General Tommy Franks Tells Congress . . .

[CaptnKirk]

We could be there in Iraq for 4 years

Now - Don't blast ME on this, he said it to a Congressional hearing, blast the Administration.
I can't change their policy, but they can - IF the voters and the public let them know !

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Did you think we'd be in and out in 6 months? I thought people we screaming that the whole war would last that long, guess they had to adjust their argument a tad😉

Of course we need to stay in Iraq until it is a stable country(which it hasn't been for many many years) and can rule from within. I don't see anything wrong with 2-4 years, it's a better option than leaving too soon and having to go back in after a few years.

What do you want to see CnK? (since you want us to blast the Administration instead of you)
CkG

 

[da loser]

was this really in doubt? i understand why the administration doesn't want to say because it brings up images of imperialism not the liberation. anyway i don't think his statement is that definate "I anticipate we'll be involved in Iraq in the future. Whether that means two years or four years, I don't know"

I mean afghanistan is going on 2 years and we're not even close.

 

[gistech1978]

"Somalia. Started off as a humanitarian mission then changed into a nation-building mission, and that?s where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price.

And so I don?t think our troops ought to be used for what?s called nation-building.

I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow a dictator that?s in our ? and it?s in our ? when it?s in our best interests.

But in this case, it was a nation-building exercise. And same with Haiti, I wouldn?t have supported either."

quote from the horses mouth right there, debate #2, your boy dubya in all his eloquent glory.

 

[tcsenter]

Yeah, let's pull out right now, particularly before some semblence of a government has been established so that Iraq becomes another post-Soviet Afghanistan. That would be a good idea.

 

[NakaNaka]

tc - No one is saying that we should pull out tomorrow. But 4 years. I mean, can you still imagine the headlines in 2007! "Ambush leaves two soldiers dead." 2007!

 

[gistech1978]

what about afghanistan now?
afghaniwhere?
how about post US afghanistan?
were doing exactly what the soviets did.
that would be a good idea.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: gistech1978
what about afghanistan now?
afghaniwhere?
how about post US afghanistan?
were doing exactly what the soviets did.
that would be a good idea.

Rumsfeild said we are spending about a billion a month in afganistan. I would not exactly call that neglect as a buck goes a long way there.

 

[CaptnKirk]

700 million per month expenses for Afganastan. Thats not money going to assist Afganistan,
that's the U.S. cost of paying our military personell salaries, purchasing equipment, moving
weapons and supplies to maintain our troop presence. Very little is going to the populus,
and we can't keep the dope down.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
700 million per month expenses for Afganastan. Thats not money going to assist Afganistan,
that's the U.S. cost of paying our military personell salaries, purchasing equipment, moving
weapons and supplies to maintain our troop presence. Very little is going to the populus,
and we can't keep the dope down.

Actually Rumsfeld put the number at around 900 million. He did not mention what the split was for humanitarian vs military support. However do consider that the GDP of the country of Afganistan is only about 20Billion. So a billion spent in the country is a very significant amount.

 

[da loser]

nytimes article
"A Pentagon official said the $3.9 billion figure "is the estimated cost to maintain the current force level in Iraq," which includes expenses for military operations, including fuel, transportation, food, ordnance and personnel, but not reconstruction costs. The $3.9 billion figure is almost double the $2 billion per month estimate issued by administration officials in April. In addition, the cost of operations in Afghanistan are now $900 million to $950 million monthly, Mr. Rumsfeld said. "

i'm pretty sure very little of that ends up in the economy, depending of course on if we're contracting locals to transport fuel and such, I believe they're getting fuel from pakistan. of course we also have our own separate humanitarian efforts.

I do wonder if they include personnel costs as their salary or just the $150 bonus, if so that's a lot of fuel and transportation.

anyway captnkirk is right, the dope is the problem. it'll be like colombia. although not the entire country can grow the poppies so we should be able to offer support in those areas. it's time we ended the drug war and take away one of their sources of revenue, then we just have to solve the oil and diamond problems. I bet it's easier to solve the oil than take away the diamonds 😀

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
700 million per month expenses for Afganastan. Thats not money going to assist Afganistan,
that's the U.S. cost of paying our military personell salaries, purchasing equipment, moving
weapons and supplies to maintain our troop presence. Very little is going to the populus,
and we can't keep the dope down.

Actually Rumsfeld put the number at around 900 million. He did not mention what the split was for humanitarian vs military support. However do consider that the GDP of the country of Afganistan is only about 20Billion. So a billion spent in the country is a very significant amount.

That's not a billion spent in the country. That is a billion spent by the US to support the US presense in Afghanistan. It isn't like Germany or Korea. Everything we use in Afghanistan is brought in, thier are few if any local contractors being used. Our troops are also generally restricted to base, travel in convoy etc, they don't spend much money in the local economy.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
700 million per month expenses for Afganastan. Thats not money going to assist Afganistan,
that's the U.S. cost of paying our military personell salaries, purchasing equipment, moving
weapons and supplies to maintain our troop presence. Very little is going to the populus,
and we can't keep the dope down.

Actually Rumsfeld put the number at around 900 million. He did not mention what the split was for humanitarian vs military support. However do consider that the GDP of the country of Afganistan is only about 20Billion. So a billion spent in the country is a very significant amount.

That's not a billion spent in the country. That is a billion spent by the US to support the US presense in Afghanistan. It isn't like Germany or Korea. Everything we use in Afghanistan is brought in, thier are few if any local contractors being used. Our troops are also generally restricted to base, travel in convoy etc, they don't spend much money in the local economy.

Dont be so sure. It is far easier to buy things than to ship them 1/2 way around the world when possible.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
700 million per month expenses for Afganastan. Thats not money going to assist Afganistan,
that's the U.S. cost of paying our military personell salaries, purchasing equipment, moving
weapons and supplies to maintain our troop presence. Very little is going to the populus,
and we can't keep the dope down.

Actually Rumsfeld put the number at around 900 million. He did not mention what the split was for humanitarian vs military support. However do consider that the GDP of the country of Afganistan is only about 20Billion. So a billion spent in the country is a very significant amount.

That's not a billion spent in the country. That is a billion spent by the US to support the US presense in Afghanistan. It isn't like Germany or Korea. Everything we use in Afghanistan is brought in, thier are few if any local contractors being used. Our troops are also generally restricted to base, travel in convoy etc, they don't spend much money in the local economy.

Dont be so sure. It is far easier to buy things than to ship them 1/2 way around the world when possible.

WTH is there to buy in Afghanistan besides rocks and opium?

 

[mastertech01]

A billion isnt really much money is it? It wouldn't even pay the monthly salary of 1/3 of our military soldiers worldwide. Can you even imagine the operating expense of all thier equipment, food, healthcare, weapons and ammunition, transportation expense, etc?

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
700 million per month expenses for Afganastan. Thats not money going to assist Afganistan,
that's the U.S. cost of paying our military personell salaries, purchasing equipment, moving
weapons and supplies to maintain our troop presence. Very little is going to the populus,
and we can't keep the dope down.

Actually Rumsfeld put the number at around 900 million. He did not mention what the split was for humanitarian vs military support. However do consider that the GDP of the country of Afganistan is only about 20Billion. So a billion spent in the country is a very significant amount.

That's not a billion spent in the country. That is a billion spent by the US to support the US presense in Afghanistan. It isn't like Germany or Korea. Everything we use in Afghanistan is brought in, thier are few if any local contractors being used. Our troops are also generally restricted to base, travel in convoy etc, they don't spend much money in the local economy.

Dont be so sure. It is far easier to buy things than to ship them 1/2 way around the world when possible.

What exactly could we buy from the Afghans? Fuel...nope. Food....nope. Maintenance....nope. Transport...maybe. The Agghans have almost zero capacity to supply us with anything. It all comes in from Pakistan, Turkey, Uzbekistan, and Kuwait. CENTCOM has had to rely heavily on its own resources and DLA for Afghanistan.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
700 million per month expenses for Afganastan. Thats not money going to assist Afganistan,
that's the U.S. cost of paying our military personell salaries, purchasing equipment, moving
weapons and supplies to maintain our troop presence. Very little is going to the populus,
and we can't keep the dope down.

Actually Rumsfeld put the number at around 900 million. He did not mention what the split was for humanitarian vs military support. However do consider that the GDP of the country of Afganistan is only about 20Billion. So a billion spent in the country is a very significant amount.

That's not a billion spent in the country. That is a billion spent by the US to support the US presense in Afghanistan. It isn't like Germany or Korea. Everything we use in Afghanistan is brought in, thier are few if any local contractors being used. Our troops are also generally restricted to base, travel in convoy etc, they don't spend much money in the local economy.

Dont be so sure. It is far easier to buy things than to ship them 1/2 way around the world when possible.

What exactly could we buy from the Afghans? Fuel...nope. Food....nope. Maintenance....nope. Transport...maybe. The Agghans have almost zero capacity to supply us with anything. It all comes in from Pakistan, Turkey, Uzbekistan, and Kuwait. CENTCOM has had to rely heavily on its own resources and DLA for Afghanistan.

I think more of that billion dollars is landing in afganistan than you think.

 

[Tripleshot]

As much as I dislike Bush and now have more reason not to support him in 2004, I cannot yet find an alternative (viable or otherwise) in what we did by going to war with Iraq. 12 years of non compliance and the asshat dictator Saddam thumbing his nose at any who challenged him needed to be removed.
Now that we are there, we see the entire plan had NO EXIT STRATEGY! This administration is scrambling right now trying to figure how to end this with as little life lost as possible, but to leave too early would be a mirror of Viet Nam. No honor in that. Poor management is a hallmark of Goerge Bush, but try convincing republicans of those facts. The blowhards will back him till the cows come home, because that was the best they could come up with 4 years ago, when they discovered they just couldn't undo Clinton. Hell, every time you bring up a bad thing about Bush, the first thing this blowhards do is bring up Clinton. Even Bush tried today to tell us he shouldn't be to blame for this because Clinton started sh*t with Saddam in 98. Pathetic.

But we will see what happens in the next 18 months.

 

[JellyBaby]

Triple, nation building is painful. That's why Bush said he'd never do it.....ooops nevermind.

Btw, as the kids say today Bush=the suck, Clinton=the suck.

What surprises me is that the lessons learned by your generation in guerrila warfare seem to be forgotten in today's handling Iraq. The troops are ill-equipped, inadequately trained, have overly long tours of duty, backed by a slow moving bureacratic logistics system and the whole plan doesn't seem all that well thought out. Not to mention we're losing a lot of fine young men over there and there's no end to that in sight. It's a tough task but geez it's not like these warmongers haven't mongered this dance before.