Military to Ask For $127 Billion for Wars

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 02:59:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Via Oliver Willis, the military about to ask for another $127 billion to fight the Bush Administration wars.

The Bush administration is preparing its largest spending request yet for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a proposal that could make the conflict the most expensive since World War II.

The Pentagon is considering $127 billion to $160 billion in requests from the armed services for the 2007 fiscal year, which began last month, several lawmakers and congressional staff members said. That's on top of $70 billion already approved for 2007.

Since 2001, Congress has approved $502 billion for the war on terror, roughly two-thirds for Iraq. The latest request, due to reach the incoming Democratic-controlled Congress next spring, would make the war on terror more expensive than the Vietnam War.

This is just an obscene amount of money. As Oliver says,

Somebody explain how we can throw $127 BILLION MORE into Iraq without even considering an end to the tax cuts? Leaving Iraq would cost less, both in money and lives. Why are we being so stubborn?

< Hoyer Should Lead the Charge on Ethics | Friday Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Military to Ask For $127 Billion for Wars | 35 comments (35 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

hold on! (4.00 / 1) (#6)
by Deconstructionist on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 09:30:26 AM EST

"you are just anti "this war," then I place you in the category of people who have decided that they will be the moral judges of our foreign policy, and I thus suspect you being a member of the Left who has displayed an almost pathological hatred of Bush and by extension, the war."

Shouldn't everyone be "moral judges" of our foreign policies (all policies for that matter)? Are you suggesting it is wrong to bring moral considerations into the consideration of policies? Are you suggesting moderates and conservatives don't or shouldn't do that?

Are you suggesting that one should not draw distinctions between various wars? If one finds WWII to have been a just war, he can't hold a different view about a different war?

Are you suggesting that simply being opposed to this war means someone is guided by emotional hated? Is the emotional hatred of of anyone who agrees with me on any issue something in which i am somehow complicit?

I could go on but, Do you have answers to those.

See the difference?? (none / 0) (#15)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 12:34:41 PM EST

Decon - You left a bit out.

First, I asked a question.

aw - Was the Revolutionary War wrong? Was the Civil War wrong? Was WWII wrong? Was the Cold War wrong? Was Kosovo wrong? Was Desert Storm wrong?

I then gave aw a blanket pardon.

If you are completely anti-war, then I can accept your complaint.

I then provided aw another opportunity to respond:

If you are just anti "this war," then I place you in the category of people who have decided that they will be the moral judges of our foreign policy, and I thus suspect you being a member of the Left who has displayed an almost pathological hatred of Bush and by extension, the war.

So let's see. I questioned aw's position on various wars and said that if aw was completely anti-war, I understood.

Then I said IF aw was just against this war I found that position to likely be political. I based this on other comments made by aw.

Nowhere did I say he couldn't be a moral judge.
But if this is the only one aw is against, I question aw's motives.

I hope this fills out the framework. Now you write:

Are you suggesting that simply being opposed to this war means someone is guided by emotional hated?

No, what I wrote was:

....and I thus suspect....

....aw

See the difference??


I was/am against this war (3.00 / 1) (#20)
by aw on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 12:59:59 PM EST

because it is stupid and tragic. We were not attacked by Iraq. Before it started, there were plenty of experts who laid out the reasons why it was a disaster in the making, even if the mainstream media mostly ignored them. They made a hell of a lot of sense. And they were right.

In WWII, we were attacked by the Japanese and the Germans declared war against us. See the difference?


Just because a person might recognize... (none / 0) (#23)
by Bill Arnett on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 01:44:18 PM EST

...that one war was necessary, but believes this one is not, doesn't give anyone the right to label a person, facetiously, in accord with your own "made up" statements relative to political motivations.

This was an illegal war of aggression and if a person abhors that it doesn't mean that they have "political motives", it means they detest this war. You can also be vehemently anti-war, but acknowledge the necessity of some wars without surrendering your beliefs and opinions just because another person seeks to label, and therefore minimize, you.

That's what's wrong with discourse in this day and age. People just make assumptions and label other people according to how THEY want to define a person instead of listening to the person and just considering their views without attacks or presumptions that, along with the Shadow that, "[You] know what evil lives in the minds and hearts of men (or women".

It is perfectly consistent for aw to perceive the necessity of WWII, while still disfavoring war, and to hold the opinion that this illegal war is wrong.


statement (none / 0) (#29)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 02:13:13 PM EST

Bill - No. Stating what you consider to be the other sides psoition is not immoral, illegal or fattening.

So please get on target. I made a statement of what I considered to be "fact." aw has the perfect right, space and capability to say that I full of mud.

That aw has not, to me, seems to confirm my comments.

As I just posted to aw, we no longer live in a world in which we can afford the wait for the first attack.

As I just said to aw, I'm sure you have got your licks in on Bush over 9/11.

Haven't you, Bill? Bill? ;-)


: I accept your invitation (none / 0) (#34)
by aw on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 09:04:32 PM EST

aw has the perfect right, space and capability to say that I full of mud.
That aw has not, to me, seems to confirm my comments.
I'm back. You full of mud.

As I just posted to aw, we no longer live in a world in which we can afford the wait for the first attack.
Where's that attack coming from? A billion muslims all over the world. Where's it coming from next? Better check under your bed.

The difference is. (none / 0) (#27)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 01:57:50 PM EST

The difference aw is that we now live in a world that has no margin for error. A couple of suit case nukes and we have millions dead.

The responsibility of government, indeed the very first, is to protect the citizens.

I am sure that you have claimed that Bush was alseep at the switch and responsible for not preventing 9/11. What would you have said had if we lost NY, Boston, etc....


You are (none / 0) (#28)
by aw on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 02:08:47 PM EST

not making the least bit of sense. Your statement is just a string of disconnected nonsense, having nothing to do with the war in Iraq.

If we had actually "lost" NY, I probably wouldn't be writing this, as I am very nearby. So if you're worried about that, perhaps you should concentrate your efforts on port security.


Strategy (none / 0) (#30)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 02:19:01 PM EST

That you disagree with Bush's pre-emptive strike strategy is understood.

Why you do so is not.

And while our security is better, there is absolutely no way that we can depend 100% on a static defense to defend us.

Bush believed, as all the leaders of the free world and the Demo party leaders, that Saddam had WMD's.

His actions were rational, logical and called for. I still believe your actions are motivated by hatred for Bush.


correlation (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Peaches on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 02:32:04 PM EST

I still believe your actions are motivated by hatred for Bush.

It is not necessarily a cause and effect relationship, although the two may be correlated. I think many people might be against this war. I also think that of the people who hate Bush, most are probably also against this war. So, you do have a correlation. But I don't think one view is responsible for the other, they just seem to go hand in hand in some cases.

Regardless, I don't think hate is a motivation for anti-war sentiments in most cases. It is much more likely to be caused by love, Jim, my boy. Love--we're motivated by love. Love for humanity, which includes Iraqis and the troops. All the mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers. Our heart especially goes out to the women and children of Iraq. We know we are one with them. We know they love their children as we love ours. So, its Love, Jim you want to blame, not hate ---and don't you just hate that.


: Brava! Well-stated, Peaches. (none / 0) (#33)
by Bill Arnett on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 03:10:38 PM EST

: Why, Peaches (none / 0) (#35)
by aw on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 09:25:00 PM EST

That's the plain truth of it. I am in heartfelt agreement with you.

jim (1.00 / 1) (#19)
by Deconstructionist on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 12:46:32 PM EST

No I don't see how that explanation addresses any of my questions.

You wrote:

- "Was the Revolutionary War wrong? Was the Civil War wrong? Was WWII wrong? Was the Cold War wrong? Was Kosovo wrong? Was Desert Storm wrong?
If you are completely anti-war, then I can accept your complaint.

If you are just anti "this war," then I place you in the category of people who have decided that they will be the moral judges of our foreign policy, and I thus suspect you being a member of the Left who has displayed an almost pathological hatred of Bush and by extension, the war"

Does that not necessarily imply that one who pooses this war but not those others must necessarily be motivated by hatred of bush?

You don't even try to address my other questions.


: aw only (none / 0) (#26)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 01:54:10 PM EST

It was all one platform.... If you ONLY are against this war, and your moniker is aw I SUSPECT your opposition is POLITICAL and motivated by hatred of Bush.
If you are ......and your moniker is Decon....I do not suspect....
Does that help?
The actions and the past history of the other party frames the expected answer.
aw is certainly welcome to say that I am wrong.

Deny it, (3.00 / 1) (#11)
by Che's Lounge on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 11:22:11 AM EST

then see what happens. If they won't redeploy, then cut the funding. And don't give me any sanctimonius "you hate the troops" BS. I'm fed up of seing our children picked off while neocon oil addicts pick their noses.

Who wanted them in this meat grinder? Not me.

: be inclusive (none / 0) (#22)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 01:43:35 PM EST

Che - If you want to complain about "oil usage" be my guest.
But please do not limit it to "neocons." As you know we have Al "Global Warming" Gore and a host of other rich politcos and Hollywood Types flitting around in their SUV's and private jets.
So, if you want to be inclusive, I join you in urging conservation and drilling for oil within the US and our coastal waters.

Cheap (none / 0) (#1)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 06:41:18 AM EST

Hi tech wars are costly in dollars but cheap in terms of our people.

When I remember the cries over not enough vests, armour on humveees, etc., I find the current complaints highly hypocritcial.

Perhaps someone can jump in and tell me again how they support the troops.

Hmmm (4.00 / 1) (#2)
by aw on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 07:42:21 AM EST

Cheap in terms of our people, eh? Would that be cheap in that only 2,862 troops are dead? Or would that be cheap in that we only send our lowest-price people? A bargain, indeed, for what we got.


Same (none / 0) (#3)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 08:25:41 AM EST

aw - Any death is bad, but the facts are that our superior, and costly, technology has saved lives.

Your position, based on the numerous comments I have seen by you, is that the war itself is wrong.

Two seperate issues and shouldn't be connected.

i.e. The same techology advantage we have now, we had in Kosovo. Was that cost also wrong??


Then (none / 0) (#4)
by aw on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 08:50:35 AM EST

Stop referring to human beings in ways we usually describe commodities.

Remember when Rudy was asked how many were estimated dead in the WTC? His answer was "more than we can bear." It's about the same number as our soldiers in Iraq. Yet, to you, that's "cheap."

Yes, I've been against this war from the beginning. What does that have to do with your describing the death toll of the troops you support so much as "cheap?"


Please don't put words in my mouth. (1.00 / 1) (#5)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 09:21:23 AM EST

And please, do not put words in my mouth. No place in my comment did I say, or imply, that any life is "cheap."

In fact, by noting that our superior, but costly, technology has saved lives, I am pointing out that we should spend money to save lives.


Saving lives (4.00 / 1) (#13)
by roy on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 12:33:26 PM EST

Of course you spend money to save lives. But if you're going to talk about saving lives, you have to address the question of "relative to what?"

Sure, expensive technology has saved lives relative to cheaper technology, but nobody suggests that we should have invaded and occupied Iraq using outdated equipment. You're focusing on lives saved relative to a plan nobody has advocated. Doing so is irrelevant at best.

The relevant alternative is not having invaded in the first place, or -- looking forward -- to withdraw sooner than later. So, Jim, how many lives has/will that expensive equipment saved/save relative to those alternatives?


: smart*ss addendum (none / 0) (#18)
by roy on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 12:43:43 PM EST

"We've spent $127B on expensive equipment and lost 2800 lives. If we had equipped the infantry with sharp sticks and the artillery units with atlatls, we would have spent only eighty bucks but lost tens of thousands of lives."
"Bush is a tactical genius!"

There you go again (none / 0) (#8)
by aw on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 09:32:39 AM EST

Trying to change the subject, as usual.

cheap in terms of our people.

You said what you said.


Deliberately misunderstanding (none / 0) (#12)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 12:15:20 PM EST

And there you go again. Are you deliberately misunderstanding?

And please, if you are going to quote, quote the whole sentence. (I know a paragraph would be asking way too much.)

Now try to remember, the complaint was that the military is asking for $127B. So what did I write?

See? The "cost" is "cheap" in terms of what it does for "our people."

And actually, for the enemy. Smart bombs kill fewer and destroy less. And yes, they are expensive.

Sigh....


Your (none / 0) (#14)
by aw on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 12:34:32 PM EST

whole sentence is right on this page for anyone to see.

You sound like Gracie Allen who went shopping because she could save money that way.


Wrong (none / 0) (#16)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 12:39:10 PM EST

Wrong. It may be in this thread, but it was not on this "page." (Screen)

To read it a reader has to go out of that comment and scroll up about 24". Many will not, just assume you have not left anything important out.

Which, of course, you did.

That was dishonest.


: They (none / 0) (#17)
by aw on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 12:41:26 PM EST

know where to find it now. Be my guest, everybody, go read it.

Wrong again... (none / 0) (#7)
by desertswine on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 09:31:54 AM EST

From Slate:

So far, Congress has approved $502 billion for the war on terror. Notably, USAT reminds its readers that in 2003, the Bush administration estimated the Iraq war would cost $50 billion to $60 billion.

Whats... (none / 0) (#9)
by kdog on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 10:13:24 AM EST

a couple hundred million between cronies, it's not like we are paying cash...it's all on the arm.

oops (none / 0) (#10)
by kdog on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 10:14:32 AM EST

make that billions...you lose track with so many zeros on the back end.


Hey, you take a billion here and a... (none / 0) (#21)
by Bill Arnett on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 01:32:30 PM EST

...billion there and before long you're talking real money! (Was it Wm Proxmire that said that? I can't remember.)


Dirksen (none / 0) (#24)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 01:46:38 PM EST

No Senator Everett Dirksen, Rep from Illinois


: Thank you, Jim... (none / 0) (#32)
by Bill Arnett on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 03:08:01 PM EST

...for the life of me I could not remember who said that.
I guess I was thinking about the Proxmire Awards for waste that the Senator used to give out.

If bush is only requesting $127 billion... (none / 0) (#25)
by Bill Arnett on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 01:49:17 PM EST

it means he is ignoring the Air Force request for an additional $50-billion to pay for returning the dead and wounded from Iraq, and, possibly, the Army's request for several billion to repair all the equipment damaged/destroyed in Iraq.

Tell us again the fairy tale that starts with, "I support the troops..." when clearly bush does not.