Orszag Says 40,000 Afghanistan Troops Could Cost $40 Billion

[laststeamtrain]

Source: Bloomberg

Orszag Says 40,000 Afghanistan Troops Could Cost $40 Billion
By Tony Capaccio and Mike Dorning


Nov. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Sending 40,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan would cost an extra $40 billion each fiscal year, White House Budget Director Peter Orszag said today.

Orszag, speaking at the Bloomberg Washington Summit, said “every 10,000 troops would entail a fiscal year cost of about $10 billion.”

President Barack Obama may decide this month whether to grant a request by his top commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, to increase the U.S. force of 68,000 in Afghanistan by as many as 40,000 personnel next year.

“It’s effectively the additional cost involved in deploying troops internationally in combat situations,” Orszag said.

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aGvM0165Q9bs&pos=9

[villager]

1. Shit, that's okay! As long as we're not wasting that money on schools and health care!

n/t

[chelsea0011]

2. you might as well just flush that money down a toilet as give it to continue in Afghanistan.

This is a war with no ending and just a lot of dead bodies at the end. It is time to just say Bush failed and we won't continue with this. Just bring back the draft and it will all be over tomorrow.

[OhioChick]

3. Why not put the $40 Bil toward a jobs program and health care? n/t

[sofa king]

12. In Afghanistan?

I suspect they need that, too. And we kind of owe them for like, killing them.

[Autumn]

4. Can you imagine what that

money could be used for? Military families would not have to apply for food stamps because they could be paid what they are worth. :wow: Education, heath-care, infrastructure. It boggles the mind they will consider using it for the war in Afghanistan.

[laststeamtrain]

5. Afghanistan’s Oil Binge: 22 Gallons of Fuel Per Soldier Per Day

Afghanistan’s Oil Binge: 22 Gallons of Fuel Per Soldier Per Day

By Noah Shachtman

Wanna know why the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are so expensive? Here’s one big reason: The U.S. military consumes 22 gallons of fuel per soldier, per day. And each gallon costs $45 or more to haul to the battlefield.

That’s according to a new Deloitte study, flagged by our friend Paul McLeary at Aviation Week.

Actually, $45 per gallon is a lowball estimate; according to the Navy, it’s more like $300 to $400. (Talk about sticker shock.) But the costs of guzzling that much gas won’t be measured just in dollars, the study warns. Fuel has to be driven in to Afghanistan’s isolated bases. Which opens up U.S. convoy to improvised bomb attacks. Which invariably leads to troops dying. “Absent game-changing shifts, the current Afghan conflict may result in a 124% (17.5% annually) increase in U.S. casualties through 2014,” according to Deliotte.

The Defense Department has all kinds of isolated initiatives to try to cut down its dependence on fossil fuels: massive solar arrays, hybrid rides, trash-powered generators. But most of these efforts are concentrated on making the Pentagon’s domestic operations more energy efficient. For the troops in the field, it’s still a steady diet of gas. ... http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/11/afghanistans-oil-binge-22-gallons-of-fuel-per-soldier-per-day/

[bemildred]

6. So that's a million per troop per year? How efficient. nt

[laststeamtrain]

7. Pretty soon you're talking about some real money. n/t.

[Thrill]

8. Thats what Bush hid for 8 yrs. The real cost that bullshit

Meanwhile Russia and China laugh at our ass

[FreeStateDemocrat]

9. It willcost 40+ billions a year for the next 50+ years. Cost continues long after the war ends.

[clear eye]

10. We could give each Afghani adult enough for their families to live on

for an entire generation for the cost of just 1 year's expenditure. Without growing opium poppies. Or anyone getting killed.

Big contrast w/ Bush WH who implied its wars were free, by keeping war expenditures separate from the budget and not included in the deficit. Recommended for the return to reality-based spending.

[libodem]

11. Halliburton

and KBR are still raking in the dough off our folly. Why do ya think the Republicans are so anxious to keep the war machine rolling.

[Enrique]

13. all the fiscal conservatives will be up in arms

the Blue Dogs, the deficit hawks, the republicans. Right?

[BumRushDaShow]

14. Good. They need to continue to frame it in terms of the cost.

Since the lunatic fringe and their faux "fiscal conservatives" think they come for free and couldn't care less when they are killed or are maimed for life....

[struggle4progress]

15. That's roughly what the UN said it would cost to wipe out world hunger