PDA

View Full Version : The Cost of a Syrian Intervention $$$



Gerry Clinchy
09-06-2013, 12:21 AM
$100 million or more, based on the cost of the Libyan flyover, but it could be more. Costs $60,000 an hour to keep those planes who would launch the missiles, and the missiles, themselves, cost about $1,000,000 each.


The U.S. Navy fired 221 Tomahawks in operations against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, nearly half of them - 110 - in an opening salvo against 22 Libyan military targets, including air defenses, communications and command structures.



If U.S. forces used a similar number of missiles to hit Syrian targets related to chemical weapons use by President Bashar al-Assad's forces, the cost would top $100 million.


[Admiral Jonathan] Greenert said it costs about $25 million a week for a carrier strike group in routine operations. If the carrier was used in military operations, the cost would rise to $40 million a week as a result of longer flight hours for its planes.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2013/09/05/cost-of-syria-operation-could-skyrocket-past-obama-estimates-n1692716

mngundog
09-06-2013, 12:46 AM
Estimated coat of the war in Iraq $50-60 billion (Bush administration estimates, including reconstruction and clean-up), actual cost $2.1Trillion.

duckheads
09-06-2013, 09:55 AM
Hello McFly, Bush has been out of office for 5 years now.

Evidently you are happy with your current President and the way he is handling our country's affairs. I know it is difficult for someone with the Bush hatred syndrome but why don't you focus on current issues.

mngundog
09-06-2013, 10:07 AM
Let me dumb this down for you, the topic is the cost of going to war, the fact that the we underestimate them by 30 times is relevant. Hope this helps, if it doesn't nothing will.

charly_t
09-06-2013, 11:02 AM
Let me dumb this down for you, the topic is the cost of going to war, the fact that the we underestimate them by 30 times is relevant. Hope this helps, if it doesn't nothing will.

"Thread: The Cost of a Syrian Intervention $$$ "

Gerry Clinchy
09-06-2013, 11:16 AM
Let me dumb this down for you, the topic is the cost of going to war, the fact that the we underestimate them by 30 times is relevant. Hope this helps, if it doesn't nothing will.
I think that the great fear is that Syria would turn into another full-fledged venture if the US takes this action.

Another fear, regardless of which side used the chemical weapons, if the US action is not strong enough, those same people would not be deterred from using them again. A slap-on-the-wrist action that is not severely punitive will not be much of a deterrent. A stronger action could ignite a larger conflict. Is it possible to walk the line between the two? It would appear that military action is a no-win situation.

Gerry Clinchy
09-06-2013, 11:39 AM
President Obama is using the final day of the G-20 summit to build support for a U.S. military strike in Syria, even as the details of that plan continue to change by the day -- with one source telling Fox News that military officials have been asked to revise their plans 50 times since the Pentagon first began considering a “limited” action.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/06/obama-presses-world-leaders-for-syria-action-as-strike-plan-rapidly-adjusted/#ixzz2e7uvj4Fo

The official said the choice the president makes will depend on what he wants included in the target list – and that seems to shift daily. The regularly fluctuating plans could feed into congressional uncertainty as members prepare to consider a draft resolution next week authorizing military action there.

So, have the changes been made because of the fact that it is believed that Assad has moved stuff into civilian areas; or moved civilians into targeted areas? That would have been logical for Assad to do given the lead time he has had to prepare ... when the POTUS announced that he would not act until Congress had voted; and the POTUS did not call Congress back into session immediately.

Putin is remaining steadfast. I wonder if that "off mic" message POTUS sent to Putin before the election about "flexibility" was the "blink" Putin was waiting for ... that actually emboldened Putin to play to what he saw was weakness. It would appear that the scandals erupting since the election have not increased the POTUS' "flexibility" as anticipated.

swampcollielover
09-06-2013, 11:45 AM
It is not only the cost, but the fact that we will have to borrow that money from your Grandkids and Great grandkids futures! Makes no difference if the print it our actually borrow more from China, our families legacy will be tied to paying off this debt!

Henlee
09-06-2013, 02:43 PM
I think that the great fear is that Syria would turn into another full-fledged venture if the US takes this action.

Another fear, regardless of which side used the chemical weapons, if the US action is not strong enough, those same people would not be deterred from using them again. A slap-on-the-wrist action that is not severely punitive will not be much of a deterrent. A stronger action could ignite a larger conflict. Is it possible to walk the line between the two? It would appear that military action is a no-win situation.

I full fledged venture would be a very serious mistake. Not doing the bombing campaign would also be a very serious mistake. The bombing campaign is a half measure, but I think that is all that is called for. They would be deterred, more so if as a country we were more resolute, but deterred none the less. Hitting them is expected of us, not acting in that way will send a message that we are willing to compromise because we don't want to fight. What will that mean for our allies that we protect such as Taiwan and Israel? What will North Korea then think they can get away with? It is all held together by us, right now Syria is a string in the sweater. If we let this slide our enemies will start pushing us harder to see where our line really is. To see how much we will let them get away with. We will end up spending more lives and money in the long run all to weaken our position in the world. Not acting will have much bigger consequences than acting. THERE ARE COSTS TO INACTION ALSO!!

Gerry Clinchy
09-06-2013, 07:21 PM
Yes, Henlee, there can be costs for both action and inaction that could result. The big question is which of the two will be better or worse over the long run. I think the reason that Obama went to Congress is that he doesn't know the answer either.

Brian Sussman was sitting in for Mark Levin today, and he mentioned the comparison that has been made before. Israel has bombed Syria 4 times ... they made no advance announcement; they have not even mentioned they have done so after the fact. No action was taken by anyone to retaliate. It would appear (I say "appear") that all parties believe that Israel will act to protect its national interest. They will just do it. That is their stated policy. Nobody questions that they will act swifty and decisively ... so Syria hasn't "complained" about Israel's air attacks either. You might say that both sides in that situation understand where the red lines are, and are being much more diplomatically effective in containing any enlargement of their conflicts.

Obama has put Assad, and his supporters, on the world stage. The huffing and puffing preliminaries have made a bad situation worse already. It has shown indecisiveness. It compels Putin to stand firm, and makes it easier for Putin to do so when the POTUS "blinked" by standing down and deferring to Congress. POTUS still contends he doesn't need Congressional authorization (as with Libya). His speechifying is already working to shift responsibility to the rest of the world and to Congress for whatever happens.

Is it just coincidence that the Saudis back the rebels, but are not willing to take the steps that they want the US to take on their behalf? They are so anxious to have the US do the dirty work that they have announced they are willing to pick up the tab for it. Does that make our military just Saudi mercenaries? Was it the Saudi king that Obama bowed to right after his first election? Weren't Saudis given privilege in passing through customs without the normal background checks, etc,, even though many of the 9/11 perps were Saudis? Even though Osama bin Laden was a Saudi? If the Saudis are so interested in defeating Assad's regime, why don't the Saudis send their young men into battle?

Interestingly, Sussman also mentioned that the Alawite sect of Islam (to which Assad belongs) have a history of being more religiously tolerant toward Christians.

Overall, I see more risk than benefit in the US doing the Saudi's bidding.

Eric Johnson
09-06-2013, 07:25 PM
Some of the talk on cost is bogus. Suppose the cost of operating an Arleigh Burke destroyer is $10 million per week. That includes personnel cost, fuel cost, all of the amortized repair cost, the cost of helicopter operations...the works. Now, suppose this ship launches every one of its 96 missiles. That would be an additional roughly $96 million. Is the cost of the operation $96 million or $106 million ... or somewhere in between? The key is that the ship costs $10 million per week no matter what it does and no matter where it is. As long as it is at sea, it costs $10 miliion. It doesn't sit idle with no cost accruing until time to launch the missiles.

This is a simplified example but it shows how the media, never terribly precise with numbers, gets only a portion of the truth in their stories.

mngundog
09-06-2013, 10:59 PM
I think that the great fear is that Syria would turn into another full-fledged venture if the US takes this action.

Another fear, regardless of which side used the chemical weapons, if the US action is not strong enough, those same people would not be deterred from using them again. A slap-on-the-wrist action that is not severely punitive will not be much of a deterrent. A stronger action could ignite a larger conflict. Is it possible to walk the line between the two? It would appear that military action is a no-win situation.

I full fledged venture would be a very serious mistake. Not doing the bombing campaign would also be a very serious mistake. The bombing campaign is a half measure, but I think that is all that is called for. They would be deterred, more so if as a country we were more resolute, but deterred none the less. Hitting them is expected of us, not acting in that way will send a message that we are willing to compromise because we don't want to fight. What will that mean for our allies that we protect such as Taiwan and Israel? What will North Korea then think they can get away with? It is all held together by us, right now Syria is a string in the sweater. If we let this slide our enemies will start pushing us harder to see where our line really is. To see how much we will let them get away with. We will end up spending more lives and money in the long run all to weaken our position in the world. Not acting will have much bigger consequences than acting. THERE ARE COSTS TO INACTION ALSO!!
By your logic, Canada and Mexico should be attacked on a daily basis, and yet that isn't the case.

Henlee
09-07-2013, 02:13 AM
If Canada and Mexico had chemical, biological or nuclear weapons and were threating to use them against US interests then I guess I would be talking about that.