Pentagon: 3 Months in Iraq Cost $14B

[AXEAM]

Lovespell anything you post about the evils of Saddam would be nothing but western propagander to demonize the man this whole war was a sham. Saddam was focus on and attacked b/c he was an easy target he was the president of Iraq everyone knew where he was at unlike Osama,Bush knew that the majority of the American population would be so soft headed that they would buy into the ties between Saddam and Osama b/c they're both Arab and consider our foes....which is good enuff for most Americans. Basically we are a bunch of bullies who pick on the small and the weak with our so called great military might Bush called out three nations in 2001 he called them the axis of evil they were Iraq,Iran and North Korea this was before sept 11th it was his plan all along to attack these nations Iraq has been 1st now the Bush admin is riding Iran about having the technology to develop nuclear weapons(sounds familiar) but North Korea seeing the writing on the wall has annouced that they have nukes and the Bush admin has pulled a straight bitch move and suddenly wants to open talks w/North Korea I wonder if NK didn;t have these nukes would the lines of communication be this open. I can't believe anyone would buy this whole sale BS the Bush admin is selling.For sept 11th you want Osama not Saddam.... also can anybody tell me how many Iraqis were aboard any of the hi-jacked planes on sept 11th just like Bush lied about Iraq trying to buy materials from Niger to produce nukes he lied about the connection between Saddam and Sept 11th.

[CrimsonTide4]

Army May Keep Forces in Iraq Through '06
1 hour, 15 minutes ago Add White House - AP Cabinet & State to My Yahoo!


By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON - The Army's top general said Wednesday he is making plans based on the possibility that the Army will be required to keep tens of thousands of soldiers in Iraq (news - web sites) through 2006.


Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, told the House Armed Services Committee that "for planning purposes" he has ordered his staff to consider how the Army would replace the force that is now rotating into Iraq with another force of similar size in 2005 — and again in 2006.


Stretched by commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan (news - web sites), South Korea (news - web sites) and the Balkans, the Army has used emergency authority to go beyond the limit set by Congress on the number of soldiers who can be in uniform, Schoomaker said.


He said the Army now is about 11,000 soldiers above the 482,400 limit and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has authorized the service to temporarily exceed the limit by as much as 30,000.


The decision about when to end the U.S. military presence in Iraq will be made by President Bush (news - web sites) and his national security aides, in consultation with American commanders in Iraq. As a service chief, Schoomaker's role is to ensure that soldiers are trained and equipped for any mission the president requires.


Of the 105,000 troops going to Iraq this winter and spring to replace the 130,000 who have been there since the start of the war, about 80,000 are Army soldiers. The replacement force, which includes 25,000 Marines, is scheduled to spend a full year in Iraq.


Army officials have said that planning for the 2005 rotation of forces into Iraq will begin in February.


Schoomaker said he was opposed to Congress passing legislation to permanently expand the size of the Army, mainly because it would be too costly.


"I'm adamant that that is not the way to go," the Army chief said.


Even while the Iraq war continues, the Pentagon (news - web sites) is planning a new offensive in the two-year-old Afghanistan campaign to try to stop remnants of the Taliban regime and the al-Qaida terrorist network, officials said Wednesday.


Orders have been issued to prepare equipment and supplies, though the operation will not necessarily require additional troops in the region, where about 11,000 Americans are still deployed, a defense official said on condition of anonymity.


Schoomaker said the Army is enjoying success in recruiting new soldiers.


"There are more people lining up to come in than we've ever had, and the quality of those people is higher than it's ever been, and there's no indication right now that that's not going to continue," he said.


Members of the House panel expressed surprise that Rumsfeld had agreed that the Army needed as many as 30,000 more soldiers, since he has publicly opposed a legislative move to expand the service.


Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher, D-Calif., said it sounded as if Rumsfeld was accomplishing through the use of his own executive powers the troop increase that he had resisted on Capitol Hill.


Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said he was concerned that the requirement for large numbers of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan may break the Army.


"This does not mean we should pull back from our commitments," Skelton said. "We can't unring the bell. We're there. We've got to win. We've got to stabilize that country," he said of Iraq. "We cannot afford that to evolve into a civil war."

[CrimsonTide4]

Pentagon: 3 Months in Iraq Cost $14B
1 hour, 5 minutes ago Add White House - AP Cabinet & State to My Yahoo!


By JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The ongoing war in Iraq (news - web sites) cost about $4 billion in September, spiked to $7 billion in October and hit just under $3 billion in November, the Pentagon (news - web sites) said Wednesday in its latest report on how much the military operation costs.


AFP Photo



That amounted to roughly $14 billion spent on U.S. military operations in Iraq over the three-month period late last year, the latest figures available, said Dov Zakheim, the Pentagon's chief financial official.


He said analysts were trying to determine why the costs spiked in October.


Officials previously had said the occupation of Iraq is costing $1 billion a week.


Zakheim also sought to allay concerns, expressed by top military chiefs to a congressional committee Tuesday, that the Pentagon would run out of money to finance the efforts.


The Iraq war and occupation, along with the ongoing operations in Afghanistan (news - web sites), are being paid for through supplemental spending bills that are approved by Congress outside of the regular budget process.


Already, Congress has approved $166 billion for those operations. The Pentagon has said it does not expect the Bush administration to seek another spending bill until January 2005, but the chiefs of the Army, Air Force and Marine Corps suggested Tuesday that money will run out by the end of September.


Zakheim said Wednesday that the military can fill the gap by borrowing money from other operations and maintenance accounts. This causes some repairs and maintenance work to be delayed, but Zakheim said this would not lead to permanent problems if a supplemental spending bill were approved by the following spring.


Why wait? Zakheim said the Pentagon wanted to see how events in Iraq unfold this year before deciding how much money it will need.


He denied the suggestion that the Bush administration was waiting until after the November elections to prevent the cost from becoming a political issue.