AP: General says bigger U.S. US. Army will cost $70 billion (€53.6 billion)

[Eugene]

General says bigger U.S. US. Army will cost $70 billion (€53.6 billion)

The Associated Press
Published: January 23, 2007

WASHINGTON: Increasing the size of the U.S.Army, strained by the continuing
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, will cost an estimated $70 billion (€53.68 billion),
a top Army general said Tuesday.

And if yet another conflict were to develop before the force can be bolstered,
it would take longer to fight and cost more American casualties than otherwise
might be expected, said Lt. Gen. Stephen Speakes, a deputy chief of staff.

Reversing previous administration thinking, President George W. Bush said last
month that he wants a larger military. And Defense Secretary Robert Gates earlier
this month recommended that the Army's troop strength be increased by 65,000
soldiers, to a total of 547,000 worldwide and the Marines be increased by 27,000
to 202,000. Almost half of that Army increase already has been achieved under a
temporary program that Gates said would be made permanent; the full increase is
to be achieved within five years.

The Army's preliminary estimate is that it would cost $70 billion (€53.6 billion) to
increase its size and the funds would be spread over budget years 2009 through
2013, Speakes told a defense writers group Tuesday.

-snip-

Full article: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/23/america/NA-GEN-US-Army-Troop-Strength.php

[maddezmom]

1. after reading this, I sure hope we aren't going to attack Iran/N.Korea, etc

And if yet another conflict were to develop before the force can be bolstered,
it would take longer to fight and cost more American casualties than otherwise
might be expected, said Lt. Gen. Stephen Speakes, a deputy chief of staff.

[High Plains]

2. No, thank you. I'm for a foreign policy that doesn't require a huge

war machine. We have better things to spend our money on.

[Trillo]

3. How can we afford to be solely a military society?

The military already has so much of the pie-chart slice of the U.S. government, but they need more? The people who lost their homes because of Katrina need more, too. So do the homeless. So do sick people. So do the many minimum wage workers who work multiple-part time jobs just to keep their bills paid.

[ShortnFiery]

8. Because our major conglomerates, to include our M$M are invested

in the Military Industrial Complex up to their corporate eyeballs. :wow:

Why won't us peasants understand, that our politico-corporate elites must have continuous war to test all their war toy bombs and jets and armaments, etc. etc?

If we had diplomacy and PEACE-MAKING, there would be not BIG PROFITS for the ruling politicos who run our country! :puke:

[Benhurst]

4. When one lives in The World's Only Superpower and enjoys

it's magnificent infrastructure, comprehensive safety net and universal health care, it would be the height of ingratitude to begrudge a few more billions to those who so successfully protected das Homeland on 9/11.

In the words of the old anthem America, "Thine alabaster cities gleam, undimmed by human tears."

[Ian David]

5. Army Expensive. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

6. Another big wet kiss to the USA's KILLING MACHINE - pepetual wars.

When will our legislators stand up and say NO?!?

[saigon68]

10. Good thing there are no hungry children or sick seniors

WOW its great here isn't it.

[jsamuel]

7. No. We are not spending another 70 Billion... No.

[dkofos]

9. Note to Secretary Gates, You can take the $70 billion out of the

DOD's missing 2 trillion, when you find it.

[teryang]

11. Believe it or not

The US Army has been an institution that the dictatorship of the super rich hasn't been able to break down to this point. God knows they've tried. The neo-cons, with Rumsfeld at the lead, have gone out of their way to disable it because as conservative as Army traditions are, the leadership and much of the officer and NCO corps believe in their oath to the Constitution. The public statements of the leadership, the grumbling in the ranks, and the outspoken criticism of retired officers have damaged Bush irretrievabley. Losing a war, of course, causes irretrievable political damage, this is the domestic basis for escalating and expanding war in the mideast.

Opposition to senseless war for war's sake, as a method to break down democratic institutions and enable the exploitation of government for the benefit of a small cadre of lying, corrupt, greedy fat cats, who give a shit less about the Constitution, can emerge from the Army as a large and powerful institution during wartime.

In his cynical war of political and financial opportunism, Bush has been running through the military leadership of the Army trying to find an obedient dog. Now in his desperation, he's going to try buying them off.

[crickets]

22. "as conservative as Army traditions are,

the leadership and much of the officer and NCO corps believe in their oath to the Constitution."

In these times (or any) there's not a thank-you big enough for that.

[katty]

12. Poppy, W and Cheney can write a personal check for this

[Lasher]

13. This is how Junior bribed the Army into going along with the surge.

Lifers love this. Allocations for promotion galore.

[trogdor]

25. Lots of really stupid senior NCOs.

...who got promoted too early because somebody had to be the platoon sergeant, first sergeant, or sergeant major in these new units. Real good.

[lligrd]

14. Iraq Leaves US Army, Marines Unready For High Intensity War: Generals

This really shouldn't be news but apparently some Generals just figured it out.

Iraq leaves US army, marines unready for high intensity war: generals by Jim Mannion
Wed Jan 24, 7:06 PM ET


WASHINGTON (AFP) - Nearly four years in Iraq have hammered US army and marines into a skilled counter-insurgency force but has left it unready for war against a conventionally armed foe, US generals warn.

Arguing for big budget increases and more troops, leaders of both military services have made the case in recent days that the US military faces greater risk today if it is called to respond to another major conflict.

"What we are developing right now is the best counterinsurgency force in the world, both army and marine," General James Conway, commandant of the marine corps, told lawmakers Tuesday.

But "that's essentially what they're focused on," Conway added, because troops have little time to train for anything else between tours to Iraq.

"So we need to be able to train toward other major contingency types of operations, and we're just not doing it right now," he said.

General Peter Schoomaker, the army chief of staff, echoed Conway's concerns at hearing before the House Armed Services Committee.

"I have no concerns about how we are equipping, training and manning the forces that are going across the berm into harm's way. But I do have continued concerns about the strategic depth of our Army and its readiness," he said.

Lieutenant General Stephen Speakes, an army deputy chief of staff, told defense reporters this week none of the army's combat brigades are rated as ready for high intensity conflict.

"If you take a look at the forces not deployed to combat, whether they are active guard or reserve, they have substantial equipping shortfalls, and also some issues with training and manning," he said.

"What that means then is they are not optimized to be ready to fight a high-intensity conflict," he said.

<<more>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070125/pl_afp/usiraqmilitary_070125000637

[LynnTheDem]

15. "skilled counter-insurgency force"

Oh?

[Nihil]

19. Well, according to the tactics of General Conway it is.

Namely, "if someone shoots at you, blast the f*ck out of the surrounding
buildings until they stop".

General James Conway, commandant of the marine corps, seems to believe
that this is "skilled".

In the civilised parts of the world, this is called "war-crimes".

[saigon68]

24. Conway is a War Criminal

Like War Criminal Yamashita who was stretched by the neck until dead

[crickets]

16. And just what is a 'conventionally armed foe' these days? nt

[Phrogman]

17. You know, it's a country with an Air Force with more than one plane

somebody that could "fight back".

[Nihil]

20. The difference being ...

... that an air force has planes to bomb civilians whereas
a terrorist has to deliver the bomb by hand.

[crickets]

21. Heh, good one.

But will their armaments include depleted uranium?

The biggest lie of all was when the Bushistas scared the heck out of everyone with visions of mushroom clouds... and never mentioned that we can hide that calling card and still drop devastating nuclear waste on the heads of any 'enemy' we choose. Talk about psychological projection.

Anyone who still buys the 'depleted' misnomer in depleted uranium either hasn't done the homework or is willfully ignoring reality. An armed force that uses such weapons as a matter of course without considering the health of future generations, much less its own troops, is so far beyond diplomacy, not to mention reality, it's horrifying.

Why won't us peasants understand, that our politico-corporate elites must have continuous war to test all their war toy bombs and jets and armaments, etc. etc?

If we had diplomacy and PEACE-MAKING, there would be not BIG PROFITS for the ruling politicos who run our country!
- ShortnFiery

Agreed! Thank you. I'm embarrassed I can't remember who said it, but: at the end of every war, representatives have to sit down at the table and write a peace treaty. Then they sign it. Skip the war, write the treaty and sign the damned thing. If it's a good treaty, it usually involves not letting anyone get screwed over.

Honor it. Done.

Oh, wait. There's no under the table money in that... :eyes:

[DoYouEverWonder]

18. These bastards always 'need' more money

they spend and waste like there's no tomorrow and then they want even more.

[theHandpuppet]

23. Well it's not like we need that money for anything else...

... such as education, health care, housing... dumb things like that.

:sarcasm: