• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Wearing Out and Adding Up Army Costs Increase as Terrain Takes Toll on Equipment

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
The $87 BILLION Bush just asked for is only a "downpayment."

From the Washington Post.

Wearing Out and Adding Up

An excerpt.

"The toll the war is taking on the Army's troops and equipment will lock in much higher military spending for years to come, regardless of how the occupation goes from here, defense experts say.

"This $87 billion is really just a down payment," said Scott Lilly, the Democratic staff director of the House Appropriations Committee and a military procurement expert.

It is a point that military officials emphasize.

"We assumed that operations would cease a lot earlier than they have," said an Army official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "They haven't ceased. The planning process was always to downsize, for the operational tempo to drop dramatically by now. The surprise is, we continue to operate at a very, very high op tempo with a very, very large force."

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: BOBDN
The $87 BILLION Bush just asked for is only a "downpayment."

From the Washington Post.

Wearing Out and Adding Up

An excerpt.

"The toll the war is taking on the Army's troops and equipment will lock in much higher military spending for years to come, regardless of how the occupation goes from here, defense experts say.

"This $87 billion is really just a down payment," said Scott Lilly, the Democratic staff director of the House Appropriations Committee and a military procurement expert.

It is a point that military officials emphasize.

"We assumed that operations would cease a lot earlier than they have," said an Army official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "They haven't ceased. The planning process was always to downsize, for the operational tempo to drop dramatically by now. The surprise is, we continue to operate at a very, very high op tempo with a very, very large force."
The force in Iraq has dropped by about 25% of the peak. I would be willing to bet the tempo has dropped even more than that. Both will continue to drop as time passes.


But your right, there is probably much maintance work that got deferred during peak tempo.
It took the air force about 6 months to get caught up after Desert Storm.

 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BOBDN
The $87 BILLION Bush just asked for is only a "downpayment."

From the Washington Post.

Wearing Out and Adding Up

An excerpt.

"The toll the war is taking on the Army's troops and equipment will lock in much higher military spending for years to come, regardless of how the occupation goes from here, defense experts say.

"This $87 billion is really just a down payment," said Scott Lilly, the Democratic staff director of the House Appropriations Committee and a military procurement expert.

It is a point that military officials emphasize.

"We assumed that operations would cease a lot earlier than they have," said an Army official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "They haven't ceased. The planning process was always to downsize, for the operational tempo to drop dramatically by now. The surprise is, we continue to operate at a very, very high op tempo with a very, very large force."
The force in Iraq has dropped by about 25% of the peak. I would be willing to bet the tempo has dropped even more than that. Both will continue to drop as time passes.


But your right, there is probably much maintance work that got deferred during peak tempo.
It took the air force about 6 months to get caught up after Desert Storm.

Well, even though the force in Iraq has dropped the costs of occupation are much higher than the administration would admit until recently. No one planned for resistance to last this long althught they should have. There were warnings resistance to a mostly American occupation would be strong. The warnings were ignored.

In Desert Strom there was a plan in place before the war began. Clear objectives and an exit strategy.

All lacking this go 'round.

Irresponsible considering this was all foreseen. If the administration had only listened to the Pentagon military experts instead of the ideologue civilian Pentagon hawks.

But the facts have made themselves known now. And Powell has Bush's ear because of those facts.

It may be too little too late.

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BOBDN
The $87 BILLION Bush just asked for is only a "downpayment."

From the Washington Post.

Wearing Out and Adding Up

An excerpt.

"The toll the war is taking on the Army's troops and equipment will lock in much higher military spending for years to come, regardless of how the occupation goes from here, defense experts say.

"This $87 billion is really just a down payment," said Scott Lilly, the Democratic staff director of the House Appropriations Committee and a military procurement expert.

It is a point that military officials emphasize.

"We assumed that operations would cease a lot earlier than they have," said an Army official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "They haven't ceased. The planning process was always to downsize, for the operational tempo to drop dramatically by now. The surprise is, we continue to operate at a very, very high op tempo with a very, very large force."
The force in Iraq has dropped by about 25% of the peak. I would be willing to bet the tempo has dropped even more than that. Both will continue to drop as time passes.


But your right, there is probably much maintance work that got deferred during peak tempo.
It took the air force about 6 months to get caught up after Desert Storm.

Well, even though the force in Iraq has dropped the costs of occupation are much higher than the administration would admit until recently. No one planned for resistance to last this long althught they should have. There were warnings resistance to a mostly American occupation would be strong. The warnings were ignored.

In Desert Strom there was a plan in place before the war began. Clear objectives and an exit strategy.

All lacking this go 'round.

Irresponsible considering this was all foreseen. If the administration had only listened to the Pentagon military experts instead of the ideologue civilian Pentagon hawks.

But the facts have made themselves known now. And Powell has Bush's ear because of those facts.

It may be too little too late.

There have been a few bumps in the road, but overall things are still going well over there.

And we do have an exit stratagy. We are not leaving until the job is done.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
There have been a few bumps in the road, but overall things are still going well over there.
yeah . . . right . . .

And we do have an exit stratagy. We are not leaving until the job is done.
yeah . . . right . . . are you talking PNAC job, get Saddam job, or peace/stability for Iraqis job?
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
There have been a few bumps in the road, but overall things are still going well over there.
yeah . . . right . . .

And we do have an exit stratagy. We are not leaving until the job is done.
yeah . . . right . . . are you talking PNAC job, get Saddam job, or peace/stability for Iraqis job?
I know you want us to withdraw right now and leave it a mess without completing the job.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
What exactly is the standard that is being used to decide whether it is going "good or bad" in Iraq. What measurement is being used to decide whether something is a "bump in the road" or "we're in a quagmire".


yeah . . . right . . . are you talking PNAC job, get Saddam job, or peace/stability for Iraqis job?
In theory they are all the same.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Not at all . . . I'm saying Bush had no realistic plan for postwar Iraq. Accordingly, whatever exit strategy that might have existed has been dumped . . . along with the first five or six postwar blueprints . . . hence we have NO exit strategy.

I know you want us to withdraw right now and leave it a mess without completing the job.
Doesn't quite sound like . . .
There have been a few bumps in the road, but overall things are still going well over there.
Don't you think describing it as a mess in one sentence and then saying overall things are going well seems a bit . . . confusing. Our latest incident of gunning down Iraqi security . . . the same security that Rummy claims will ultimately secure the country . . . might be considered a touch more significant than a bump in the road?
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
What exactly is the standard that is being used to decide whether it is going "good or bad" in Iraq. What measurement is being used to decide whether something is a "bump in the road" or "we're in a quagmire".
The standard for me is the progress we are making. With daily attacks, weak security, essential services still not yet supplied (water, sanitation, power, etc.), hundreds of billions in mounting costs, troop strength not high enough to replace those cycling home in April, NGOs pulling out due to lack of security - this and other factors all leading to the US now asking for aid from the UN and NATO allies - it just doesn't look like a bump in the road and is looking very much like a quagmire. Otherwise why would L. Paul Bremmer be painting such a negative picture?

yeah . . . right . . . are you talking PNAC job, get Saddam job, or peace/stability for Iraqis job?
In theory they are all the same.[/quote]

These are not the same. Just examples of the ever changing Bush administration rationalization for invading Iraq.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BOBDN
The $87 BILLION Bush just asked for is only a "downpayment."

From the Washington Post.

Wearing Out and Adding Up

An excerpt.

"The toll the war is taking on the Army's troops and equipment will lock in much higher military spending for years to come, regardless of how the occupation goes from here, defense experts say.

"This $87 billion is really just a down payment," said Scott Lilly, the Democratic staff director of the House Appropriations Committee and a military procurement expert.

It is a point that military officials emphasize.

"We assumed that operations would cease a lot earlier than they have," said an Army official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "They haven't ceased. The planning process was always to downsize, for the operational tempo to drop dramatically by now. The surprise is, we continue to operate at a very, very high op tempo with a very, very large force."
The force in Iraq has dropped by about 25% of the peak. I would be willing to bet the tempo has dropped even more than that. Both will continue to drop as time passes.


But your right, there is probably much maintance work that got deferred during peak tempo.
It took the air force about 6 months to get caught up after Desert Storm.

Well, even though the force in Iraq has dropped the costs of occupation are much higher than the administration would admit until recently. No one planned for resistance to last this long althught they should have. There were warnings resistance to a mostly American occupation would be strong. The warnings were ignored.

In Desert Strom there was a plan in place before the war began. Clear objectives and an exit strategy.

All lacking this go 'round.

Irresponsible considering this was all foreseen. If the administration had only listened to the Pentagon military experts instead of the ideologue civilian Pentagon hawks.

But the facts have made themselves known now. And Powell has Bush's ear because of those facts.

It may be too little too late.

There have been a few bumps in the road, but overall things are still going well over there.

And we do have an exit stratagy. We are not leaving until the job is done.
I can't agree with that. That is just silly. Not leaving until the job is done isn't an exit strategy. The job could take forever. Is taking forever to complete the job an exit strategy?

Add to that the fact that the Bush administration never had a goal in Iraq to begin with therefore they couldn't have an exit strategy. No goal = no exit strategy since without a goal you cannot claim the job is done.

First the goals were to rid Iraq of WMD - there is none.

Then the goals changed to fighting terrorism - there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

The the goal was ending Iraq's nuclear threat - there was none.

Then the goal was to end the imminent threat Iraq posed to the US - it didn't exist.

Then we were going to bring freedom to the Iraqi people - it seems this goal is leading us deeper into the quagmire. You can't bring a nation freedom. They must choose freedom for themselves. We overthrew Hussein. Now it is up to the Iraqi people to choose freedom. Or choose something else. They can't be free until they make the choice.

So just "getting the job done" isn't an exit strategy. It's an amorphous claim without a real goal. And real goals are necessary to form an exit strategy.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
PS

I forgot one. The Bush administration is now floating a new reason for invading Iraq. Attracting terrorists to Iraq.

That one seems to be working although it's backfiring on them.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY