New Estimate for Afghan War: $1 Million Per Soldier

[Hissyspit]

Source: Raw Story / New York Times

New estimate for Afghan war: $1 million per soldier

By Joe Byrne
Saturday, November 14th, 2009 -- 8:54 pm

Senior administration officials reported to the New York Times today that budget projections for the war in Afghanistan will cost U.S. taxpayers at least $1 million per soldier, per year.

The plan to add 40,000 American troops and greatly expand Afghan security forces, supported by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, is estimated to cost between $40 billion to $54 billion annually. “Even if fewer troops are sent, or their mission is modified, the rough formula used by the White House...appears almost constant,” according to the NYT.

The new estimate for the cost of war in Afghanistan will cancel out the $26 billion savings projected for a 2010 troop withdrawal in Iraq. Under this scenario, the overall military budget could rise as high as $734 billion. The highest annual military budget during the Bush era was $667 billion.

A senior administration official speaking anonymously with the NYT said that concerns over politically volatile spending influenced the President during a White House meeting on Wednesday. Obama was insistent that each military plan incorporates the quickest possible exit strategy. “He knows we cannot sustain this indefinitely,” the official said.

Read more: http://rawstory.com/2009/11/estimate-afghan-war-1-million-soldier

[napi21]

1. Is it a fair accounting practice to charge all the war expenses to

cost per soldier? Somehow that doesn't seem logical to me.

[huntbir4]

4. I agree. This are not incremental costs. Most of the costs would be there anyway.

Soldiers get paid, train, use up munitions, tear up equipment, cause wear to equipment, etc. We should only be concerned about the INCREMENTAL costs of the soldier being in Afghanistan, like hazardous duty pay, additional munitions, injuries beyond normal for training, etc.

[FarCenter]

7. No - they wouldn't be in the Army at all

The size of the Army has been expanded in order to maintain troops in Afghanistan and Iraq on a rotating basis.

If it is withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan, the size of the Army can be reduced substantially.

[Barack_America]

2. Does this figure account for benefits due them after leaving the service?

The cost of those benefits should be factored in before sending anyone to war.

[gratuitous]

3. And this is why we can't have universal health care

Because Bush and Cheney bought two elective invasions, and now we have the maintenance and upkeep on far-flung occupations. It would dishonor the "ultimate sacrifice" made by so many thousands of military personnel to pull out. So we have to keep tossing bodies into the meat grinder to justify the bodies already lost. It all makes perfect sense if you're a member of PNAC or have had a couple of lobotomies. But I repeat myself.

[unkachuck]

5. let's see....

....a million per soldier, a billion per 1000 and how many thousands do we have playing corporate war in the ME?

....why does the military get to balloon the deficit and wreck the economy?....do we work for them or do they work for us?

[adamuu]

6. Hmm. I wonder what that is in dollars per day since Jesus was born?

(My way of saying it's a silly thing to divide by)

[Bushknew]

8. A shakedown you can believe in.