Jeremy Scahill: The Logistical Nightmare In Iraq - 283 Bases, 170,00 Pieces Equipment, Mercenaries

[Hissyspit]

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/133676/283_bases%2C_170%2C000_pieces_of_equipment%2C_140%2C000_troops%2C_and_an_army_of_mercenaries%3A_the_logistical_nightmare_in_iraq

283 Bases, 170,000 Pieces of Equipment, 140,000 Troops, and an Army of Mercenaries: The Logistical Nightmare in Iraq

By Jeremy Scahill, AlterNet. Posted March 30, 2009.

Why you'll be paying for the occupation for years to come, withdrawal or not.

With last week's announced escalation of the war in Afghanistan, including an Iraq-like "surge" replete with 4,000 more U.S. troops and a sizable increase in private contractors, President Barack Obama blew the lid off of any lingering perceptions that he somehow represents a significant change in how the U.S. conducts its foreign policy.

In the meantime, more reports have emerged that bolster suspicions that Obama's Iraq policy is but a downsized version of Bush's and that a total withdrawal of U.S. forces is not on the horizon.

In the latest episode of Occupation Rebranded, it was revealed that the administration intends to reclassify some combat forces as "advisory and assistance brigades." While Obama's administration is officially shunning the use of the term "global war on terror," the labels du jour, unfortunately, seem to be the biggest changes we will see for some time.

Underscoring this point is an annual report just released by the War Resisters League, which for decades has closely monitored the military budget, revealing how many tax dollars are actually going to the war machine. The WRL puts out its famous pie chart annually just before tax time as a reminder of what we are doing exactly when we file our returns. Noting that 51 percent of the federal budget goes to military spending, the WRL said it does "not expect the military percentage to change much" under Obama.

While Obama -- and public attention -- shifted foreign policy focus last week to Afghanistan, lost in the media blitz was another important report that examines how taxpayers will continue to pay for the Iraq occupation for years to come, withdrawal or not. This report, released in March by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, provides a sobering look at Obama's "massive and expensive" Iraq plan, identifying several crucial questions that have yet to be addressed.

Whether or not the Obama administration actually intends to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq in numbers large enough to claim to be "ending the war" as many believe, this kind of official review of the U.S. reality in Iraq -- and the congressional oversight to which Obama will (or will not) be subjected in the coming months -- bears intense scrutiny.

First, there's the money. "Although reducing troops would appear to lower costs, GAO has seen from previous operations … that costs could rise in the near term," according to the 56-page report, which is titled "Iraq: Key Issues for Congressional Oversight."

In addition to the massive funds required to move tens of thousands of troops, the GAO points out that the Army estimates "it would cost $12 billion to $13 billion a year for at least two years after the operation ends to repair, replace and rebuild the equipment used in Iraq."

The cost of closing U.S. bases will also "likely be significant;" even after military units leave Iraq, the Pentagon will need to invest in training and equipment to return these units to levels capable of performing "full spectrum operations." (The GAO report does not even mention the costs of providing much-needed medical and mental health services to veterans.)

The Obama administration is likely to portray the costs of "withdrawing" from Iraq as a painful necessity made inevitable by the Bush administration. But there are already calls for Obama to not allocate any new funds for such an operation. Retired Army Col. Ann Wright, a veteran diplomat who reopened the U.S. embassy in Kabul after Sept. 11 (and, while in the military, worked on plans for an Iraq invasion), says, "Everyone in the Department of Defense -- military and civilian -- knows well the expense of going to war and the expense of bringing troops back to the United States.

MORE

[Skittles]

1. what a fucking mess

[Supersedeas]

6. the real truth of the Bush legacy

[Solly Mack]

2. Here's the GAO report...in case anyone wants it

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09294sp.pdf


K&R

[izzie]

3. I wonder who will get the golf courses?????????

:shrug: Were they only for the higher up in the service or could every man use them? Maybe they can bring them back to the DC area for Congress and the other big wigs

[laststeamtrain]

4. K & R -- n/t.

[chill_wind]

5. We continue to fund the war racket while depleting our own communities.

Where the money goes

Norman Solomon
SFChronicle
Thursday, February 26, 2009

(...)

As medical providers and patients struggle with low funding and high barriers to adequate health care, the nation's largesse for war continues to soar. Every day, the U.S. Treasury spends close to $2 billion on the military. Such big numbers are hard to fathom, but it's worth doing the math.

In Yolo County, for instance, where Dr. Katz watches Abrams tanks roll by his beleaguered clinic, taxpayers have already provided the IRS with $449.8 million to fund the Iraq war. That's enough to provide health care to 168,154 children for a full year. Those figures come from the National Priorities Project, a nonpartisan group with a nifty - and often chilling - online calculator (www. nationalpriorities.org). Type in the name of your locality, and huge military costs suddenly hit close to home.

More than 40 percent of federal tax dollars go to military spending. The outlays buy a mighty war machine while depleting our own communities.

In San Francisco, taxpayers have already sent the U.S. government $2.2 billion for the Iraq war - enough to provide health care to 828,378 children for a year. In Oakland, the figure is $826.7 million, costing out to a year of health care for 309,036 children. In San Mateo County, taxpayers' tab for the war in Iraq has reached $2.6 billion, enough to cover a year of health care for nearly 1 million kids.

(...)

Mostly, the dividing line between foreign policy and domestic economy has narrowed to the vanishing point. As we know from our personal lives, priorities - whether openly examined or not - are pivotal. And government budgets tell the tale of social priorities writ large.

(...)

We shouldn't expect that a reduction of U.S. forces in Iraq will do much to slow the rocketing costs of America's global military ventures. The Obama administration plans to double U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan by early 2010, which will set a new deployment baseline in that country for years to come. And a significant boost in the overall size of the U.S. armed forces is on the bipartisan agenda in Washington.

Meanwhile, along the railroad tracks near Katz's clinic in Yolo County, the Abrams tanks are likely to keep rolling. Each one has a price tag of $4.3 million. And we're paying for it.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/25/EDB216532T.DTL

[bvar22]

7. I'm still waiting for:

"After Bailing Out the Wall Street CEOs and funding the Wars,
...we just don't have any money for HealthCare".


Note to All:
There will be NO "Peace Dividend" during the Obama administration.
Get used to it.

[Quantess]

8. .