Troop increase in Afghanistan could cost an additional $20 billion a year (or more)

[bigtree]

From Barbara Starr at CNN: http://www.wibw.com/political/headlines/67684977.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- If President Barack Obama decides to send the 40,000 additional forces to Afghanistan, as requested by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, a rough estimate by the Pentagon projects the cost could be an additional $20 billion a year, according to a senior Pentagon official.

The official said the Defense Department comptrollers office has told Congress that based on rough estimates the total cost of keeping an individual service member in the war zone is now about $500,000 a year.

That includes the costs of personnel operations and maintenance costs, some equipment and hazardous duty pay.

The actual costs could be higher since the estimate does not include the cost of constructing additional facilities, providing support forces such as military intelligence assets that may be based outside of Afghanistan, or replacement of damaged weapons or equipment. The official emphasized that until there is a formal troop plan, the costs are just estimated.

[thunder rising]

1. Every 1000 troops is $1B.

[bigtree]

2. a billion here

. . . a billion there . . .

[avaistheone1]

6. Mind blowing yet true.

And there is talk of sending 70,000 more troops over to Afghanistan. Ca-ching! $70 billion dollars!

That is $70 Billion dollars for nothing. Seriously we would be better off to flush that money down a toilet than send it there.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Oh, well, it's not like the money could be used for something useful.

So, we might as well blow it on a lost war.

[bigtree]

5. I'm wondering where it's supposed to come from

. . . they'd better consult their debt holders in China.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Nah. The Chinese have actually come up with a workable way to end the war.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KJ02Df01.html

[harun]

4. How about they get their troop increase if it is "deficit neutral".

[bigtree]

8. .