Afghan War Cost Grips Both Parties ($3.6 Bil per Month)

[tekisui]

Source: Common Dreams

WASHINGTON - A day before he is scheduled to announce a new strategy in Afghanistan, President Obama is under increasing pressure to explain how his administration intends to pay the rising costs of military operations in Afghanistan, which average about $3.6 billion per month.

Both Republicans and Democrats pressed the issue yesterday, previewing the political minefield that Obama will face when he addresses the nation from West Point tomorrow. Key Republicans said they intend to support him on his expected plan to send more troops, but called on him to curb domestic spending on items they oppose.

"Can we trim up the health care to fight a war that must be won?'' asked Lindsey Graham of South Carolina on ABC's "This Week.'' He also suggested rethinking the stimulus payments sent to states to help jump-start the economy.

Richard Lugar of Indiana, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, made similar remarks, signaling that Obama's strongest backers on the war would use the opportunity to oppose him on other issues.

"The war is terribly important,'' Lugar told CNN's "State of the Union.'' "Jobs and our economy are terribly important. So this may be an audacious suggestion, but I would suggest we put aside the health care debate until next year, the same way we put cap-and-trade and climate change, and talk now about the essentials: the war and money.''

Obama is expected to send about 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, slightly fewer than the 40,000 that the NATO commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, requested.

White House budget director Peter Orszag, who has attended at least one of Obama's war strategy meetings, has suggested that the cost of 30,000 additional troops would be roughly $30 billion a year, or $1 million per fighter. But some budget analysts believe the cost would be closer to $800,000 per fighter, and because Obama intends to phase the new troops in over a period of 18 months, few analysts think the costs would be that high.

more: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/11/30-1

[unhappycamper]

1. In addition to announcing 34,000 more soldiers to the sandbox, I expect to hear:

a) how Obama is going to pay for the additional $34 billion dollars a years the additional 34,000 soldiers are going to cost.
b) metrics on how we measure 'success'.
c) an exit strategy.

Without all three of those being clearly articulated, I'll be out on the streets (again).

[tekisui]

3. A tidbit on the exit came out this AM.

It is bizarre, though.

First, the escalation will take about 18 months. So we are looking at mid-2011 before all the troops are in place.

Withdrawal will not be dependent on conditions on the ground, nor will there be a time-line. So, what would the factors for withdrawal be?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/the-early-word-speech-prep/

[kenny blankenship]

6. Exit strategy Exit strategy Exit strategy - what a meaningless phrase

Every war ever begun has had the same "exit strategy" : to WIN. Throughout history, wars begun with "limited aims" have been prolonged and have often returned to destroy their initiators, who thought to profit from them, because the "limited aim" could not be won, and the "get in, get it, and get out" plan proved much harder to follow than it was to fantasize about.

Having an exit strategy and being able to follow it to the actual exit if things don't go as planned are 2 different things and worlds apart.

Anybody who starts a war that has gone on for as long as this one has already, and intends to restart it with NATION BUILDING that will take a MINIMUM of 5 years is talking PURE SHIT when they tell you they have an "Exit Strategy". Such a fantasy of limited exposure and risk in military adventures is the eternal hostage of the powerful emotions and politics that surround sunk costs of blood and treasure.

[bigtree]

7. what about 'off-ramp'?

:eyes:

[kenny blankenship]

8. We should be hitting it NOW

oops there it goes. Maybe we can take the next exit turn around and come back?

[bigtree]

2. most republicans argue

. . . that Afghanistan 'costs' they're complaining about mean that other priorities should suffer. They're not actually making the same argument as Democrats who want those costs reduced along with reducing the mission. The republicans want to go whole hog on the escalation, with a disregard for things like health care.

[tekisui]

4. Of course. The repuke solution is always to cut services.

Obama is going to be stuck in the cross-fire of Dems and repukes. He is really digging himself a political hole with this escalation.

[unhappycamper]

5. Partisanship is seriously overrated.

My take? Fuck 'em in the piehole.

[Orsino]

9. Does it really "grip" both parties?

I could have sworn that they were ignoring it handily.