Posted by Norma on September 23, 2007, 11:48 am, in reply to "Re: /IRS/LOOKING FOR YOU!"
Since I didn't start this topic, I couldn't resist sending along a couple of pertinent articles.|
It's a Civil War and an occupation which Bush hopes to continue for 40 years a la Korea and as Greenspan says it's all about the oil!
Iraq War Budget Jumps for 2008
Saturday 22 September 2007
Bush plans to increase his request to nearly $200 billion. The troop buildup and new gear are the main reasons.
If Bush's spending request is approved, 2008 will be the most expensive year of the Iraq war.
U.S. war costs have continued to grow because of the additional combat forces sent to Iraq this year and because of efforts to quickly ramp up production of new technology, such as mine-resistant trucks designed to protect troops from roadside bombs. The new trucks can cost three to six times as much as an armored Humvee.
The Bush administration said earlier this year that it probably would need $147.5 billion for 2008, but Pentagon officials now say that and $47 billion more will be required. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and other officials are to formally present the full request at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing Wednesday.
The funding request means that war costs are projected to grow even as the number of deployed combat troops begins a gradual decline starting in December. Spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is to rise from $173 billion this year to about $195 billion in fiscal 2008, which begins Oct. 1.
When costs of CIA operations and embassy expenses are added, the war in Iraq currently costs taxpayers about $12 billion a month, said Winslow T. Wheeler, a former Republican congressional budget aide who is a senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information in Washington.
"Everybody predicts declines, but they haven't occurred, and 2008 will be higher than 2007," Wheeler said. "It all depends on what happens in Iraq, but thus far it has continued to get bloodier and more expensive. Everyone says we are going to turn the corner here, but the corner has not been turned."
In 2004, the two conflicts together cost $94 billion; in 2005, they cost $108 billion; in 2006, $122 billion.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are financed through a single administration request to Congress, and their costs are combined in the legislation.
The new spending request is likely to push the cumulative cost of the war in Iraq alone through 2008 past the $600-billion mark - more than the Korean War and nearly as much as the Vietnam War, based on estimates by government budget officials.
Friday 01 June 2007
US presence said to reassure allies.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and a senior U.S. commander said yesterday that they favor a protracted U.S. troop presence in Iraq along the lines of the military stabilization force in South Korea.
Gates told reporters in Hawaii that he is thinking of "a mutual agreement" with Iraq in which "some force of Americans . . . is present for a protracted period of time, but in ways that are protective of the sovereignty of the host government." Gates said such a long-term U.S. presence would assure allies in the Middle East that the United States will not withdraw from Iraq as it did from Vietnam, "lock, stock and barrel."
Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, who oversees daily military operations in Iraq, supported the idea at a news conference in which he also said U.S. military units are trying to reach cease-fire agreements with Iraqi insurgents.
Odierno said he sees benefits in maintaining a South Korean-style force in Iraq for years. "I think it's a great idea," he said, adding that the Iraqi and U.S. governments would have to make that decision.
"That would be nothing but helping the Iraqi security forces and the government to continue to stabilize itself, and continue to set itself up for success for years to come, if we were able to do that," Odierno told Pentagon reporters in a videoconference from Baghdad.
The comments represented the second time this week that administration officials invoked the American experience in South Korea in citing the need for a long-range U.S. military presence in Iraq. Concerns that U.S. forces might stay for a lengthy period have provoked considerable controversy in the region.
Yesterday's statements echoed those by White House press secretary Tony Snow on Wednesday. Snow had sparked quick criticism from Democratic lawmakers and liberal activist groups when he said that President Bush envisions a troop posture in Iraq similar to that in South Korea.
Iraqi forces, Snow said, would provide the bulk of security, but U.S. troops would be deployed in an "over-the-horizon support role so that if you need the ability to react quickly to major challenges or crises, you can be there." He said that "what you're really dealing with is the internal security of Iraq, rather than trying to provide a reassurance against an external foe."
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) responded by accusing Bush of "equating U.S. troop involvement in the endless Iraqi civil war to the post-Korean War security model, telling Americans that he may keep our troops mired in Iraq for as long as half a century."
|By posting, you confirm that you have read and |
Be sure to visit www.lamanzanilla.info