We have been discussing the trillions of dollars spent on Iraq and Afghanistan while we cut environmental, scientific, and educational programs on the state and federal levels. Now, we are only a couple of weeks into the newest war against Islamic State but we have already spent an estimated $1.1 billion. Of course, President Obama has stated that he does not require any congressional approval for the war, which has been described by his Administration as having an indefinite duration. In the meantime, our latest war has been a bonanza for weapons manufacturers, including a $251 million deal to buy more Tomahawks from Raytheon Co after we unloaded on the Islamic State.
While it has certainly helped domestically as a political matter, the air campaign does not appear to have made much a difference as a military matter. The Islamic State has continued to gain ground against opposing forces. In the meantime, we are using enormously expensive missiles like the Tomahawk which cost more than $1.5 million each. We unloaded almost 50 Tomahawks and other missiles at a cost of $62 million alone. The sight of such missiles taking out our own Humvees and relatively small targets leaves many scratching their heads about the logic of the campaign.
The cost currently is estimated at about $10 million a day. Of course, my children are going to classes with 35-40 kids in a class because Fairfax cannot hire more teachers and our bridges are increasingly being found to be dangerous for lack of repairs. However, like a MasterCard commercial, the political value of news images of buildings or Humvees exploding is priceless during an election year.
Source: Yahoo
Nick ~
“I see similarities to Great Britain battling the Nazi’s @ the beginning of WW2. They had Churchill. We have Obama.”
There’s another difference between Churchill and President Obama.
“I think a curse should rest on me — because I love this war. I know it’s smashing and shattering the lives of thousands every moment — and yet — I can’t help it — I enjoy every second of it.
WINSTON CHURCHILL, letter to a friend, 1916
Slohrs, agree with you about sending ones own children if one wants boots on the ground so badly.
Bloodthirsty Americans have no conception of how this war will be paid for while howling for boots on the ground. Stupidity on steroids.
What really amazes me is the number of people that have bought it hook, line, and sinker, war is good. BS. Our killing “militants” whatever that means, has created more terrorists. War is War, you can’t redefine it because you don’t like the sound of it. The United States causes more grief around the world and we are the leaders? Wow. what twisted logic is that. Meanwhile, China sits back and collects all the economic benefit of our “war” by moving in and extracting natural resources from places we have made “safe”, and they didn’t haver to fire a single missile.
Other expenses Obama racks up: Obamas set new record for vacation travel expenses; stonewalled documents finally released.
It took filing a lawsuit, but Judicial Watch discovered that President Obama has set a new record for travel on the taxpayer dime.
* The outbound flight to Honolulu for the Obamas’ 2012-13 Christmas vacation cost taxpayers $2, 214, 393.60. The return flight to Washington cost $1,871,961.60. Flight expenditures alone came to $4,086,355.20.
* The outbound flight to California in August, 2013 for Obama to dine with Katzenberg and appear on the “The Tonight Show” cost taxpayers $1,209,926.40. The return flight to Washington cost $935,980.80.
Flight expenditures alone came to $2,145,907.20.
* The outbound flight to Martha’s Vineyard for the Obama family’s August vacation cost taxpayers $890,323.20. The return flight to Washington cost $273,945.60. Flight expenditures alone came to $1,164,268.80.
* The grand total of $7,396,531.20, Judicial Watch pointed out, only accounted for flight expenses for the three trips.
Another transparency failure for the Obama gang, but thanks to a federal lawsuit, it is another accountability win for the American taxpayer.
How are we treating US troops diagnosed with PTSD? We need to treat ME PTSD the same way. Otherwise PTSD is growing rapidly among the world’s population and much of it involves brutal violence.
I see similarities to Great Britain battling the Nazi’s @ the beginning of WW2. They had Churchill. We have Obama.
Nick – so Obama is slugging down a quart of whiskey a day? At least Churchill actually tried to win the war. And he sent troops (boots on the ground).
Besides, all these silly “if and then” statements only really work with certainty on things like Lego blocks. Like Rumsfeld’s “IF we liberate them, THEN they will hang flowers on our rifles.” Sure they will… People don’t herd along like cattle very well. I just don’t understand the surprise when we do something to inflame the situation there and it doesn’t go as expected. Actually, I think there’s a word for that… doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?? Been 30+ years now????
slohrss29 – when we liberated the French they hugged, kissed and gave us wine to drink. Today, they are close to being our enemy. Times change.
We have no business there. Edrogran sees ISIS and the Kurds as the same threat. We keep arming “today’s revolutionaries” who become tomorrow’s terrorists. Just more blowback. Put your on kids on a plane to go over and fight for those people if you want. Not interested in having my children fight a proxy war for Saudi Arabia.
slohrss29 – I am with the Kurds on having their own country, which they justly deserve. Turkey is against it because it would lose land and population, hence their distaste for armed Kurds. This has been an ongoing problem.
I thought the costs were being split with NATO. And Obama’s coalition of country partners would front some cash.
Watch out for the pick pockets on this one. How to catch a pick pocket….See video.
“Having to do it” is the price of leadership, Darren — as the leader of most anything will tell you.
And it’s a complete and utter failure because as an outside observer it appears that Obama doesn’t want to win!
‘War on Terror – Can Obama really be this incompetent or is he this incompetent on purpose?’
http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com/2014/09/war-on-terror-can-obama-really-be-this.html#kEI2U8KXrzcr3P3g.99
Thank you, Eric, as you are quite right on all counts. It is without question a necessary task, and are the designated leaders of the free world, agreed. At the same time, we are confronted by a “Tea Party” syndrome believing that the less government is the best government and I for one oppose that concept as being unrealistic and unworkable. We should be able to accomplish our needed objectives here and protect ourselves.
Instead of a lesser tax on the rich they should pay more of their share, after all, it is in their best interest given a long view. But then short sightedness is in abundant supply on that side of the issue.
The solution is to vote.
Darren Smith: “why must we always take full responsibility.”
That’s what we get for winning WW2, not going home, and then winning the Cold War: Leader of the free world.
We can stop taking responsibility by stop leading.
Eric – I would posit that Obama has done everything in his power to make sure we are no longer the leader of the free world.
Paul C. Schulte: “But nobody wants to put boots on the ground.”
That’s the problem. Professor Turley is correct that missile strikes alone will not achieve our goals. Missiles alone didn’t stop al Qaeda in pre-9/11 Afghanistan. Missiles alone didn’t stop Saddam with Operation Desert Fox. Missiles didn’t even stop AQI in pre-“Surge” Iraq.
Everyone knows a sufficient ground campaign is necessary to achieve anything like a COIN “Surge”-degree result against ISIS. But like you said, we’re not willing to do what needs to be done.
We know this, and the missiles do seem like an expensive way to procrastinate while ISIS takes our measure, grows confident we are the weak horse, adjusts tactics, and continues on their mission.
Eric – tactical bombing is very effective in cases like this. Studies from WWII and the Vietnam War showed that the results of tactical bombing showed up about two to three weeks later. However, with the magnificent military mind that Obama possess, we are going to see the first case of bombs winning a war.
jonathanturley: “Of course, President Obama has stated that he does not require any congressional approval for the war, which has been described by his Administration as having an indefinite duration.”
We’ve addressed the first part regarding Constitutional basis already.
For the anti-ISIS actions taken so far, President Obama is correct. First, the State Department has designated ISIS as an FTO and SDGT. Second, there is abundant counter-terror precedent for Obama’s anti-ISIS strikes established by the last 3 adminstrations, eg, Clinton’s anti-AQ missiile strikes into Afghanistan and Sudan. Third, counter-terrorism goes to Article II authority. Fourth, Congress affirmed the President’s counter-terror authority in PL 107-40 and PL 104-132, which states,
Fifth, UNSCR 2170 appears to re-activate PL 107-243.
How much more redundancy of “congressional approval” do you need?
The 2nd part regarding indefinite duration is just odd coming from someone who claims to be a student of military history. Duration is condition-based, of course – and that’s the condition of the enemy and the condition of those whom we mean to protect.
Paul
I expect a lot of the boots on the ground there now are saudi.
Several other countries are stepping up. But nobody wants to put boots on the ground. Maybe we should get the vaunted Saudi army to pony up the bodies to go in.
Neoconservatism from a Democratic Source. He is just giving money to all of his buddies to spend. He is on a spending spree. Tomahawks are horrible weapons. Look what they did to those babies in Bosnia
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/us-english-use-of-depleted-urainium-munitions-a-crime-against-humanity.23971/
ISIS must be stopped but why must we always take full responsibility. This part of the world needs to wake up to its own problems and take care of business.