International, Military, Politics

Campaign Against Islamic State Now Tops $1 Billion

Flag_of_the_Islamic_State.svg220px-Predator_and_HellfireWe 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

186 thoughts on “Campaign Against Islamic State Now Tops $1 Billion”

  1. Paul Schulte–good info
    It’s unfortunate that even after all that dealing, we’re still in the red as a country. When there’s no sovereign stopping you (as I guess the case would be for the US) dealers tend to make pretty good money, or at least all the forfeiture actions out there would indicate they do.

  3. Critics to Obama: ‘Draconian Cuts’ Have Been to US Public Services, Not War Budget
    With U.S. military spending at historic high, Obama slams ‘cuts’ as going too far
    http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/10/09/critics-obama-draconian-cuts-have-been-us-public-services-not-war-budget

    Addressing the Pentagon leadership Wednesday, Obama stated, “We have done some enormous work, and I want to thank everybody sitting around this table to continue to make our forces leaner, meaner, more effective, more tailored to the particular challenges that we’re going to face in the 21st century. But we also have to make sure that Congress is working with us to avoid, for example, some of the draconian cuts that are called for in sequestration.”

    His statements echo those of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who argued in March that that military sequestration jeopardizes “America’s traditional role as a guarantor of global security, and ultimately our own security.”
    (continued)

  4. Max-1,

    FYI-2, while Col. Morris Davis is correct that the 17NOV08 Status of Forces agreement provided for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, he neglected to explain that the 2008-2011 SOFA did not bar negotiation of a subsequent ‘peacetime’ SOF agreement with Iraq, which was in fact under negotiation. However, it appears that President Obama did not approach the negotiation with Iraq in good faith. Or he just failed.

    See http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/29/blame-the-obama-doctrine-for-iraq.html# .

  5. Fix: FYI, Col. Morris Davis is incorrect that “Bush got us there under false pretenses”.

  6. Max-1,

    FYI, Col. Morris is incorrect that “Bush got us there under false pretenses”.

    Public Law 102-1 (1991):

    The President is authorized, subject to subsection (b), to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678.

    UNSCR 678 (1990):

    [a]cting under Chapter VII of the Charter . . . [a]uthorizes Member States … to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.

    Public Law 105-235 (1998):

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations, and therefore the President is urged to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.

    PL 107-243 (2002):

    The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—
    (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
    (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

    The cornerstone UNSC resolutions of the Gulf War ceasefire were UNSCRs 688 and 687.

    UNSCR 688 (1991):

    1. Condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, the consequences of which threaten international peace and security in the region;
    2. Demands that Iraq, as a contribution to remove the threat to international peace and security in the region, immediately end this repression and express the hope in the same context that an open dialogue will take place to ensure that the human and political rights of all Iraqi citizens are respected;

    Pursuant UNSCR 688, from Situation of human rights in Iraq – [United Nations] Commission on Human Rights resolution 2002/15:

    The Commission on Human Rights … Strongly condemns:
    (a) The systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law by the Government of Iraq, resulting in an all-pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad-based discrimination and widespread terror;

    UNSCR 1441 (2002):

    Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
    … Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
    … Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,
    …
    1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
    2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

    Pursuant UNSCR 687, the UNMOVIC Cluster Document (UNRESOLVED DISARMAMENT ISSUES IRAQ’S PROSCRIBED WEAPONS PROGRAMMES 6 March 2003) was the main trigger for OIF:

    UNMOVIC evaluated and assessed this material as it has became available and … produced an internal working document covering about 100 unresolved disarmament issues … UNMOVIC must verify the absence of any new activities or proscribed items, new or retained. The onus is clearly on Iraq to provide the requisite information or devise other ways in which UNMOVIC can gain confidence that Iraq’s declarations are correct and comprehensive.

    While not relevant to the decision point for OIF, the Iraq Survey Group Duelfer Report corroborated Iraq’s breach of UNSCR 687:

    •According to ‘Abd Hamid Mahmud, on the second day of Desert Fox, Saddam said, “[T] he cease-fire principle is over; the US broke the international law and attacked a country, which is a member in the UN.” He drafted a resolution which called for the RCC “to cancel all the international obligations and resolutions, which Iraq has agreed upon.” ‘Abd said that Saddam blamed the United States for attacking “Iraq without the UN permission, and [pulling] the inspectors out of Iraq.” As a result, “Iraq [had] the right to cancel all these resolutions to get rid of the sanction which was imposed for more than seven years.”
    •The RCC resolution formally ended all Iraqi agreements to abide by UN resolutions. Ahmad Husayn Khudayr recalled that Saddam’s text ordered Iraq to reject every Security Council decision taken since the 1991 Gulf war, including UNSCR 687. Ahmad said the resolution was worded in careful legal terms and “denied all the previously accepted [resolutions] without any remaining trace of them [in the Iraqi Government].”
    … From Baghdad the long struggle to outlast the containment policy of the United States imposed through the UN sanctions seemed tantalizingly close. There was considerable commitment and involvement on the part of states like Russia and Syria, who had developed economic and political stakes in the success of the Regime. From Baghdad’s perspective, they had firm allies, and it appeared the United States was in retreat. The United Nations mechanism to implement the Oil For Food program was being corrupted and undermined. The collapse or removal of sanctions was foreseeable. This goal, always foremost in Saddam’s eyes, was within reach.
    … Prohibited goods and weapons were being shipped into Iraq with virtually no problem. The only notable items stopped in this flow were some aluminum tubes, which became the center of debate over the existence of a nuclear enrichment effort in Iraq. Major items had no trouble getting across the border, including 380 liquid-fuel rocket engines. Indeed, Iraq was designing missile systems with the assumption that sanctioned material would be readily available.
    … The successful implementation of the Protocols, continued oil smuggling efforts, and the manipulation of UN OFF contracts emboldened Saddam to pursue his military reconstitution efforts starting in 1997 and peaking in 2001. These efforts covered conventional arms, dual-use goods acquisition, and some WMD-related programs.
    … From 1999 until he was deposed in April 2003, Saddam’s conventional weapons and WMD-related procurement programs steadily grew in scale, variety, and efficiency.

  8. Darren
    It is odd. It moderated the TweetofGod post… no links in there.
    It moderated my request to have it released. No links there.
    It then moderated my notice about the moderation notices. No links there.
    And just about every post since. (Im sure some are doing cartwheels over that prospect).

    Sun spots… yea, I’m going with that.
    Because the only other tweet that is pending is the Greenwald Tweet that shows only one link to bloomberg news. (upon further examination that tweet may be the issue you are referring to as the image is embedded in the tweet and there is no direct link to the twitpic as is customary.

  11. Max-1. One of the tweets had many links to it and it was snagged. Probably looked like just under ten

  12. Olly,

    That’s a different question. As I said, disposing the legal issue raised by Professor Turley does not dispose other types of concerns.

    Congress has in fact addressed its role and the President’s role in counter-terrorism. As Beldar and Barkindog emphasize, there is an Article I component to counter-terrorism that complements the Article II component.

    The cross-spectrum task, conditions, standard of counter-terrorism are what they are, and the Constitution is what it is. For the last about 20-30+ years, depending where you choose to set the inflection point, the Legislature and the Executive have worked on comprehensive formula to deal with the former under the guidelines of the latter.

    Obama’s anti-ISIS strikes so far fall squarely within the counter-terror formula. If you would like to change the formula, there are 4 ways for us to do it:

    1. Win the War on Terror at which point we can box up and store away the counter-terror formula, like modular martial law.
    2. Surrender/lose the War on Terror and moot the counter-terror formula.
    3. Convince the terrorists to change their character and methods for our convenience.
    4. Change the Constitution.

    By the close of the Bush administration, we had earned what appeared to be a cognizable way to win the War on Terror.

    With the rising American partner in Iraq as cornerstone, the Arab Spring offered a most likely one-time historic opportunity for Obama to carry forward Bush’s Freedom Agenda to reify Clinton’s vision that “In the century we’re leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community; fear and hope. Now, in a new century, we’ll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past — but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.”

    Obama blew the chance and the way to victory we had earned under Bush now appears to be gone.

    Because of Obama’s error, we are now faced with a stalemated indefinite extension of the counter-terror formula.

    So what do you want to do to change the counter-terror formula? If winning is now off the table for the foreseeable future, then we can surrender/lose to the terrorists to moot it, we can convince the terrorists to change, or we can change the Constitution.

  14. rafflaw
    Well, no war bonds. No draft to enlist a Senator’s kid. No taxes raised.
    Who else you gonna find the blood and treasure from? BUT the poor…

  19. I remember reading a story about how perpetual war was what kept the whole thing moving: endless production, but no rise in the standard of living, endless “danger”, which kept the security state perpetually on high alert.
    I can see why certain elements would not want to return to peacetime–bad for business, bad for “security,” bad for keeping them where they want to be…

    1. DJones – we sell ‘new’ weapons to other countries and buy their old ones which we then sell to other countries. The United States is the world’s largest weapon dealer.

Comments are closed.