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
happypappies
Not sure the angle of your questions. Am I advocating for war?
Max-1 how Altruistic does the USA have to be? Seriously? How many more of our Young Men are supposed to put their boots on the ground and get blown up by some suicide bomber? Inquiring Minds would like to know? Personally I would not like to see another hair harmed on another child’s head but this is not the way of our cultures that keep slaughtering each other in the name of God.
Is your name USA?? if not then I guess you are not advocating for war. Are You? You are criticizing someone for their opinion and I stated mine in agreement of his.
Aridog
I don’t think Emillio or myself need to demonstrate our “plans” to solve the world’s problems. What we are questioning is the morality behind your’s.
How can you say a final solution gives you chills when YOU suggested it?
Total elimination of a people… Genocide is what it commonly is called.
Max-1 how Altruistic does the USA have to be? Seriously? How many more of our Young Men are supposed to put their boots on the ground and get blown up by some suicide bomber? Inquiring Minds would like to know? Personally I would not like to see another hair harmed on another child’s head but this is not the way of our cultures that keep slaughtering each other in the name of God.
Paul C.
Was Hitler opposed to using gas?
Maybe not on the battlefields… But…
Max-1 – point well taken.
Max-1
happypappies
All conflicts end in dialogue…
I’m not sure I can name one modern war that has ended without the parties involved coming to some meeting point and dialoguing out the future PEACE between them. Because without dialogue people and states build walls of distrust and suspicion leading them back to future conflicts and wars. And these conflicts/wars aren’t about maintaining PEACE, instead they are about maintaining self righteousness.
that’s human nature unfortunately. All one has to do is look at the internet and it abounds. I get tired of it. Personally, I pray for peace but I am also a realist..
Thanks Eric, I’ll review the links.
Qutb’s “Far Enemy” strategy, should give everyone that believes we should back out and let the Muslims settle their own problems second thoughts; they will not leave the West alone.
Olly,
Thanks for the reference. I’m adding Eikmeier’s article to my pile.
I’ve recommended this video of the Columbia University Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies Sept 2014 panel, ISIS in Iraq, Syria, and the United States under several recent posts. I’ll recommend it again here as a complement to the Eikmeier article.
http://www.siwps.org/watch-video-of-siwps-panel-discussion-isis-in-iraq-syria-and-the-us/
It’s a straightforward, nuts-and-bolts survey of the situation. Professor Gottlieb’s presentation in particular complements the Eikmeier article.
Eikmeier didn’t address AQ’s strong-horse/weak-horse frame that’s shared with the Marxist revolutionary view of the bourgeois West and familiar to students of the Vietnam War. Prof Gottlieb covers that piece in the CU SIWPS panel.
Regarding the “Center of Gravity” strategy, I agree our political correctness is a handicap that the enemy exploits on several fronts, eg, lawfare. That said, I suggest you review Bush’s strategic approach to the War on Terror in light of the “Center of Gravity” strategy. Read Bush’s signature speeches on the subject, such as his remarks at the 2004 Air Force Academy Graduation:
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040602.html
“Conclusion
The 9/11 hijackers and London’s 7/7 bombers were not poor, uneducated, and hopeless men without futures. They had futures, but were seduced by an extremist ideology disguised as an obligation to God. The National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism correctly identifies ideology as the center of gravity. It recognizes that this is a war of ideas between competing social and religious systems, one offering the promise of individual liberty and the other, Islamic-Fascism. To successfully defend freedom against the threat poised by Islamic-Fascism, global leaders and individuals must understand the foundation of Qutbism as primarily derived from Sayyid Qutb. Understanding Qutbism, exposing and discrediting it as an extremist theology and strategy is the most direct course to the defeat of the Islamic-Fascist movement’s center of gravity and victory in the War on Terrorism. “
http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/07spring/eikmeier.pdf
Eric,
I found this to be a very interesting read. I can see how Qutbism’s combined theory of “far-enemy” and “offensive jihad” would explain the motivation behind this modern Islamic-Fascism movement. It was enlightening to read the “5 lines of operations” to attack the “Center of Gravity” of Qutbism is similar to the current American constitutional conservative efforts against the progressive administrative state.
The Sykes-Picot treaty by the way, certainly established the secular, non-Muslim infrastructure in the ME which Qutb, Maududi and al Banna propped up as the “near-enemy” for any “true” believer of Islam.
It appears Western cultures are unwilling to commit to the “Center of Gravity” strategy for fear of political correctness. Would you agree?
Olly,
I think Sykes-Picot has been problematic and is a factor, but I also think people who zero in on Sykes-Picot marginalize the distinction of the Qutbist movement, and thus advocate for solution that would fail to solve AQ et al.
Emilio … you apparently missed my remark earlier on this thread:
Were it not for Israel, a nation I love and respect, I’d advocate for turning most of the ME into glass.
As for where I am talking from you obviously have not read much of what I’ve said over time here or elsewhere, or you would know just how hard it is for me to come to the conclusion I stated rhetorically here. Very hard indeed.
I will listen to any proposal that has a chance of winning this time. None are on the table so far.
Fact is, part of the idea of no more soldiers in piecemeal warfare IIRC was first proposed here by “Annie” .. someone whom I seldom agree with but have come to it on this subject. One of her kids is a Navy Corpsman attached to US Marine units. That is a high risk occupation and more piecemeal troops on the ground baloney could send that kid back to the fight where we form enclaves and go out in bits and pieces. Soon enough the strong horse recognize the weak horse and hits those enclaves as well…like happened at Camp Bastion, Afghanistan, not so long ago…and if it were not for the US Marine contingent at Camp Leatherneck inside Camp Bastion, they might very well have been more severely damaged.
I’m sorry you are offended by it…but I also must note that you have not proposed any alternatives. You simply assert by omission that smart minds know better and know what they are doing these days…okay, show me their successes.
I am very sick and tired of all these “experts” in politics espousing piece meal approaches to warfare, which cost lives for no real gains…they justify by saying it cost less lives their way….a something for nothing game. How many lives are really saved by wars lasting 10+ years?
Max-1,
The 2008-2011 SOFA was drafted in light of and respect to “dramatic and positive developments in Iraq” due to the COIN “Surge” and Sunni Awakening.
By design, Bush left his successor the flexibility to assess the situation as conditions evolved in order to determine the subsequent ‘peacetime’ relationship with Iraq. And yes, at the optimistic upper limit (or pessimistic lower limit), that flexibility included the option of allowing the 2008-2011 SOFA to run out in 3 years with troop withdrawal. Along with the SOFA, Bush provided a Strategic Framework Agreement to guide – but not obligate – his successor.
By design, the US and Iraq underwent negotiations for the next SOF agreement based on the changing situation. Reading conditions, Obama officials recommended a troop presence in the range of, depending who you ask, 10-20+ thousand, a figure which speaks much to Iraq’s progress but also the vulnerability of an unfinished nascent state in a tumultuous region. At the 8-9 year mark after WW2, we had a lot more troops than 10-20+ thousand stationed in Europe and Asia.
Bush respected and expected his successor to do the job in good faith, no less than Bush faithfully carried forward the foreign affairs he inherited from Clinton in a changing global situation. That trust was misplaced. Obama has failed his Office to a degree perhaps unprecedented in modern US presidents.
Dog, your moral victory will come when you stop talking through your hind end about nuking an entire region of the world. Big talker.
Emilio…I assume you have never been to war. It is not like chess. Trust me. I am unwilling to spend one more American life in the effort, so yes, blow them to Hades and then some (glass as in the after effects of the Trinity blast) . All they have to do to stop it is relent. Can they? You tell me.
Better yet, propose to all of us your plan to peacefully solve the ME riddle. I will listen. Really.
Perhaps you need to read the words of Robert Oppenheimer on the subject vis a vis the Bhagavad Gita. We cannot overcome what we’ve already devised.
Where am I wrong on this? Tell me. Seriously. I’ve faced gunfire and fired in anger and have yet to find a moral victory. Tell me how I can achieve it?
Dog,
Yet it doesn’t make you shudder to say the ME should be turned to glass? That’s messed up.
Max-1…yes it was a call for a “final solution”…something that makes my very bones shudder.
Hannelori
Wasn’t it Hitler that called for “Total War”?
= = =
He called for a final solution…
Max-1 – you would have to say that Hitler was against ‘Total War’ since he was against the use of gas on the battlefield (having been gassed himself). Certainly the conquest of western Europe falls under the normal precepts of warfare. The Germans were better equipped and better lead (for the most part). The war with the Soviets gets a lot messier. There was a hatred with the Communists that was tribal.
Darren…thank you for the retrieval.
I apologize for the inconvenience this causes you, but I do appreciate you attention to the details.
Emillio….cold, eh? Yes, it is…and the death of a few thousand soldiers for nothing is also cold. Take your pick. Who do you think died in Dresden or Nagasaki?
I’ve been there, in war, so I can make the statement…either kill them all or go home. Simple as that.
Yes it is cold, but I am at that point where I am almost ready to say, f’it, just come home and let the idiots kill each other off. And it is not like I don’t know any Arab Muslims…about a thousand or so face to face at last count, but facts are facts…you want jihad, then die for it, and your wife and kids with you…because you would do no less top your enemy. Tell that is not true.
Turn the ME into glass? Mass deaths of millions of innocent women and children? That’s pretty cold.
Darren
Thanks
Now, about those sun spots…
Aridog, I am w/ you 100% on Israel. But, we have a lotta Israel haters here, so be prepared.
Crap…I meant around 9:35 not 7…proof reading is not my strong point. Pbbffft.