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: geode00 who wrote (262645)	4/24/2008 9:18:19 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Some parts of it should be examined, but in general it isn't bad or dangerous. Also it likely saves money, over permanently keeping all those extra soldiers on the military payroll with full military and veterans benefits. The cost per person day is likely higher (at least of American contractors), but the number of person days is lower. The war will eventually end, and with it the contracts. Its easier to create and end the contracts, than it is to constantly change the force levels of the US military, and its likely less expensive than either continual change of force levels, or the possibly necessary permanent massive increase in force levels.