I'm really looking forward to paying off this debt

[str8line]

The shit's only getting deeper...while our own victims of hurricane Katrina still suffer without any help on the horizon.

Bush and his cohorts belong in prison.

At least we have the tax cuts to thank for keeping our economy strong.





http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12394937/


Iraq war costs continue to climb
U.S. military struggles to repair, replace hardware


With the expected passage this spring of the largest emergency spending bill in history, annual war expenditures in Iraq will have nearly doubled since the U.S. invasion, as the military confronts the rapidly escalating cost of repairing, rebuilding and replacing equipment chewed up by three years of combat.

The cost of the war in U.S. fatalities has declined this year, but the cost in treasure continues to rise, from $48 billion in 2003 to $59 billion in 2004 to $81 billion in 2005 to an anticipated $94 billion in 2006, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. The U.S. government is now spending nearly $10 billion a month in Iraq and Afghanistan, up from $8.2 billion a year ago, a new Congressional Research Service report found.


• More Iraq news
Annual war costs in Iraq are easily outpacing the $61 billion a year that the United States spent in Vietnam between 1964 and 1972, in today's dollars. The invasion's "shock and awe" of high-tech laser-guided bombs, cruise missiles and stealth aircraft has long faded, but the costs of even those early months are just coming into view as the military confronts equipment repair and rebuilding costs it has avoided and procurement costs it never expected.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

"We did not predict early on that we would have the number of electronic jammers that we've got. We did not predict we'd have as many [heavily] armored vehicles that we have, nor did we have a good prediction about what our battle losses would be," Army Chief of Staff Peter J. Schoomaker recently told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Steven M. Kosiak, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments' director of budget studies, said, "If you look at the earlier estimates of anticipated costs, this war is a lot more expensive than it should be, based on past conflicts."

The issue will be hotly debated next week when the Senate takes up a record $106.5 billion emergency spending bill that includes $72.4 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The House passed a $92 billion version of the bill last month that included $68 billion in war funding. That funding comes on top of $50 billion already allocated for the war this fiscal year.

Debate over funding priorities
The bill is the fifth emergency defense request since the Iraq invasion in March 2003. Senate Democrats say that, in the end, they will vote for the measure, which congressional leaders plan to deliver to President Bush by Memorial Day. But the upcoming debate will offer opponents of the war ample opportunity to question the Bush administration's funding priorities.

Defense officials and budget analysts point to a simple, unavoidable driver of the escalating costs. The cost of repairing and replacing equipment and developing new war-fighting materiel has exploded. In the first year of the invasion, such costs totaled $2.4 billion, then rose to $5.2 billion in 2004. This year, they will hit $26 billion, and could go as high as $30 billion, Kosiak said. On the other hand, at about $15 billion, personnel costs will drop 14 percent this year.

Total operations and maintenance budgets will rise 33 percent this year, while investment in new technologies will climb 25 percent, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The helicopters, tanks, personnel carriers and even small arms "have required more maintenance than we planned for," said Gary Motsek, director of support operations at the Army Materiel Command. "We're working them to death."

In the first years of the war, Army and Marine units rotating out of Iraq left behind usable equipment for the next units rolling in. But even the working equipment is now being shipped back to the Army's five depots to be refurbished and upgraded.

Last year, the depots repaired and upgraded 600 helicopter engines. This year, they will see 700, Motsek said. A total of 318 Bradley Fighting Vehicles went through the depots in 2005; 600 will be cycled through in 2006.

Last year, depot workers upgraded 5,000 Humvees with new engines and new transmissions to support ever-heavier armor. This year, they will see close to 9,000. They will also have to patch up 7,000 more machine guns, 5,000 more tank tracks and 100 more M1A1 Abrams tanks.

Wearing out fast
In 2001, the depots logged 11 million labor hours. Last year, that reached 20 million, and this year, it will total 24 million, Motsek said. Depot officials had hoped to work 27 million hours, but funding delays forced them to cut back.

And that is only the work being done in the United States. In and around Iraq, 53,000 people -- 52,000 of them contractors -- are maintaining and rebuilding lightly damaged equipment, a senior Senate defense aide said. Indian workers are refurbishing U.S. Humvees for $6 an hour.

"The equipment is wearing out five times faster than normal operations," said Jeremiah Gertler, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former House Armed Services Committee procurement aide.

What cannot be repaired has to be replaced. Procurement costs were a tiny fraction of the initial emergency war requests, Kosiak said. This year, new equipment purchases will consume 20 percent of the war funding. That has led to what some critics see as wasteful expenditures. The Senate bill includes $230 million to replace an unspecified number of CH-46E Sea Knight helicopters lost in battle with three V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft. In other words, senators plan to replace a Marine Corps workhorse with an experimental aircraft that critics say will never be useful in combat.

Such costs were always there, Gertler said, but Bush administration officials and members of Congress put off maintenance and procurement expenditures to keep down the war's price tag.

Schoomaker said as much at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in February, when he remarked that a "bow wave" of costs "pushed forward from previous years" is now cresting.

"It was just recently that we started to get procurement money" for equipment repair and replacement in supplemental funding, he testified.

Schoomaker warned that such costs will continue, even after U.S. forces withdraw from Iraq. To fully re-equip and upgrade the U.S. Army after the war ends would cost $36 billion over six years, and that figure assumes U.S. forces would begin withdrawing in July and would be completely out of Iraq by the end of 2008, an assumption Bush dismissed when he suggested withdrawal will be up to his White House successor.

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), a member of the Armed Services Committee, said a more protracted fight could triple Schoomaker's $36 billion figure.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

[cj001f]

And we are going to be there for a long fucking time. The pricetag for the new embassy? $600 million
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/Ir...534819-ap.html

[MassLiberal]

And we should GET THE FUCK OUT. Our soldiers are sitting in the middle of a civil war. I understand that people say we need to finish the job, but guess what? Bush and Rumdsfeld so severely botched every single aspect of this war that we never had a chance to do it properly. Good thing we had a President who completely disregarded history in his planning for war.

[smmokan]

^^^ What a great fucking idea. I'm betting 5 years before someone bombs the shit out of that place.

[Lurch]

^^^ What a great fucking idea. I'm betting 5 years before someone bombs the shit out of that place.

I think they'll be lucky to get the thing built.

[Stone-Free]

That is the most absurd thing our government could do over there. What, too many schools? An overabundance of power and water treatment plants? Serious mis-use of funds.

I can hear Bush and his fuckos going, "Okay, we've got a good idea to help set up a governnment and help stabilize things over there....."

I wanna fuckin puke...

[Cono Este]

Anyone worried about a nuke in the hands of islamo facists? Because they probaly have one now. In hindsight, invading Iraq did not deter them, but playing the blame game has not either. People need to drop this bullshit partisanship, real problems are developing and quickly.

People are too concerned with wether they were right and the other guy was wrong. I will throw you all a ticker tape parade and kiss your feet if you could just get over it. 15 yrs in the making, Iran now has the ability to build a bomb. Combine that with their fiery rhetoric and I would say Iraq will soon be yesterdays bullshit debate.

[cj001f]

People need to drop this bullshit partisanship, real problems are developing and quickly.

But that would require compromise and cooperation. Where's the money in that?

[Obstruction]

Anyone worried about a nuke in the hands of islamo facists? Because they probaly have one now. In hindsight, invading Iraq did not deter them, but playing the blame game has not either. People need to drop this bullshit partisanship, real problems are developing and quickly.

Blame game??? It's called accountability. Goverment makes an egregious, obvious and extraordinarily expensive mistake after denying all kinds of evidence and sound advice and you want to pass it off with "My bad and now lets all pull together."

BTW -- those "islamo-fascists" (does anyone else find the limbaughisms to be less than compelling?) with the nuclear potential occupy the next country over and aren't a part of "Operation Enduring Oxymoron."

The anwer isn't to be found in cheerleading those who obviously don't get it.

[Cono Este]

But that would require compromise and cooperation. Where's the money in that?

Wether you supported the war or not, it is does not matter right now. the fact is, we have no domestic or international resolve left to deal with Iran. Blame who you want for that, it will not help in making this a safer world right now.

We need to find a way around another potential war. An even bigger one. We need to convince everyone around the world to get over it, and bite the bullet, and place sanctions on Iran. Because without them, GW is left with few options, and I personally would like him to have more than one.

[Stu Gotz]

People are too concerned with wether they were right and the other guy was wrong. I will throw you all a ticker tape parade and kiss your feet if you could just get over it. 15 yrs in the making, Iran now has the ability to build a bomb.

Ahhh, c'mon Cono. True estimates place Iran between 4-10 years away from having a bomb. The problem is that folks are trying to whip up the "We gotta bomb, and bomb now" rhetoric.

I don't disagree than Ahmadinejad and his ilk are a serious threat and need to be dealt the strong pimp hand. But it pisses me off when the chicken littles pop up and start yelling "They got the bomb! They got the bomb!" This is what got us into the Iraq mess. If they had the bomb, the Israelis would be making a holy stink and at the moment, they are playing their cards fairly tight.

[Cono Este]

Blame game??? It's called accountability. Goverment makes an egregious, obvious and extraordinarily expensive mistake after denying all kinds of evidence and sound advice and you want to pass it off with "My bad and now lets all pull together."

BTW -- those "islamo-fascists" (does anyone else find the limbaughisms to be less than compelling?) with the nuclear potential occupy the next country over and aren't a part of "Operation Enduring Oxymoron."

The anwer isn't to be found in cheerleading those who obviously don't get it.

You go and call time out on your own. This is not a video game. I personallly blame Bush as well as others for the current dilema the world is faced with. We need international resolve, support from russia and China to peacefully deal with Iran. Because god knows you dont have the balls too. You are to busy taking an accountability survey.

I dont want a fucking war stu. I want sanctions. 3 months of no oil revenues and Iran wil fix itself. But if we do not have them next week, what will GW do? who the fuck knows? That is waht i am trying to avoid. So take your neocon steroetyping elsewhere. Unless you really want Bush to make another big decision on his own. Is that what you want?

[Cono Este]

Blame game??? It's called accountability. Goverment makes an egregious, obvious and extraordinarily expensive mistake after denying all kinds of evidence and sound advice and you want to pass it off with "My bad and now lets all pull together."

BTW -- those "islamo-fascists" (does anyone else find the limbaughisms to be less than compelling?) with the nuclear potential occupy the next country over and aren't a part of "Operation Enduring Oxymoron."

The anwer isn't to be found in cheerleading those who obviously don't get it.

when i say "blame" i am referring to the Democrats who voted for this war. We would be alot better off, if everyone just toof responsibility for their mistakes and figure out what to do next? i dont see that.

stu, if you think we can build a bomb from scratch in 1945 and Iran cannot build one themselves in 2006 after 15yrs of research, then you must really think persians are inferior or something. Or is this just your version of the scare tactic?

I do not want to drop bombs, who the hell does right now? That would be insane considering how exposed our troops inI raq are to iran. Bush played right into irans hands, and I am pissed about it. But having the most insane country on earth wielding a nuke and now demanding the "respect of a nuclear" nation worries me. sorry

[The Dad]

Hey, I was against going in, and against it in a big way.

And not that it was a model of anything positive before, but man oh man, did we fuck that place up but good. Not to mention, the fact that we're otherwise engaged has apparently emboldened at least Iran. What're we gonna do, invade?

That said, it's done. And going forward, the goal should be to choose the least bad alternative. I don't think that getting out now is the least bad alternative -- for the Iraqis, or for us.

However, I am in favor of permitting Bush and Cheney to fulfill their service commitments starting no later than January 2009 -- preferably before.

[assman]

For as long as I can remember, this country has never had a cohesive foreign policy nor an energy strategy. We vacillate hither and yon and wonder why the world hates us. We let shithole dictator 1 get away with what ever he wants and then pulverize shithole dictator 2 and don't even get me started on China

[Woodsy]

Unless you really want Bush to make another big decision on his own. Is that what you want?

http://decider.cf.huffingtonpost.com/

and COno, your points are solid

[Woodsy]

For as long as I can remember, this country has never had a cohesive foreign policy nor an energy strategy.

Its getting worse
http://www.americantheocracy.net/