to keep 100,000 troops there to keep the peace as best as possible.

It is a shame that there is certain crowd that will complain no matter how many troops are there.

 

[LunarRay]

Indeed! The policy is a memory worth forgetting.. but, every now and again something ignites the embers of that era into a fire storm. This Iraqi situation has that potential. IMO.

I don't think we'll get much help in this because there is no real benefit to the other nations to help.. Self interest and the absent support of their population in our endeavor will leave us to go it alone. They (except Britain) would love to see us fail so the Euro can replace the dollar in the oil issue.. If this occurs, they, Europe, will be the numero uno from then on. That is a powerfull reason to not be too helpful. I don't think the stability of the region is in their mind set and this coupled with the terrorist targeting anyone who helps the US and friends cements the population against our intervention in the area.

 

[mastertech01]

Much MORE is this than it would have cost to keep those troops in training at their normal station of duty? I think that is the real cost dollar wise. You cant just assume they would have zero cost if we werent there.

Edit... and how much would it have cost if we just had kept them in Afghanistan trying to continue rooting out Taliban and al-Qaeda ?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: mastertech01
Much MORE is this than it would have cost to keep those troops in training at their normal station of duty? I think that is the real cost dollar wise. You cant just assume they would have zero cost if we werent there.

Edit... and how much would it have cost if we just had kept them in Afghanistan trying to continue rooting out Taliban and al-Qaeda ?

The cost increment is not too much.. just minor upkeep and the like.. not more than two hundred million or so a year, I'd guess. (All things being equal) It is an economic issue to the extent we put $ into infrastructure and the like.. the REAL incremental cost. But the Democrates won't stop there. If the Right say's that then the left will quip... ''You can't put a $ value on the incremental loss of life.. nothing is free and when you have people starving at home... etc... etc.." Folks hear 87billion on top of 73billion and pretty soon they loose sight of the details and polarize to the side that protects their interests.. I think..

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: mastertech01
Much MORE is this than it would have cost to keep those troops in training at their normal station of duty? I think that is the real cost dollar wise. You cant just assume they would have zero cost if we werent there.

Edit... and how much would it have cost if we just had kept them in Afghanistan trying to continue rooting out Taliban and al-Qaeda ?

How many lives would we have saved if we stayed in Afghanistan fighting terrorism? How much safer would America be? Is Dubya's empire-building more valuable than preventing another 9-11?

 

[Jhhnn]

I really don't know what the percentages are, but it's alot more expensive to actually deploy troops than to have them stationed at home, particularly reservists. I'd estimate that the price is over twice as high, all things considered.

So Iraq will probably cost us about $1.5 Trillion, give or take... I guess that's cheap for removing an evil dictator and creating new opportunities for Dubya's cronies. Lemme see, what's the interest on 1.5 Trillion at 5%- huh, only $75 Billion/year... forever.... and you know we're borrowing every cent...

Part and parcel of the smaller govt scenario- we'll be so far in debt when they're through that we'll be lucky to have a govt that does more than collect taxes to pay interest on the money we borrowed... It's a form of looting, wrapped in a shroud of patriotism...

 

[Mrburns2007]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: mastertech01
Much MORE is this than it would have cost to keep those troops in training at their normal station of duty? I think that is the real cost dollar wise. You cant just assume they would have zero cost if we werent there.

Edit... and how much would it have cost if we just had kept them in Afghanistan trying to continue rooting out Taliban and al-Qaeda ?

How many lives would we have saved if we stayed in Afghanistan fighting terrorism? How much safer would America be? Is Dubya's empire-building more valuable than preventing another 9-11?

There were terrorist training camps in Iraq but I guess your going to simply gloss over that fact. Saddam also tried to kill Bush 41 in Saudi Arabia so you can imagine how much treachery he was planning in the background that we didn't know about.

PS: what's all this talk of empire building, we aren't taking Iraq's land or oil.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Mrburns2007

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: mastertech01
Much MORE is this than it would have cost to keep those troops in training at their normal station of duty? I think that is the real cost dollar wise. You cant just assume they would have zero cost if we werent there.

Edit... and how much would it have cost if we just had kept them in Afghanistan trying to continue rooting out Taliban and al-Qaeda ?

How many lives would we have saved if we stayed in Afghanistan fighting terrorism? How much safer would America be? Is Dubya's empire-building more valuable than preventing another 9-11?

There were terrorist training camps in Iraq but I guess your going to simply gloss over that fact. Saddam also tried to kill Bush 41 in Saudi Arabia so you can imagine how much treachery he was planning in the background that we didn't know about.

PS: what's all this talk of empire building, we aren't taking Iraq's land or oil.

well it has been a fact for many months now that those camps were in the kurish controled area of Iraq

 

[JackStorm]

Yeah, well, small details like the fact that the camps were in areas Saddam DIDN'T control, doesn't seem to matter to some people. It's like when people use the "But, what about all those terrorist that are killing our soldiers and blowing things up in Iraq? If we hadn't gone in they would still be there." argument, I've heard in a few places. What these people seem to forget is that the "terrorists" started flooding into Iraq AFTER Saddam lost control of Iraq.

Oh, and lets not forget those who try to link Al Qaeda to Saddam. Heh, what they've overlooked there aswell, is that Bin laden, has said on a few occations, that he though the baath party (I would asume that would include Saddam Hussain)were infidels. But, meh...it seems these are just miror details to them. Can't let people think the invation actuly caused some things (like the war on terror)to get worce, and that some things are not going as well as they could have, if the Taliban/ Al Qaeda issue had been delt with in propor manner in Afganistan, before shifting the attention to Iraq.

All in all, I'm always amazed at the short attention span some people seem to have. If people REALLY cared about stoping things like what happened on 9/11, from happening again. They would have been shouting and demanding that the Taliban and Al Qaeda be delt with first, when the focus was starting to shift from Afganistan to Iraq, to make sure Afganistan was stabilized. And no. Afganistan is NOT stable, in any sence of the word. And I feel that both the US administration and Media aswell are to blame for shifting the attention from Afganistan to Iraq.

In the end, this is all about politics for most people, and it's disgusting.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Mrburns2007
There were terrorist training camps in Iraq but I guess your going to simply gloss over that fact. Saddam also tried to kill Bush 41 in Saudi Arabia so you can imagine how much treachery he was planning in the background that we didn't know about.

PS: what's all this talk of empire building, we aren't taking Iraq's land or oil.

Sometimes I wish there were an entry test one had to pass before being allowed to post in P&N. It gets tiring to have to correct the same old misinformation over and over and over and over and over and . . .

First, as Czar and JackStorm pointed out, these infamous Iraqi terrorist camps the YABAs bleat about were not in areas controlled by Hussein. Even more, there are terrorist training camps in remote areas of virtually every country in the Middle East. Iraq was less noteworthy in this respect than most of its neighbors. Finally, specifically to the point of 9/11 and al Qaida, those terrorists were in Afghanistan -- NOT IRAQ -- and were mostly Saudis, NOT IRAQIs. While it didn't surprise me that Bush-lite couldn't tell the difference between Afghanistan and Iraq, it is depressing to see that so many other Americans continue to swallow this deception.