How Much Does It Cost America To Blow Up American Weapons?

Zero Hedge ^ | August 19, 2014 | Tyler Durden

[Starboard]

US taxpayers are now paying for military missions, in which US taxpayer paid-for warplans and missiles are used to blow up other US taxpayer paid-for tanks, artillery, MRAPs, and various other weapons of death.

[publius911]

that would of been...

"would of been...?"

Whazzat meen?

[Starboard]

The main point of the post was to highlight the irony of the government paying a lot for something, and then paying a lot to blow it up. I realize there is monumental waste in all warfare but in this particular case, proactive and timely action could have stopped much of ISIS’s progress and prevented the take-over of the U.S. weaponry that was handed over to the Iraquis. I think even many liberals would acknowledge that tactical blunder.

And then there’s also the tangential issue of the profit side of war in all this and the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about. War is big business and prolonged wars and nation building generate big profits. To be sure, some of that money finds its way back into political coffers that ensure a continuation of certain policies.

We have run up a disastrous mountain of national debt and can no longer afford to continuously squander money. We need to be smarter about how we conduct wars and military conflicts and avoid being drawn into quagmires that we can’t seem to get out of.

IMO the use of military force should be swift, destructive, decisive and quick. Do what you have to do to crush the enemy and then get out.

[publius911]

Exactly where would such aircraft be stationed that would of been within range?

There are two in the vicinity.
One in Kurdish territory, and one in Turkey.
We won't even count Baghdad.

[publius911]

It’s not so much Obama who wants to retire the A-10s as the Air Force. They don’t want anything to do with aircraft that aren’t stealthy, sexy, and $150 million per copy. But they don’t want the Army to take them, either.

But the Commander-in-Chief is just a dumb as a rock spectator in the entire process?

In the past, really dumb elected presidents had enough brains to seek out savvy advisers who actually knew their stuff, to provide expert advice.

[Blood of Tyrants]

In this case, yes. It is the Air Force generals who want to get rid of the A-10s. It’s not the first time either. The generals have tried to kill the A-10 before but Congress wisely prevented them.

[publius911]

IMO the use of military force should be swift, destructive, decisive and quick. Do what you have to do to crush the enemy and then get out.
Up until Korea, that's exactly what the U.S. did. Sometime after WW2 the military devolved into a kinder gentler military. Wish I could remember exactly which of Victor Davis Hanson's book discusses "The American Way of War."

I think even many liberals would acknowledge that tactical blunder.

Tactical?
Blunder?
Sounds a lot more like a strategic long term nightmare, to me. Undid a lot of sacrifices and revived the original problem, only infinitely worse.

[mad_as_he$$]

No cigar. Combat radius A-10 is 288 miles. Baghdad is a non starter. No agreement or support. Turkey is too far and the Kurd option again has no support.

[Starboard]

In the context of allowing ISIS to grab U.S. weapons, I see that as a tactical failure. However, I agree that in the larger scheme of things, ISIS is a strategic long term nightmare for which the admininstration has no plan.