Completely lost in the hubub over W's $87b request is the proposed expenditure for Operation Enduring Freedom. As you may recall, this was the war in Afghanistan the US won almost two years ago.
Yesterday the Financial Times reported an $11b chunk of the $87b is slated for continuing operations in Afghanistan. (A much smaller amount -- $800m -- is for reconstruction.)
Given that there are only about 11,000 US troops in Afghanistan, simple math says it costs $1m per soldier for a year's worth of deployment, which seems godawfully expensive. It's not like we're launching $2m missiles at mud huts anymore ... at least not yet. All I can figure is the warlords are price gouging. Bastards.
posted by dackDack,
You're going to have to be more specific. Is it the Afghan warlords you're talking about or our own? Given that Riverbendblog post about our paying $50 mill for a $300,000 bridge, I'm guessing the Cheney-Khan split is 90-10.
Remember the good old days when the warlords were satisfied with mere drugs?
Posted by: Vin Carreo on September 10, 2003 11:55 PMDon't mean to make a nuisance of myself, but there's a good story in the Financial Times about this war funding as regards Iraq:
Because Iraq military efforts are being funded outside the normal appropriations process, in so-called "supplemental" or emergency spending bills, the funding does not go through the same rigorous congressional oversight to which normal Pentagon spending is subject annually.....
John Hamre, a former Pentagon budget chief who headed the administration-backed team of external experts to examine rebuilding efforts this summer, has said the $4bn a month the Defence Department is spending on military operations is high even by Pentagon standards: "A lot of people I know can't figure out why that number is so expensive."
Article goes on to say that Rumsfeld has been trying to create a slush fund for "flexibility."
Posted by: on September 11, 2003 08:43 PM