Posted on 07/14/2007 8:10:31 AM PDT by Valin
A major reason why it's costing $10 billion a day to maintain American forces in Iraq, are the very expensive weapons that are used there. Guided missiles have saved a lot of American, and Iraqi, lives. The Javelin and TOW anti-tank missiles cost $80,000 and $180,000 each, respectively. Each of these missiles can be fired through a window or door several kilometers distant. The relatively small warheads will kill everyone in the room on the other side of the window, but not so people in adjacent buildings. This saves a lot of civilian lives. American forces don't get much credit for keeping civilian ("collateral") casualties down. Compared with previous wars (Vietnam, Korea, World War II), far fewer (like 90 percent fewer) civilians are getting killed in the urban battles. The precision weapons enable U.S. troops to take down enemy troops much more quickly as well.
This pattern was detected by the troops early on. Actually, it was noted during the 1991 Gulf War, when only a few percent of the bombs were smart (guided) bombs, but they did most of the damage to the enemy, and caused the fewest civilian casualties along the way. Twelve years later, there were hardly any dumb bombs used, and far more, higher quality (and more expensive) missiles available. But all this has come at a cost, and the cost is in the billions of dollars for dozens of different types of guided munitions (including GPS guided artillery shells and rockets).
The troops aren't complaining, and those who are, just don't understand.
I would love to see a breakdown on war costs. I’ll bet we have to psy most of it anyway, no matter where soldiers are deployed. Then, just for fun, stack it up against fraud in social programs. Clean them up and the war woud be free. LOL
Uday and Qusay’s last stand, yes?
$10 Billion a day (stated above) is pure BS....
Right. Like that’s going to happen. I can hear the left now, the (it goes without saying) evil radical rightwing extremests what to steal grandma’s dogfood and starve children in order to give more money to the (cue the ominious music) militay industrial complex.
JFTR. The roughly $500 billion we the taxpayers spend on keeping the American military forces trained, paid and supplied doesn't reflect the current costs for fighting the terrorists. The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are off budget.
The Bush administration could have saved a lot of American lives and taxpayer money if it would have fought the battle for Iraq, the same way it handled the invasion and take down of Saddam`s brutal regime. Its called total war!
The US military is not an international police force and it doesn't exist to be at the forefront of any nation building effort. Also, the US military doesn't exist to spread democracy to the Islamic world. The US military exists to fight battles, kill the enemy --- in this case, to kill Muslims --- and WIN wars.
Exactly.
I se, and that is why we have had roops in South Korea for 50 years. You have a lot of opinions and don’t seem to know the difference between opinion and fact.
WRONG!
Cindy Sheehan has told me that we’ve killed 700,000 Iraqis since this war began, so this whole article is OBVIOUSLY a pile of bunk!
(I wonder if Cindy even knows what 700,000 dead would look like?)
The Bush administration could have saved a lot of American lives and taxpayer money if it would have fought the battle for Iraq, the same way it handled the invasion and take down of Saddam`s brutal regime. Its called total war!
Two different kinds of war. The 1st was conventional war, the 2nd is a counter-insurgency. You don’t fight them the same way, of of the two the 2nd is much harder as it requires something we don’t have a lot of..patience.
The US military is not an international police force and it doesn’t exist to be at the forefront of any nation building effort.
Actually that’s what it’s been for a large part of our history. It;s not for nothing that the USMC for most of it’s history was known as the State Deptments police force.
BULLoney! War is war. The tactics maybe different, but the strategy is the same. We win, they lose! Using the US military to police Iraq has been a tactical failure. Besides, whether they be Arab, Kurd or Persian and no matter what sect of Islam they may follow, most of the people of the ME --- minus Israel of course --- DO NOT see the US as a friend and ally. They see us as an invader of their Muslim homeland.
And that is the way we should have fought the battle for Iraq --- As INVADERS! Instead, the Bush admin as taken a more PC course. The total war mindset that existed during the invasion phase of liberation, should have been carried over to the occupation phase. This was critical in the first year after the intitial invasion of Iraq. Instead, we allowed a bad situation to get totally out of control. Hopefully, the current effort ---"The Surge" --- will be successful thus allowing our military to begin the final phase.
Outside of the great effort and victory in the Gulf War, and in sevarl smaller military involvements like Grenada and Panama, the US military hasn’t won a war since WWII. Korea was a draw and Vietnam was a huge historic setback for America.
WE can’t afford to lose in Iraq. Period.
Dying MSM doesn't want you think, just believe. $3.65 trillion per year, yeah riiiight.
Your unconvincing comments turn into crack por theories when you add lots of emphasis in caps.
Your post is pure gibberish.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.