Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (113358)	8/29/2003 5:59:07 PM
From: Ish	Respond to of 281500

<<What I want to know is what it is costing ABOVE that fixed cost amount.>> That seems to be the fly in the ointment everyone is ignoring. There's a fixed cost just to maintain an armed force.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (113358)	8/29/2003 6:21:50 PM
From: Rascal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

That $4Billion number was provided by Rumsfeld to Byrd during COngressional Hearings. I would be very surprised if RUmsfeld let himself get trapped by presenting fixed costs with incremental costs. If he has made this blunder it is very disappointing and stinks of incompetence. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/10/1057783288802.html Under intense questioning, Mr Rumsfeld told the committee that cost estimates for the Iraq invasion have reached $US3.9billion a month, on average from January to September. A Pentagon official said this was "the estimated cost to maintain the current force level in Iraq", which covers military operations, including fuel, transport, food, ordnance and personnel, but not reconstruction. In April Administration officials had put the monthly cost at $US2billion. In addition, the cost of operations in Afghanistan is now $US900million to $US950million a month, Mr Rumsfeld said. Rascal @HopeTHeyAreSmarterThanThat.com