Seeking Alpha
Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.
-
Instablogged Stocks
Stocks that instabloggers have most recently written about -
Latest Instablog Posts
-
1
Why Economists Hate Christmas
-
2
Do you believe that Natural Gas is a clean a...
-
3
Subscribe Now to the Mad Hedge fund Trader!
-
4
Taking a Much Needed Break
-
5
My "Tell All" Interview With Santa Claus
-
1
-
Top Instabloggers
-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
-
1
BRING THE TROOPS HOME - NOW!! 13 comments
Interesting that I would find the article below at the Army Times website. I never saw it on one of the mainstream media outlets. I certainly wouldn't hear about it on Fox. Why wouldn't MSNBC be shouting this from the rooftops. We now spend in excess of $1 trillion per year on Defense and the ongoing costs of our past military ventures. The GOVERNMENT spreads it around within their budgets to obscure the true cost. The following chart tells the true story.
Even though we have a Democratic President and an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress, the Defense Department budget went up by 4% over 2009 to $533.7 Billion. Supplemental costs related to Iraq and Afghanistan went up from $75 billion to $130 billion. We have the same amount of troops in Iraq as we did when Obama came to power. We have doubled the troops in Afghanistan and are planning to sacrifice more Americans in that hellhole. What does all of this tell me?
It tells me that the Military Industrial Complex is as strong as ever. They must be shoveling billions to Democratic criminal politicians. It is paying off. We need to open our eyes to this situation. Why aren't there millions of anti-war liberals marching in Washington and San Francisco hanging Obama in efigy as a war monger and baby killer? Why not?
We could save more than $1 trillion in the next decade if we come to our senses and realize that having American soldiers in 130 countries, fighting no win wars, and occupying the Middle East and provoking terrorism will drain our country of its last dime.
(billions of dollars)
By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Saturday Sep 5, 2009 10:15:43 EDT
A speedier withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan would shave $1.1 trillion off the budget in the next decade, a new congressional budget projection says.
That would be a sizeable cut in defense-related spending from 2010 through 2019, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates at $7.4 trillion.
The budget forecast, issued as Congress is about to return from a summer break and confront questions about budget priorities and deficit spending, says defense costs are uncertain because budget analysts cannot predict the number of deployed troops and the pace of operations.
The $7.4 trillion price tag is based on the number of deployed troops remaining at about 210,000, but looks at two scenarios for reductions:
• A sharp reduction in troops over three years, resulting in $1.1 trillion in savings. Under this projection, the number of deployed troops falls to 160,000 in 2010; to 100,000 in 2011; to 35,000 in 2012 and to 30,000 from 2013 to 2019.
• A more gradual decline that shaves $700 billion off the $7.4 trillion defense spending estimate. It assumes 210,000 deployed troops in 2010; 190,000 in 2011; 150,000 in 2012; 100,000 in 2013 and 75,000 in 2014 and beyond.
The report does not suggest what the money saved from the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan should be used for, but the Defense Department surely would make a bid to keep at least some of it to pay for unfunded weapons modernization programs.
The budget and economic update notes that Congress has allocated $944 billion so far for Iraq and Afghanistan operations — $849 billion in direct spending by the Defense Department, $51 billion for diplomatic efforts, $42 billion to aid Iraq and Afghanistan police and military forces and $2 billion to cover costs such as increases in veterans benefits and services.
Instablogs are blogs which are instantly set up and networked within the Seeking Alpha community. Instablog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors, in contrast to contributors' articles.
This post has 13 comments:
If the troops were removed today, I guarantee you Iran would swoop in and invade Iraq and its valuable oil fields. It would not be hard for Iran to gather support from the Iraqi Shiite sects (who are part of the same religious sect as Iranians) and overwhelm the Sunnis and Kurds in Iraq. If Iran would annex Iraq, they would control more oil than Saudi Arabia in the combined fields of both countries .
I would love to see US troops withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan today, but look at a map of Iran and you will see than Iraq and Afghanistan contain it nicely like a pair of book ends. It is no coincidence that the USA wants to keep Iran under control and maintain geoploitcal influence in the region.
The Iraqi people may do us a huge favor in January when they vote to either allow us to maintain a military presence, or to have us withdraw immediately. Let's hope they make the decision for us and move us down the road.
Will's point on the war in Afganistan is that we can do from aircraft carriers everything we're now doing on the ground. Let's get those brave boys and girls out of harms way and harass the enemy from secure off-shore locations.
On Sep 22 01:08 PM longoil wrote:
> It is easier said than done, to remove the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.
>
>
> If the troops were removed today, I guarantee you Iran would swoop
> in and invade Iraq and its valuable oil fields. It would not be hard
> for Iran to gather support from the Iraqi Shiite sects (who are part
> of the same religious sect as Iranians) and overwhelm the Sunnis
> and Kurds in Iraq. If Iran would annex Iraq, they would control more
> oil than Saudi Arabia in the combined fields of both countries .
>
>
> I would love to see US troops withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan
> today, but look at a map of Iran and you will see than Iraq and Afghanistan
> contain it nicely like a pair of book ends. It is no coincidence
> that the USA wants to keep Iran under control and maintain geoploitcal
> influence in the region.
On Sep 22 01:17 PM DaveW wrote:
> Having trouble finding the article on the Army Times site, could
> you please supply the link? Thank you in advance.
Not another Vietnam please with our sons and daughters paying the price for a weak spine, weak minded, wishy washy, incompetent president. He can't decide what he is going to do because his decision is based on what his supporters will think, not what is the best decision.
If we are going to have indecision from the Commander in Chief that means loss of lives because of his indecision. Maybe already happening.
Bring em home this Commander in Chief is a spineless failure as a leader and doesn't deserve to lead America's warriors to the bathroom.
Although, I would leave an airbase in the middle of the country to arm and fuel predators.
It's hard to be an outlaw if you have to hide in a cave all the time.
On Sep 23 08:57 AM James Quinn wrote:
> Email akwhatisbinijad and tell him a nuke has his name on it if he
> invades iraq. Cased closed.
The one thing that strikes me as different in Afghanistan, especially, is that it was a base for training terrorists. This is the war on terrorism until it gets changed by Congress and the MSM. And that is something that the troops understand. Iraq, IMHO, was "ptiched" wrong from the start. Bush was unsuccessful in painting Iraq as a terrorist (which under Saddam they actually were - anyone remember his offer of $25,000 to the family of any suicide bombers who killed Americans? That's enough to retire on in relative comfort in Iraq). Now it has become an experiment in democracy for a region and culture that has a long tradition of despots. The only reason to stay in Iraq now, as pointed out in comments above, is to keep it and its oil out of the hands of Iran. It Iran were to absorb Iraq it would also put them just that much closer to Israel, a point of which I am sure the Israelis are fully aware. That is more of a complication because it brings up the question of how would Israel respond and what impact would its response have on global geopolitical issues.
And then there is the issue of having that much of the world's oil supply in the hands of Iran, a fiercely anti-American regime. This is especially critical in light of the supply/demand balance in oil these days. Remember the peak oil theory? Do we really want to pay $5 or even $8 a gallon for gas at the pump? We can't eliminate our dependence on foreign oil for several years, even with a concerted effort.
The point I am trying to make is simple: the problem is not so simple or cut and dried as we would like to make it.
Now, I am not saying we should stay. And I'm not saying we should leave. What I am saying is that if we aren't in it to win, we should find a way out. Putting our young people in harms way for no real purpose other than to maintain military spending (one of only a few areas of the economy that hasn't been decimated lately) is just plain foolish. On the other hand, now that we are there, getting out gracefully becomes a very complicated delicate matter, both politically and economically.
In all honesty, the civilian public has no stomach for such. Such news coverage can do nothing but turn the public against any confrontation. Civilians are not trained or prepared for what must be done in battle.
In the same vein, Congress is not prepared either. They hear from there constituents crying about seeing all the gore.
Being informed about the war effort, and actually seeing it are two different things completely. Sure, it fascinates the public at first, but as it continues in time, the media starts looking for ways to maintain the public interest in the blood and gore.
Our congress must have oversight, but they need to have some confidence in our military leaders. They need to let the military do the fighting the way the military knows how to do it. The media should never be embedded with the troops. War is for warriors, not civilians. If we do not have the confidence to let our military leaders fight and win, then we are wasting precious blood. There are better ways of policing the military than by using the media for such and exposing the hell of war to all our citizens.
On Sep 23 11:25 AM Mark Bern wrote:
> I have some difficulty with wanting to stay in a war that we don't
> intend to win or a war that is micro-managed by Congress.
>
> Now, I am not saying we should stay. And I'm not saying we should
> leave. What I am saying is that if we aren't in it to win, we should
> find a way out.
oops.. s/b " their "not "there"
On Sep 24 10:19 AM blu wrote:
> I am of the opinion that the crux of our problems in any military
> action lays with the media. The Vietnam War was the first war where
> "embedded" media personnel were able to fill the evening news hours
> with war video.
> In all honesty, the civilian public has no stomach for such. Such
> news coverage can do nothing but turn the public against any confrontation.
> Civilians are not trained or prepared for what must be done in battle.
>
> In the same vein, Congress is not prepared either. They hear from
> there constituents crying about seeing all the gore.
> Being informed about the war effort, and actually seeing it are two
> different things completely. Sure, it fascinates the public at first,
> but as it continues in time, the media starts looking for ways to
> maintain the public interest in the blood and gore.
> Our congress must have oversight, but they need to have some confidence
> in our military leaders. They need to let the military do the fighting
> the way the military knows how to do it. The media should never
> be embedded with the troops. War is for warriors, not civilians.
> If we do not have the confidence to let our military leaders fight
> and win, then we are wasting precious blood. There are better ways
> of policing the military than by using the media for such and exposing
> the hell of war to all our citizens.
On Sep 24 10:19 AM blu wrote:
> I am of the opinion that the crux of our problems in any military
> action lays with the media. The Vietnam War was the first war where
> "embedded" media personnel were able to fill the evening news hours
> with war video.
> In all honesty, the civilian public has no stomach for such. Such
> news coverage can do nothing but turn the public against any confrontation.
> Civilians are not trained or prepared for what must be done in battle.
>
> In the same vein, Congress is not prepared either. They hear from
> there constituents crying about seeing all the gore.
> Being informed about the war effort, and actually seeing it are two
> different things completely. Sure, it fascinates the public at first,
> but as it continues in time, the media starts looking for ways to
> maintain the public interest in the blood and gore.
> Our congress must have oversight, but they need to have some confidence
> in our military leaders. They need to let the military do the fighting
> the way the military knows how to do it. The media should never be
> embedded with the troops. War is for warriors, not civilians. If
> we do not have the confidence to let our military leaders fight and
> win, then we are wasting precious blood. There are better ways of
> policing the military than by using the media for such and exposing
> the hell of war to all our citizens.
As for some brave idiots calling for US to use nukes at any occasion, I like to ask a question: there is no doubts we can wipeout North Korea or Pakistan but how many millions of American lives are we ready to sacrifice as a result of retaliations?
For instance, Israel may have 200 nukes but it will be enough just a single nuke to wipeout Israel from a map. OK, may be two nukes!
Latest Followers
Latest Comments
Most Commented