$1 Trillion to Kill Osama

Discussion in 'Politics' started by bearice, May 2, 2011.

  1. It cost estimated $1 Trillion to kill Osama in 10 years and some 5000+ USA soldiers were killed. Is Osama's death worth the tremendous loss?

    Al-qaeda has threatened nuclear attack if Osama is killed. Now the backlash from Osama's death will kill 1 million more people worldwide.

    It would have been better if USA government would have killed Osama Bin Laden as the last and final Al-Qaeda member. Example if there are 30,000 Alqaeda members, the USA government should have killed all 30,000 Al-qaeda members and then killed Osama as the last member.

    This way USA and Europe would have saved themselves from possible nuclear attack backlash.

    Today USA is bankrupt because of Osama bin laden.
  2. Can the mods please get this dufus to stop posting in the wrong forums? He keeps throwing a few #'s in there to make it look like it belongs in Econ forum but then goes right into P&R topics.
  3. Killing each Taliban soldier costs $50 Million

    Killing 20 Taliban costs $1 Billion / Killing all the Taliban would cost $1.7 Trillion.

    The Pentagon will not tell the public what it costs to locate, target and kill a single Taliban soldier because the price-tag is so scandalously high that it makes the Taliban appear to be Super-Soldiers. As set out in this article, the estimated cost to kill each Taliban is as high as $100 million, with a conservative estimate being $50 million. A public discussion should be taking place in the United States regarding whether the Taliban have become too expensive an enemy to defeat.

    Each month the Pentagon generates a ream of dubious statistics designed to create the illusion of progress in Afghanistan. In response this author decided to compile his own statistics. As the goal of any war is to kill the enemy, the idea was to calculate what it actually costs to kill just one of the enemy. The obstacles encountered in generating such a statistic are formidable. The problem is that the Pentagon continues to illegally classify all negative war news and embarrassing information. Regardless, some information has been collected from independent sources. Here is what we know in summary and round numbers:

    1. Taliban Field Strength: 35,000 troops

    2. Taliban Killed Per Year by Coalition forces: 2,000 (best available information)

    3. Pentagon Direct Costs for Afghan War for 2010: $100 billion

    4. Pentagon Indirect Costs for Afghan War for 2010: $100 billion

    Using the fact that 2,000 Taliban are being killed each year and that the Pentagon spends $200 billion per year on the war in Afghanistan, one simply has to divide one number into the other. That calculation reveals that $100 million is being spent to kill each Taliban soldier. In order to be conservative, the author decided to double the number of Taliban being killed each year by U.S. and NATO forces (although the likelihood of such being true is unlikely). This reduces the cost to kill each Taliban to $50 million, which is the title of this article. The final number is outrageously high regardless of how one calculates it.

    To put this information another way, using the conservative estimate of $50 million to kill each Taliban:

    It costs the American taxpayers $1 billion to kill 20 Taliban

    As the U.S. military estimates there to be 35,000 hard-core Taliban and assuming that no reinforcements and replacements will arrive from Pakistan and Iran:

    Just killing the existing Taliban would cost $1.75 Trillion

    The reason for these exorbitant costs is that United States has the world’s most mechanized, computerized, weaponized and synchronized military, not to mention the most pampered (at least at Forward Operating Bases). An estimated 150,000 civilian contractors support, protect, feed and cater to the American personnel in Afghanistan, which is an astonishing number. The Americans enjoy such perks and distinctions in part because no other country is willing to pay (waste) so much money on their military.

    The ponderous American war machine is a logistics nightmare and a maintenance train wreck. It is also part-myth. This author served at a senior level within the U.S. Air Force. Air Force “smart” bombs are no way near as consistently accurate as the Pentagon boasts; Army mortars remain inaccurate; even standard American field rifles are frequently outmatched by Taliban weapons, which have a longer range. The American public would pale if it actually learned the full story about the poor quality of the weapons and equipment that are being purchased with its tax dollars. The Taliban’s best ally within the United States may be the Pentagon, whose contempt for fiscal responsibility and accountability may force a premature U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan as the Americans cannot continue to fund these Pentagon excesses.

    If President Obama refuses to drastically reform the Pentagon’s inefficient way of making war, he may conclude that the Taliban is simply too expensive an enemy to fight. He would then have little choice but to abandon the Afghan people to the Taliban’s “Super-Soldiers.” That would be an intolerable disgrace.
    The problem is not simply within the Pentagon.

    The hapless U.S. State Department is equally to blame. It:

    1. Continues to sit on the sidelines of this war;

    2. Refused for nine years to deploy an adequate number of civilian experts;

    3. Continues to hire abusive and disreputable security contractors;

    4. Failed to fight for the needs of Afghan civilians; and

    5. Has made little effort to win their hearts and minds.

    A crucial statistic that demonstrates this is to compare military and security expenditures by the United States in Afghanistan with expenditures for civilian aid, such as reconstruction. That statistic is as follows:

    Money spent on Military/Security: $365 billion Money spent on Afghan civilians: $8.5 billion

    This latter number spells out “FAILURE.” U.S. diplomats and USAID officials have failed to improve the lives of ordinary Afghans and as a result they have accomplished the impossible. Their lack of resolve and interest has made an increasing number of disillusioned Afghans view Taliban rule as potentially an improvement.

    bring all our boys home waste of time money and lives.

    [link to kabulpress.org]

    The cost of a gallon of fuel/gas delivered to USA units in Afghanistan has risen to $800. Eighty percent of the supplies of the US-led forces in Afghanistan come up this long, difficult route. Along the way, the USA pays large bribes to Pakistani officials, local warlords, and to Taliban.

    USA is fighting a losing battle in Afghanistan. USA should learn from Russia and withdraw all their soldiers from Afghanistan and bring them back home. If Russia could not win in Afghanistan so will USA not win in Afghanistan.
  4. Some people say Obama signed "kill order" for Osama to distract/divert world's attention from his birth certificate issue which had caught fire some days back. Good possibility.
  5. Did Barack Obama actually have the legal Constitutional authority to assassinate Osama Bin Laden?
  6. Is 120 Tomahawk missile strike on Libya a cover-up/smokescreen for Japan's nuclear tragedy?


    7 days ago the idea of war on Libya was completely rejected by the majority of the UN security council. The US position was against a military involvement in Libya. Here's what MSN published of Hilary Clinton's address to the House of appropriations committee I believe just prior to the earthquake and tsunami in Japan.

    This is from the West Australian dated March 11, 2011.


    Clinton also expressed deep doubts about proposals to set up a "no-fly" zone over Libya, saying previous no-fly zones set up over Iraq and Serbia had had little effect…

    "Absent international authorization, the United States acting alone would be stepping into a situation whose consequences are unforeseeable," Clinton said.

    Clinton said the United States was focusing on humanitarian relief and building links to Libya's opposition groups… Clinton... said a proposed a no-fly zone over the country may not be the best one.

    "I want to remind people that we had a no-fly zone over Iraq. It did not prevent Saddam Hussein from slaughtering people on the ground and it did not get him out of office," Clinton said.

    "We had a no-fly zone and then we had 78 days of bombing in Serbia. It did not get Milosevic out of office. It did not get him out of Kosovo until we put troops on the ground with our allies…"


    Now what happened to change things in just 7 days?

    I suggest the possibility the Libyan war is a useful distraction from the nuclear catastrophe developing in Japan. England, France, and the US are heavily invested in nuclear energy. You might want to look at the involvement or planned involvement of governments to establish a nuclear energy sector in those other countries supporting the 'humanitarian' military strike against Libya.

    The radiation situation in Japan is far worst than many governments are letting on, that is those governments heavily invested in new nuclear construction projects. You just can't miss the fact the process of evacuating international personnel has been quietly accelerated largely under the public radar over the past two days.

    Most if not all of the international search and rescue teams have left Japan two days ago. Compare this to Christchurch where the last international USAR left more than three weeks after the earthquake. The Japanese search and rescue team were still in Christchurch right up until the earthquake in Japan.

    Add to that the US military have been evacuating from Honshu island since two days ago.

    The insanity of starting a new war in Northern Africa suddenly begins to appear more logical. Rational no, logical yes.'
  7. So the Japanese killed bin Laden?
  8. Now USA army should withdraw from Afghanistan immediately.
  9. Great cost benefit analysis. Now good luck getting the word out to the masses in a believable fashion.