Thursday, February 24, 2011

Even Market Place, Today, put the cost of one grunt at $1.3 Million a Year

At some point, the techies predicting technology booms and grand choruses of angels harkening in a new economy, or the great prognosticators predicting such a grand tech recovery pushing the USA and the Western world back into a number one position economically and culturally, well, let's think about a better job outlook/better job opportunities -- US issued grunt: soldiering, either at a GI Joe or GI Jane, or mercenary. I teach community college, and some of my students' spouses, friends and family members are getting $120 K. for resigning up, especially a N-5 guy (enlisted seaman-techy) -- Navy, nuclear submarine specialist. Nothing like throwing $60 K to some army kid to re-up and head back to the Middle East, a 21-year-old who should be in school, working on the so-called new economy, new green economy, new measures to protect that last remaining wildlands left, to protect agriculture, to help with huge climate Diasporas, to resettle our crumbling cities, to help out the world in a time of what? -- depleating oil reserves (look at the Wikileaks on how much ARAMCO, the Saudis and American and other countries' so-called patriot oil and energy leaders have under reported the dropping oil capacity of the Saudi oil fields by 40 percent!!). Up to $150 K for specialists in Arabic language to sign up for another 6-year hitch, in order to push America's hegemony into places we are definitely not regarded highly by.

Definition -- SOLDIER:

sol·dier (sljr)

1. One who serves in an army.
2. An enlisted person or a noncommissioned officer.
3. An active, loyal, or militant follower of an organization.
a. A sexually undeveloped form of certain ants and termites, having large heads and powerful jaws.
b. One of a group of honeybees that swarm in defense of a hive.
intr.v. sol·diered, sol·dier·ing, sol·diers
1. To be or serve as a soldier.
2. To make a show of working in order to escape punishment.


[Middle English soudier, mercenary, from Anglo-Norman soudeour, soldeier and Old French soudoior, soudier, both from Old French sol, soud, sou, from Late Latin solidum, soldum, pay, from solidus, solidus; see solidus.]


The Stunning Costs of Keeping a Soldier's "Boots on the Ground" in Iraq

It takes half a million dollars per year to maintain each sergeant in combat in Iraq.

October 9, 2008

It takes half a million dollars per year to maintain each sergeant in combat in Iraq. Thanks to a Senate committee inquiry, an authoritative government study finally details the costs of keeping boots on the ground. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in its report Contractors' Support of U.S. Operations in Iraq, compared the costs of maintaining a Blackwater professional armed guard versus the U.S. military providing such services itself. Both came in at about $500,000 per person per year.

News reports of the study have largely focused on the total cost of U.S. contractors. The 190,000 contractors in Iraq and neighboring countries, from cooks to truck drivers, have cost U.S. taxpayers $100 billion from the start of the war through the end of 2008. Overlooked in this media coverage has been the sheer cost per soldier of keeping the army in Iraq. This per-soldier cost is more comprehensible and alarming than the rather abstract aggregate figure.



Even American Public Radio's Market Place plays the quiz on how much WE pay for each soldier in the Middle East Misadventures -- racking up $350,000 a year for fuel costs -- Here is the transcript of the quiz Feb. 22.

RICHTER: This one is in the context of all the budget debates and what costs money in the United States and for U.S. taxpayers. So my question for you today is this: How much does it cost per year to support one U.S. service member deployed in Afghanistan? Is it A) $67,000 a year; B) $132,000 a year; C) a staggering $685,000 per year; or D) an unbelievable $1.2 million a year?

HOBSON: Well, I am going to guess it is on the higher end of things. But I will just go with a staggering $600,000-some a year, not the unbelievable $1.2 million.


RICHTER: Not quite. This number would be right for the war in Iraq, according to numbers from the Washington-based Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. $685,000, that's by the way, over 10 times more than the cost of a soldier deployed in World War II. So these wars are getting more expensive all the time.

HOBSON: All right, so I'll guess the $1.2 million.

Ding, ding, ding!

RICHTER: $1.2 million per year. Of course, the least of that is wages or salary for the soldiers themselves. Most of it is due to the sheer lack of infrastructure in Afghanistan; its geographical position as a landlock nation. And the biggest single item in this? Fuel costs.


RICHTER: Per troop deployed: $200,000 to $350,000 a year just in fuel costs. With all this heavy stuff that's coming in now, that number's probably going to go up as the oil prices are going up.

HOBSON: All right, Stefan Richter, editor-in-chief at The Globalist. You can find out more about the world at Thanks again Stefan.

RICHTER: Good to be with you today.


Cost of Keeping One U.S. Soldier in Afghanistan Per Year: One Million Dollars

November 15th, 2009

The U.S. doesn’t have to “win” the war for a handful of diabolical corporations to make a killing. The trick is to keep the war going for as long as possible.

And, day after day, the shakedown continues.

Bogus contracts, drugs and energy. That’s all, folks.

Plus a little change we can believe in.

Via: New York Times:

While President Obama’s decision about sending more troops to Afghanistan is primarily a military one, it also has substantial budget implications that are adding pressure to limit the commitment, senior administration officials say.

The latest internal government estimates place the cost of adding 40,000 American troops and sharply expanding the Afghan security forces, as favored by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top American and allied commander in Afghanistan, at $40 billion to $54 billion a year, the officials said.

Even if fewer troops are sent, or their mission is modified, the rough formula used by the White House, of about $1 million per soldier a year, appears almost constant.

So even if Mr. Obama opts for a lower troop commitment, Afghanistan’s new costs could wash out the projected $26 billion expected to be saved in 2010 from withdrawing troops from Iraq. And the overall military budget could rise to as much as $734 billion, or 10 percent more than the peak of $667 billion under the Bush administration.

Such an escalation in military spending would be a politically volatile issue for Mr. Obama at a time when the government budget deficit is soaring, the economy is weak and he is trying to pass a costly health care plan.

Senior members of the House Appropriations Committee have already expressed reservations about the potential long-term costs of expanding the war in Afghanistan. And Mr. Obama could find it difficult to win approval for the additional spending in Congress, where he would have to depend on Republicans to counter defections from liberal Democrats.

One senior administration official, who requested anonymity in order to discuss the details of confidential deliberations, said these concerns had added to the president’s insistence at a White House meeting on Wednesday that each military option include the quickest possible exit strategy.

“The president focused a lot on ensuring that we were asking the difficult questions about getting to an end game here,” the official said. “He knows we cannot sustain this indefinitely.”

Sending fewer troops would lower the costs but would also place limitations on the buildup strategy. Sending 30,000 more troops, for example, would cost $25 billion to $30 billion a year while limiting how widely American forces could range. Deploying 20,000 troops would cost about $21 billion annually but would expand mainly the training of Afghans, the officials said.

The estimated $1 million a year it costs per soldier is higher than the $390,000 congressional researchers estimated in 2006.

Military analysts said the increase reflects a surge in costs for mine-resistant troop carriers and surveillance equipment that would apply to troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. But some costs are unique to Afghanistan, where it can cost as much as $400 a gallon to deliver fuel to the troops through mountainous terrain.

Some administration estimates suggest it could also cost up to $50 billion over five years to more than double the size of the Afghan army and police force, to a total of 400,000. That includes recruiting, training and equipment.

No comments:

Post a Comment

This blog is brought to you by

This blog is brought to you by
Paul Haeder

Fuse Washington

Fuse Washington