posted
What a steaming pile of horsechit! It will cost 500k per soldier?!?!?! Bullchit! I'm a Democrat, but reading that is total BS! 500K per soldier?? I think I need some of that dope their smoking. Gimme a f**king break. The pentagon needs to be stripped and re-staffed. Retards seem to be working there.
Adding Afghanistan troops could cost $500,000 per person By Barbara Starr, CNN Pentagon Correspondent Pentagon official says estimate puts cost of adding 40,000 troops at $20 billion a year Official cost could be higher, as some things were left out of rough estimate Obama meets with officials Friday to review Afghanistan strategy Army, Marines leaders expressed concerns over "dwell time" The Pentagon Washington (CNN) -- If President Obama decides to send the 40,000 additional forces to Afghanistan as requested by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, a rough estimate by the Pentagon projects the cost could be an additional $20 billion a year, according to a senior Pentagon official.
The official said the Defense Department comptrollers office has told Congress that based on rough estimates, the total cost of keeping an individual service member in the war zone is now about $500,000 a year.
That includes the costs of personnel operations and maintenance costs, some equipment and hazardous duty pay.
The actual costs could be higher, because the estimate does not include the cost of constructing additional facilities, providing support forces such as military intelligence assets that may be based outside Afghanistan or replacing damaged weapons or equipment. The official emphasized that until there is a formal troop plan, the costs are just estimated.
The official would not be identified because the estimates are not official.
The ongoing review of the strategy for Afghanistan continued Friday, with Obama meeting with Defense Secretary Robert Gates; Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and the heads of the four military services.
The heads of the Army and Marines, who provide the bulk of troops for the war, have expressed concern that if they send a large number of additional troops, they will have to cut down on the time troops spend in between deployments, known as "dwell time."
Marines have only about 8,000 troops they can add without impinging on dwell time. The Army has about 12 brigades, or approximately 48,000 soldiers, that are not deployed or committed to deploy.
Regardless of the number of troops being sent, a deployment will be phased over time because of the lack of facilities in the country to house and support a large deployment, the official said.
McChrystal's plan calls for sending a majority of the forces he is requesting to the south, especially to reinforce Kandahar and Helmand provinces, and the region around Kabul, several military and Pentagon sources said. McChrystal also intends to reserve a number of forces for training Afghan forces, officials said.
But one official noted that if that plan is put into effect, additional forces would be needed to be sent to areas that the Taliban might then flee, such as the northern region.
-------------------- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious. Posts: 2473 | From: St. Louis | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
An opinion from wiki answers. I could not find any reliable sources with concrete numbers on the subject...
The Question: What is the cost of training a soldier in the military?
quote:As is the favorite saying of any pilot "it depends."
Depends on what job the person is being trained to do, as more training obviously costs more. Additionally, more training usually means more expensive equipment, whether that be more realistic simulators, live-fire exercises, or burning gas to maneuver war-machines.
Depends on what military, the base pay of a soldier varies enormously based on the country they are serving. As most folks don't flaunt their budget as openly, lets just look at the always well-know US military. The US Government pays differently depending on the rank of a soldier and their time in service, with the most recent chart being available here (http://www.dfas.mil/militarypay/militarypaytables/2008MilitaryPayCharts35.pdf)
Basic US military training is anywhere from 3-6 months, which translates to ~$4,000 minimum just to pay a single trainee. Add in food, lodging, and equipment at government-contracted rates and that cost easily doubles. That doesn't include any of the support staff necessary to train, equip, or manage the logistics of a group of recruits. No good source for it, but its generally said that each front-line soldier requires eight additional folks to support them... not quite applicable to basic training so call it a really conservative 2:1 ratio of trainee to support staff, tack on the fact that support staff is probably averages at least four years of service, and three months of training a single soldier jumps easily jumps to $10,000. Once a soldier completes minimum training they're good for... pretty much nothing except wearing the uniform and being able to complete further training.
Okay, so expand the training scenario a level and say that training a basic infantry soldier takes only a year (don't laugh too hard, its a simple analysis), that's a minimum of $40,000. Say that soldier gets shipped over to a combat region, now earns combat pay, serves only one year, comes back to the US and gets out (which is unlikely, as the minimum service commitments are a bit higher then that). That tacks $225/month on to their pay, ramp up all eight of the previously mentioned support staffers, and training, equipping, and fielding 1 each, US-issue Army grunt is going to run you over $250k. Add in healthcare benefits, tax breaks, life-insurance and disability insurance, wear-and-tear of equipment, ammunition, moral and transportation costs and a single soldier training and serving in the most basic capacity costs $400,000+.
Training costs are not amortized over the long-term, as soldiers required continued training as they advance in rank and incur ever-higher supervisory roles and responsibilities.
This is just a very simple answer to a very open-ended and vague question, but hopefully helpful in its point-the-way-to-information vagueness in return.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 4551 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: An opinion from wiki answers. I could not find any reliable sources with concrete numbers on the subject...
The Question: What is the cost of training a soldier in the military?
quote:As is the favorite saying of any pilot "it depends."
Depends on what job the person is being trained to do, as more training obviously costs more. Additionally, more training usually means more expensive equipment, whether that be more realistic simulators, live-fire exercises, or burning gas to maneuver war-machines.
Depends on what military, the base pay of a soldier varies enormously based on the country they are serving. As most folks don't flaunt their budget as openly, lets just look at the always well-know US military. The US Government pays differently depending on the rank of a soldier and their time in service, with the most recent chart being available here (http://www.dfas.mil/militarypay/militarypaytables/2008MilitaryPayCharts35.pdf)
Basic US military training is anywhere from 3-6 months, which translates to ~$4,000 minimum just to pay a single trainee. Add in food, lodging, and equipment at government-contracted rates and that cost easily doubles. That doesn't include any of the support staff necessary to train, equip, or manage the logistics of a group of recruits. No good source for it, but its generally said that each front-line soldier requires eight additional folks to support them... not quite applicable to basic training so call it a really conservative 2:1 ratio of trainee to support staff, tack on the fact that support staff is probably averages at least four years of service, and three months of training a single soldier jumps easily jumps to $10,000. Once a soldier completes minimum training they're good for... pretty much nothing except wearing the uniform and being able to complete further training.
Okay, so expand the training scenario a level and say that training a basic infantry soldier takes only a year (don't laugh too hard, its a simple analysis), that's a minimum of $40,000. Say that soldier gets shipped over to a combat region, now earns combat pay, serves only one year, comes back to the US and gets out (which is unlikely, as the minimum service commitments are a bit higher then that). That tacks $225/month on to their pay, ramp up all eight of the previously mentioned support staffers, and training, equipping, and fielding 1 each, US-issue Army grunt is going to run you over $250k. Add in healthcare benefits, tax breaks, life-insurance and disability insurance, wear-and-tear of equipment, ammunition, moral and transportation costs and a single soldier training and serving in the most basic capacity costs $400,000+.
Training costs are not amortized over the long-term, as soldiers required continued training as they advance in rank and incur ever-higher supervisory roles and responsibilities.
This is just a very simple answer to a very open-ended and vague question, but hopefully helpful in its point-the-way-to-information vagueness in return.
Re-read the article BF. It says nothing about "training". Just that it costs $500k per soldier to have him stationed over there. IMO...that's total horsechit...plain and simple.
-------------------- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious. Posts: 2473 | From: St. Louis | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's possible that number does include training. From what the article is implying it would include all costs associated with putting a single soldier over there... It seems like a realistic number to be honest.
Posts: 2147 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know it wasn't about training but I was guessing that I could find numbers about training whereas the costs of the wars to date would likely be obfuscated. It seems even training costs are hidden.
You can bet that the Pentagon knows exactly how much it is spending however and we should all be able to draw some conclusions based off the above projections on just how much America has spent over the past 6 years nation building in Iraq and fighting terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
EDIT found a new NPR article you will want to read Pagan.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 4551 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
one of the things Obama said when he was running was that he would not "play games" with the numbers like some others did
1:49 a.m. EST, Wed November 14, 2007 War costs could total $1.6 trillion by 2009, panel estimates
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The total economic impact of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is estimated at $1.6 trillion by 2009, a congressional committee said in a report released Tuesday.
That is nearly double the $804 billion in direct war costs the White House requested so far from Congress, the Democratic-led Joint Economic Committee said.
The committee estimated $1.3 trillion in war costs by the end of 2008 for Iraq, and the remainder for Afghanistan.
The total war costs could grow to $3.5 trillion by 2017, the committee estimated.
The higher total economic impact comes from, among other things, the cost of borrowing money to pay for the war, lost productivity, higher oil prices and the cost of health care for veterans, the committee said.
The committee calculated the average cost of both wars for a family of four would be $20,900 from 2002 to 2008. The cost for a family of four would go up to $46,400 from 2002 to 2017, the committee said.
-------------------- With lies, you may move ahead in the world, but you can never go back. Posts: 30263 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
BF I think you make a very good point in that the Pentagon knows exactly how much it costs. These guys are routinely under scrutiny for every penny spent.
Posts: 2147 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
pay well, but insist they begin using that money to buy farm eqpt, fertiliser like US farmers do.
teach them modern farming practices, and they'll eventually give up growing opium.
it'll take ten fifteen years, but OUR farm production companies will profit in the meantime...
-------------------- With lies, you may move ahead in the world, but you can never go back. Posts: 30263 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would probably work short term. Might backfire once the farmers have used it for a while though. Fertilizer is like steroids for soil but even applied correctly can cause huge stress to the microorganisms that feed on organic matter and nourish the soil naturally. Stop using fertilizer and the land goes into withdrawal while it recovers. Won't grow jack then until you've done years worth of reclamation work to build back the fungal and bacterial colonies in the soil.
Plus, the water supplies in that region don't come close to being able to irrigate like we do.
Might do more harm than good long term.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 4551 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: want to "win" in Afghanistan?
forget sending more troops.
start buying Opium from the farmers directly.
pay well, but insist they begin using that money to buy farm eqpt, fertiliser like US farmers do.
teach them modern farming practices, and they'll eventually give up growing opium.
it'll take ten fifteen years, but OUR farm production companies will profit in the meantime...
C'mon glass. Do you think they would actually give up that cash crop to farm potatos? That won't happen. So far, they have had few if any repercussions from growing Opium fields. That won't change.
May as well go to Colombia and offer them the same deal. You'll get the same result IMO.
-------------------- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious. Posts: 2473 | From: St. Louis | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
opium cultivation is not that differnt from other crops.
the "excessive" profits are not realised by the farmers. the farmers that grow it live in extremely ruarl areas and are basically hand cultivating.
in 2004? the "peak" year of opium culitvation in Afghanistan? only 2.9% of all available ag land was planted in opium...
most growers are very small time operators.
the Taliban actually oversaw the largest decreases in production and production dramatically increased under US...
water is problematic, but no more so than in the arid areas of the US-INCLUDING CA.
the biggest obstacle to making farming other crops more profitable is not the price of opium paid to farmers, it is the marketability (or lack of) of other products,which requires rail lines and storage facilities.
there are places where opium production would still be done, but it would still be cheaper to buy it direct from the farmers than the current strategy is. I'm not suggesting we encourage anybody to grow it, quite the oppposite, but by entering the market as the biggest buyer? we would take control of it much more efficiently than spending 500,000$ per soldier per year...
growing and harvesting opium is very labor intensive, harvesting one hectare alone requires 200 man-days. the growers are not getting rich, the smugglers are. the UN estimates that opium growers are only making about 900$ per hectare which is 2.71 acres.... or a little more than 300$ per acre..
900$ for two hundred man-days? and that doesn't count planting and weeding...
opium growers are rarely planting a whole hectare and the average family opium farmer is netting less than 300$ per year...
the big money is not going to the farmers.
-------------------- With lies, you may move ahead in the world, but you can never go back. Posts: 30263 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: opium cultivation is not that differnt from other crops.
the "excessive" profits are not realised by the farmers. the farmers that grow it live in extremely ruarl areas and are basically hand cultivating.
in 2004? the "peak" year of opium culitvation in Afghanistan? only 2.9% of all available ag land was planted in opium...
most growers are very small time operators.
the Taliban actually oversaw the largest decreases in production and production dramatically increased under US...
water is problematic, but no more so than in the arid areas of the US-INCLUDING CA.
the biggest obstacle to making farming other crops more profitable is not the price of opium paid to farmers, it is the marketability (or lack of) of other products,which requires rail lines and storage facilities.
there are places where opium production would still be done, but it would still be cheaper to buy it direct from the farmers than the current strategy is. I'm not suggesting we encourage anybody to grow it, quite the oppposite, but by entering the market as the biggest buyer? we would take control of it much more efficiently than spending 500,000$ per soldier per year...
growing and harvesting opium is very labor intensive, harvesting one hectare alone requires 200 man-days. the growers are not getting rich, the smugglers are. the UN estimates that opium growers are only making about 900$ per hectare which is 2.71 acres.... or a little more than 300$ per acre..
900$ for two hundred man-days? and that doesn't count planting and weeding...
opium growers are rarely planting a whole hectare and the average family opium farmer is netting less than 300$ per year...
the big money is not going to the farmers.
Glass, how much does the Afghan farmer make a year? I'm sure you probably can find on Wiki somewhere. They'll take that over Opium production? Let's actually see some facts to back that up please. TIA!
-------------------- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious. Posts: 2473 | From: St. Louis | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- With lies, you may move ahead in the world, but you can never go back. Posts: 30263 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
9-11 came from Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia...
if we had stayed out of Iraq? most of this wouldn't be an issue anymore, but that mistake cannot be undone, and walking out of Afghanistan would be an open invitation to hit US again.
-------------------- With lies, you may move ahead in the world, but you can never go back. Posts: 30263 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lockman: Maybe we could have our men harvest the crop to cut down on the per man expense.
why? the fact is that these people are willing to work very hard. harvesting opium from poppy is tedious boring work.
200 man-days per hectare is not a little bit of work...
the growers that are poor? sell their crop for as little as 10cents on the dollar in advance.
if we loaned them money on more favorable terms and gave them a chance to work in a more "honest" crop? they'd take that opportunity, at least enopugh of them to put a major dent in the illegal trade.
there is no getting around the fact that the Taliban is financing their military activity off the profits from the opium trade. we could put them out of business very fast.
buying the opium ourselves and building up an "honest" agticultural infrastructure would give US much more credibility with the people whose minds we need to win in order to win the war...
-------------------- With lies, you may move ahead in the world, but you can never go back. Posts: 30263 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In 2007, 93% of the opiates on the world market originated in Afghanistan.[1] This amounts to an export value of about $64 billion, with a quarter being earned by opium farmers and the rest going to district officials, insurgents, warlords and drug traffickers.[2] In the seven years (1994-2000) prior to a Taliban opium ban, the Afghan farmers' share of gross income from opium was divided among 200,000 families.[3]
one quarter of 64 billion is 16 billion. my bet is that these numbers are inflated and the farmers would literally take half that...
you cannot just pay the farmers not to grow it and expect that to work or i would suggest that.
you have to go in and be their best ag lender, safest customer and even insure them against loss of crops to show them how OUR system works, and then begin to move them into other crops or "legit" pharma grade opium poppy...
you have to bring in electric distribution, roads and rail, and then charge tehm for it.
they are irrigating poppy using deisel engines in some areas.. you might be surprised how many rice farmers do that too, and make money at it.
this is not rocket science, and it may offend some peoples so-called sensibiltiy, but it really is simple economics, and a heck of alot cheaper than having 100,000 fighting troops deployed for ten years...
-------------------- With lies, you may move ahead in the world, but you can never go back. Posts: 30263 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL... nobody would vote for me, i don't pander.
-------------------- With lies, you may move ahead in the world, but you can never go back. Posts: 30263 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lockman: Of course we could just burn the poppy fields and not have to deal with it at all.
supposedly? we've been doing that but it ain't working.
it seems the elected govt there is one of the main "beneficiaries" of the drug money...
-------------------- With lies, you may move ahead in the world, but you can never go back. Posts: 30263 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lockman: Ya It's starting to look like we should pack our tents and leave.
huh? you are beginning to sound like a left-wing commie now
-------------------- With lies, you may move ahead in the world, but you can never go back. Posts: 30263 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 4551 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lockman: If the commander and chief is not gonna commit to all out victory then I say get our troops the hell out of harms way.
This is War not a stupid ass game. You either commit to doing everything possible to win or you get the f**k out.
i agree with your premise...
we need to win the war. too bad Bush didn't do anything to accomplish that goal. in fact? we need to figure out what winning the war actually means...
the Taliban is our declared enemy.
we have an economic crisis in this country in large part due to overspending and undertaxing that started under Bush and continues under Obama. If i thought Obama had any other choice than to spend the money he has spent? i'd blame him too, but without the stimulus package? we'd prolly be looking at 20% unemployment and no recovery in sight.
If Obama sends in more troops? he's likely to lose support from his base.
of course the people who don't like Obama won't support him no matter what he does, even doing what it takes to win the war. they've proven that. welcome to politics.
-------------------- With lies, you may move ahead in the world, but you can never go back. Posts: 30263 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
pay well, but insist they begin using that money to buy farm eqpt, fertiliser like US farmers do.
teach them modern farming practices, and they'll eventually give up growing opium.
it'll take ten fifteen years, but OUR farm production companies will profit in the meantime..."
_________________________________________________
Were already doing some of the above, we have been for awhile now.
They can get the farms running in a different direction fairly quickly, at least our government thinks so.
How does the US win a war in the Middle East?
History states otherwise.
Always a reason to get our troops in harms way, not much of a reason to get them out, unless they can put them into another front.
Long term cost of the Wars?
Below is a quick cost from an old article, just to give a little idea what the costs are beyond the actual wars.
"There are 2.6 million veterans currently receiving disability pay, including a sobering 40 percent of the soldiers who served during the four-week-long Gulf War in 1991. Accrued liabilities for U.S. federal employees’ and veterans’ benefits now total $4.5 trillion. Indeed, our debt for veterans’ health and disability payments has risen by $228 billion in the past year alone"
Posts: 2895 | From: ca. | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: What's your definition of 'win'?
Too cripple our enemy to the point they become disfunctional and disband. We had our opportunity when this first started and screwed it up. We don't need to kill everyone, just answer aggressive actions towards US with such force and consequence that it just isn't worth it. They attacked US we are not responsible for the aftermath of their aggresive actions.
-------------------- Let's Go METS!!! Posts: 2963 | From: CT | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
We agree Lockman. Except for that last sentence anyway.
I don't know that we will ever get the Taliban to disband but I do think we can marginalize them and disrupt their political and economic powers structures. I do believe consequences and reprisal are warranted after such an attack but I wouldn't go so far as to say we bear no responsibilities in our actions.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 4551 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
