Pentagon Can’t Afford Syria Operation

Slyhunter · Aug 31, 2013

The U.S. military, struggling after defense cuts of tens of billions of dollars, will be unable to pay for attacks on Syria from current operating funds and must seek additional money from Congress, according to congressional aides.

estimates of the limited-duration strike are expected to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

training and assisting Syrian opposition forces would cost $500 million annually and “limited” standoff missile and air strikes would cost in the “billions.” Operating a no-fly zone would cost about $1 billion per month, and the cost of using special operations forces to control chemical weapons would be “over” $1 billion monthly.

Pentagon Can
1. Obama can't go to war in Syria because they are bankrupting the military.
2. Obama can't go to war in Syria without congressional approval, according to Obama in 2008 speech when he was Senator.
3. Biden will move to impeach the president who goes to war without Congressional approval, which has no intent on being a danger to the US or her assets. At least he would when Bush was President.

apdst · Aug 31, 2013

Looks like pissing away all that money on bull**** was a bad idea.

Montecresto · Aug 31, 2013

Slyhunter said:
[/FONT][/COLOR]Pentagon Can
1. Obama can't go to war in Syria because they are bankrupting the military.
2. Obama can't go to war in Syria without congressional approval, according to Obama in 2008 speech when he was Senator.
3. Biden will move to impeach the president who goes to war without Congressional approval, which has no intent on being a danger to the US or her assets. At least he would when Bush was President.

That's pretty much it!

Helix · Aug 31, 2013

Any military action should trigger wartime tax rates which stay in effect until peacetime. The rates should be significantly higher, and all brackets should go up considerably so that we all share the sacrifice. Perhaps that will cool the hawks somewhat.

Under my plan, the two previous wars would be long over, and this one wouldn't be on the table. It would be the problem of Saudi Arabia. Should Mexico begin using chemical weapons on its people, that would be our responsibility as the regional power. NK is China's. What we're currently doing is absolving every regional power of its responsibility, and we're doing it pro bono. If we want to continue this role, we have to pay for it. Wartime tax rates are entirely appropriate.

Μολὼν λαβέ · Aug 31, 2013

Slyhunter said:
Pentagon Can
1. Obama can't go to war in Syria because they are bankrupting the military.
2. Obama can't go to war in Syria without congressional approval, according to Obama in 2008 speech when he was Senator.
3. Biden will move to impeach the president who goes to war without Congressional approval, which has no intent on being a danger to the US or her assets. At least he would when Bush was President.

Let's clarify your statements.

1. Obama won't bankrupt the military. He will just ensure the federal reserve through congress will print more money.
2. Obama was against attacking, or waging war against a country that had not attacked the USA when he was a senator. Now that he's president it's OK.
3. This I believe is what Biden actually stated.

The president has no constitutional authority to take this country to war against a country of 70 million people unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked. And if he does, I would move to impeach him.

FLASHBACK: Joe Biden Calls for Impeaching Bush If He Attacks Without Congressional Approval | Mediaite

You know Biden will argue that dropping or lobbing a few bombs on Syria does not constitute a war, and that doing so somehow will protect the USA or its interests from potential chemical attacks, which is bull****. If any country sent bombs, by any method of delivery at the USA, he and Obama both would declare it an act of war.

But what else would one expect from Obomba and Biden. Both are hypocritical imbeciles.

ItAin'tFree · Aug 31, 2013

The Feed and Forage Act can be used but that would just cause more controversy. But Obama could do it and by the time the lawsuits got around to deciding the issue, it would be a moot point.

Deuce · Aug 31, 2013

apdst said:
Looks like pissing away all that money on bull**** was a bad idea.

Bull**** like giving people money for food and shelter, yeah. Instead of bombing people. Bull****, man.

Sherman123 · Aug 31, 2013

Slyhunter said:
[/FONT][/COLOR]Pentagon Can
1. Obama can't go to war in Syria because they are bankrupting the military.
2. Obama can't go to war in Syria without congressional approval, according to Obama in 2008 speech when he was Senator.
3. Biden will move to impeach the president who goes to war without Congressional approval, which has no intent on being a danger to the US or her assets. At least he would when Bush was President.

I call BS. Not only are no reliable sources reporting this but it doesn't make any sense. The Navy cannot afford to fire weapons it already has on station? That is ridiculous.

Μολὼν λαβέ · Aug 31, 2013

Sherman123 said:
I call BS. Not only are no reliable sources reporting this but it doesn't make any sense. The Navy cannot afford to fire weapons it already has on station? That is ridiculous.

No, its not BS or ridiculous, and here's your reliable source.

The problem is replacing them. Tomahawk cruise missiles are $1.4 million each.

Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (T-LAMs) cost about $1.4 million each, according to government budget documents.

WASHINGTON — A cruise missile strike against Syria could cost the Pentagon hundreds of millions of dollars in weapons, according to experts and government documents.

Since any type of US military action is expected to last just a few days, the price tag would be similar to costs accrued during the early days of the 2011, five-month NATO operation to overthrow Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, defense analysts say.

The first few weeks of the Libyan operation cost the US about $600 million. About $340 million of that was directly was to replenish munitions, specifically sea-launched Raytheon Tomahawk cruise missiles and air-launched Boeing Joint Direct Attack munitions, according to a Congressional Research Service report.

Syria Strike Wouldn't Be Cheap | Defense News | defensenews.com

Sherman123 · Aug 31, 2013

Μολὼν λαβέ;1062258327 said:
No, its not BS or ridiculous, and here's your reliable source.

The problem is replacing them. Tomahawk cruise missiles are $1.4 million each.

Syria Strike Wouldn't Be Cheap | Defense News | defensenews.com

The US Navy alone has a reserve stockpile of more than 3,500 Tomahawk missiles. We're good for the foreseeable future. Secondly it is BS. No one said it would be a cheap enterprise in net dollar amounts, but to say we cannot afford it is ridiculous. This is an operation calculated in the millions of dollars most of which is expended munitions and fuel, the future cost of which depends on requisition choices.

apdst · Aug 31, 2013

Deuce said:
Bull**** like giving people money for food and shelter, yeah. Instead of bombing people. Bull****, man.

No, I mean bull**** like the porkulus package, cash for clunkers, Solyndra, union bailouts, car company bailouts, million dollar vacations. Get a grip...man!

Μολὼν λαβέ · Aug 31, 2013

Sherman123 said:
The US Navy alone has a reserve stockpile of more than 3,500 Tomahawk missiles. We're good for the foreseeable future. Secondly it is BS. No one said it would be a cheap enterprise in net dollar amounts, but to say we cannot afford it is ridiculous. This is an operation calculated in the millions of dollars most of which is expended munitions and fuel, the future cost of which depends on requisition choices.

Your opinion on preconceived notions is understandable. However, stating them without facts can can make one seem to appear uninformed. Since this is apparently news for you, here's the story.

The U.S. military, struggling after defense cuts of tens of billions of dollars, will be unable to pay for attacks on Syria from current operating funds and must seek additional money from Congress, according to congressional aides.

The Pentagon leaders said unlike the 2011 military operations against Libya, there are not enough operating funds to conduct the attack on Syria.

The administration during the first term cut $487 billion from defense spending and another $55 billion under congressional sequestration legislation. An additional $55 billion is slated to be cut next year.

Pentagon Can

What's BS is dems wanting to cut military spending and start a war in the ME. You can't have it both ways.

Sherman123 · Aug 31, 2013

Μολὼν λαβέ;1062258744 said:
Your opinion on preconceived notions is understandable. However, stating them without facts can can make one seem to appear uninformed. Since this is apparently news for you, here's the story.

Pentagon Can

What's BS is dems wanting to cut military spending and start a war in the ME. You can't have it both ways.

Again the Washington Free Beacon is not a plausible source for this. Even the statement "The Pentagon leaders said unlike the 2011 military operations against Libya, there are not enough operating funds to conduct the attack on Syria." cites no figures and is unsourced. The only figure I've seen publicly claim that the US financially cannot afford a punitive strike is Senator Inhofe and his comments are blatantly political in nature (Inhofe: US cannot afford military action in Syria - The Hill's DEFCON Hill).

No report or senior official has said anything of the sort and it wouldn't make much sense.

Pentagon Can’t Afford Syria Operation

Slyhunter

apdst

Montecresto

Helix

Μολὼν λαβέ

Si vis pacem, para bellum

ItAin'tFree

Well-known member

Deuce

Outer space potato man

Sherman123

Μολὼν λαβέ

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Sherman123

apdst

Μολὼν λαβέ

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Sherman123

Pentagon Can’t Afford Syria Operation

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Well-known member

Outer space potato man

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency