IRAQ = $3.9 billion a month.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0710-05.htm

Published on Thursday, July 10, 2003 by the New York Times
Rumsfeld Doubles Estimate for Cost of Troops in Iraq
by Thom Shanker

WASHINGTON, July 9 -

Gen. Tommy R. Franks said today that violence
and uncertainty in Iraq made it unlikely that troop
levels would be reduced "for the foreseeable future,"
and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld nearly
doubled the estimated military costs there to $3.9 billion a month.

"We have about 145,000 troops in there right now,"

General Franks told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

He said he had talked to
"commanders at every level inside Iraq,"
and found that the size and structure of
those forces were appropriate for the
current situation.

Mr. Rumsfeld has never laid out a
timetable for bringing American troops home,
and has repeatedly pledged that the forces
would stay as long as required, but no longer.

Even so,
the acknowledgement today of the scope
of the long-term military commitment to Iraq
was the strongest indication to date that the
reconstruction effort requires the continued
deployment of large numbers of troops -
and that the undertaking carries a hefty price tag.

Under intense questioning from

Senator Robert C. Byrd,
Democrat of West Virginia,

Mr. Rumsfeld or his aides telephoned Pentagon
financial officers during a break and reported
back to the committee that cost estimates for
the Iraq campaign had reached $3.9 billion per month,
on average from this past January through September.

A Pentagon official said the $3.9 billion figure
"is the estimated cost to maintain the current
force level in Iraq,"

which includes expenses for military operations,
including fuel, transportation, food,
ordinance and personnel,
but not reconstruction costs.

The $3.9 billion figure is almost double the
$2 billion per month estimate issued by
administration officials in April.

In addition,

the cost of operations in Afghanistan
are now $900 million to $950 million monthly,
Mr. Rumsfeld said.

During a grueling four-hour hearing,
committee members alternately complimented
the military's war plan but criticized the Pentagon's
planning for the postwar stabilization of the nation.

In particular, Mr. Rumsfeld was pressed
to detail efforts to reach out to allies -

including those like France and
Germany who opposed the war -

for contributions of troops to replace Americans.

General Franks,

who stepped down this week from
the top job at Central Command,

gave no indication that commanders were
requesting more troops to combat guerrilla-style attacks.

When pressed to predict how long a force
comparable to the current one would be
needed, he said,

"It is for the foreseeable future."

Moments later, Mr. Rumsfeld sought to erase
the impression that those comments meant
that the American commitment could not
shrink more rapidly.

"The numbers of U.S. forces could change,
while the footprint stayed the same,
in the event that we have greater
success in bringing in additional
coalition forces,

in the event we are able to accelerate the Iraqi Army," he said.

With American forces suffering almost daily attacks in Iraq,
that statement did not satisfy Senator Edward M. Kennedy,
Democrat of Massachusetts,

who challenged Mr. Rumsfeld by saying that

"we have the world's best-trained soldiers
serving as policemen in what seems to be
a shooting gallery."

Mr. Kennedy said that

"the lack of a coherent plan is hindering our
efforts at internationalization and aggravating
the strain on our troops."

Mr. Rumsfeld said 142,000 military
personnel had returned to their home bases,
although most of those serve in the Air Force
and Navy, leaving the burden in Iraq to
American ground forces.

The current ground force figure,
145,000, is down from its peak of 151,000.

And he announced the withdrawal of one
high-profile unit from the war zone, saying
all three brigades of the Third Infantry Division,
which spearheaded the attack on Baghdad,
would leave Iraq by September.

In sketching how Iraqis will help stabilize their nation,
General Franks said that 35,000 Iraqi police officers
had been hired and that plans called for training a
new Iraqi army of 12,000 within one year and
40,000 within three years.

As recently as May, senior allied officials
speaking to correspondents in Baghdad
said the Bush administration had hoped
to shrink the American military presence
in Iraq to two divisions,

about 30,000 to 40,000 troops, by autumn,
with a third multinational division also present.

Answering complaints that American
unilateralism had alienated its allies,
Mr. Rumsfeld and General Franks said
that 19 nations now had forces supporting
the Iraq effort,

that 19 others had promised troops and that
discussions were under way with 11 more.

Those allied forces already in Iraq,
and those committed, totaled 30,000, they said.

Asked by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan,
the ranking Democrat on the committee,
if he would support having France and
Germany take part in the postwar stability force,
Mr. Rumsfeld said he would.

"We have reached out to NATO," Mr. Rumsfeld said.

But he cautioned that

"it would be incorrect to say that we expect that
international forces will replace all of U.S. forces.

We don't anticipate that."

Mr. Rumsfeld refused to issue a concrete
schedule for withdrawing American forces.

"Nobody knows the answer to that question,
how long it will take," he said.

"It will take some time."

But he said that

"when it's done,
it's going to have been darn well worth having done."

Senators from both parties -
James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma,
and Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island -
pressed Mr. Rumsfeld on whether the Pentagon
should consider increasing the number of
people in uniform to handle global missions.

"It seems to me that we have to be prepared
to increase our Army, the number of brigades
in our Army, or to activate National Guard divisions,
and we have to make that decision soon," Mr. Reed said.

Mr. Rumsfeld said there were no plans to expand the military.

Sen. John McCain, Republican of Arizona,
asked Mr. Rumsfeld about the threat from Iran,
and Mr. Rumsfeld said he had received reports
that Iran had relocated some border posts a
few miles into Iraqi territory, and he cautioned
the government in Tehran against such adventurism.

It would be illogical for either France or Germany to send ANY troops to
Iraq. The idiot babybush created this mess all by himself. Why should
Chirac or Schroeder milk their country's taxpayers to help clean it up. . .

.. . .unless, of course, they're naive enough to think that, in the
zillion-to-one chance the international community does manage to stabilize
Iraq, the presence of their tropps there would give them more say in how
Iraq is run.

This would be wishful thinking, and also illogical thinking, given that
there IS, in fact, a zillion-to-one chance that the Iraqi people would
actually accept a foreign government--whether it be Germany, U. S. France,
or Somalia--making significant decisions about their country.

"torresD" <torresD30@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:HPtPa.267$7S.21@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0710-05.htm
>
> Published on Thursday, July 10, 2003 by the New York Times
> Rumsfeld Doubles Estimate for Cost of Troops in Iraq
> by Thom Shanker
>
> WASHINGTON, July 9 -
>
> Gen. Tommy R. Franks said today that violence
> and uncertainty in Iraq made it unlikely that troop
> levels would be reduced "for the foreseeable future,"
> and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld nearly
> doubled the estimated military costs there to $3.9 billion a month.
>
> "We have about 145,000 troops in there right now,"
>
> General Franks told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
>
> He said he had talked to
> "commanders at every level inside Iraq,"
> and found that the size and structure of
> those forces were appropriate for the
> current situation.
>
> Mr. Rumsfeld has never laid out a
> timetable for bringing American troops home,
> and has repeatedly pledged that the forces
> would stay as long as required, but no longer.
>
> Even so,
> the acknowledgement today of the scope
> of the long-term military commitment to Iraq
> was the strongest indication to date that the
> reconstruction effort requires the continued
> deployment of large numbers of troops -
> and that the undertaking carries a hefty price tag.
>
> Under intense questioning from
>
> Senator Robert C. Byrd,
> Democrat of West Virginia,
>
> Mr. Rumsfeld or his aides telephoned Pentagon
> financial officers during a break and reported
> back to the committee that cost estimates for
> the Iraq campaign had reached $3.9 billion per month,
> on average from this past January through September.
>
> A Pentagon official said the $3.9 billion figure
> "is the estimated cost to maintain the current
> force level in Iraq,"
>
> which includes expenses for military operations,
> including fuel, transportation, food,
> ordinance and personnel,
> but not reconstruction costs.
>
> The $3.9 billion figure is almost double the
> $2 billion per month estimate issued by
> administration officials in April.
>
> In addition,
>
> the cost of operations in Afghanistan
> are now $900 million to $950 million monthly,
> Mr. Rumsfeld said.
>
> During a grueling four-hour hearing,
> committee members alternately complimented
> the military's war plan but criticized the Pentagon's
> planning for the postwar stabilization of the nation.
>
> In particular, Mr. Rumsfeld was pressed
> to detail efforts to reach out to allies -
>
> including those like France and
> Germany who opposed the war -
>
> for contributions of troops to replace Americans.
>
> General Franks,
>
> who stepped down this week from
> the top job at Central Command,
>
> gave no indication that commanders were
> requesting more troops to combat guerrilla-style attacks.
>
> When pressed to predict how long a force
> comparable to the current one would be
> needed, he said,
>
> "It is for the foreseeable future."
>
> Moments later, Mr. Rumsfeld sought to erase
> the impression that those comments meant
> that the American commitment could not
> shrink more rapidly.
>
> "The numbers of U.S. forces could change,
> while the footprint stayed the same,
> in the event that we have greater
> success in bringing in additional
> coalition forces,
>
> in the event we are able to accelerate the Iraqi Army," he said.
>
> With American forces suffering almost daily attacks in Iraq,
> that statement did not satisfy Senator Edward M. Kennedy,
> Democrat of Massachusetts,
>
> who challenged Mr. Rumsfeld by saying that
>
> "we have the world's best-trained soldiers
> serving as policemen in what seems to be
> a shooting gallery."
>
> Mr. Kennedy said that
>
> "the lack of a coherent plan is hindering our
> efforts at internationalization and aggravating
> the strain on our troops."
>
> Mr. Rumsfeld said 142,000 military
> personnel had returned to their home bases,
> although most of those serve in the Air Force
> and Navy, leaving the burden in Iraq to
> American ground forces.
>
> The current ground force figure,
> 145,000, is down from its peak of 151,000.
>
> And he announced the withdrawal of one
> high-profile unit from the war zone, saying
> all three brigades of the Third Infantry Division,
> which spearheaded the attack on Baghdad,
> would leave Iraq by September.
>
> In sketching how Iraqis will help stabilize their nation,
> General Franks said that 35,000 Iraqi police officers
> had been hired and that plans called for training a
> new Iraqi army of 12,000 within one year and
> 40,000 within three years.
>
> As recently as May, senior allied officials
> speaking to correspondents in Baghdad
> said the Bush administration had hoped
> to shrink the American military presence
> in Iraq to two divisions,
>
> about 30,000 to 40,000 troops, by autumn,
> with a third multinational division also present.
>
> Answering complaints that American
> unilateralism had alienated its allies,
> Mr. Rumsfeld and General Franks said
> that 19 nations now had forces supporting
> the Iraq effort,
>
> that 19 others had promised troops and that
> discussions were under way with 11 more.
>
> Those allied forces already in Iraq,
> and those committed, totaled 30,000, they said.
>
> Asked by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan,
> the ranking Democrat on the committee,
> if he would support having France and
> Germany take part in the postwar stability force,
> Mr. Rumsfeld said he would.
>
> "We have reached out to NATO," Mr. Rumsfeld said.
>
> But he cautioned that
>
> "it would be incorrect to say that we expect that
> international forces will replace all of U.S. forces.
>
> We don't anticipate that."
>
> Mr. Rumsfeld refused to issue a concrete
> schedule for withdrawing American forces.
>
> "Nobody knows the answer to that question,
> how long it will take," he said.
>
> "It will take some time."
>
> But he said that
>
> "when it's done,
> it's going to have been darn well worth having done."
>
> Senators from both parties -
> James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma,
> and Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island -
> pressed Mr. Rumsfeld on whether the Pentagon
> should consider increasing the number of
> people in uniform to handle global missions.
>
> "It seems to me that we have to be prepared
> to increase our Army, the number of brigades
> in our Army, or to activate National Guard divisions,
> and we have to make that decision soon," Mr. Reed said.
>
> Mr. Rumsfeld said there were no plans to expand the military.
>
> Sen. John McCain, Republican of Arizona,
> asked Mr. Rumsfeld about the threat from Iran,
> and Mr. Rumsfeld said he had received reports
> that Iran had relocated some border posts a
> few miles into Iraqi territory, and he cautioned
> the government in Tehran against such adventurism.
>
>
>
>
>

Siva wrote:
> It would be illogical for either France or Germany to send ANY troops to
> Iraq. The idiot babybush created this mess all by himself. Why should
> Chirac or Schroeder milk their country's taxpayers to help clean it up. . .
>
> . . .unless, of course, they're naive enough to think that, in the
> zillion-to-one chance the international community does manage to stabilize
> Iraq, the presence of their tropps there would give them more say in how
> Iraq is run.
>
> This would be wishful thinking, and also illogical thinking, given that
> there IS, in fact, a zillion-to-one chance that the Iraqi people would
> actually accept a foreign government--whether it be Germany, U. S. France,
> or Somalia--making significant decisions about their country.

I remember the old Smothers Brothers joke.
Dick: You do what people tell you to...and if someone told you to go
jump off a bridge, you would do that too?
Tom: Not again.

>
> "torresD" <torresD30@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:HPtPa.267$7S.21@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0710-05.htm
>>
>>Published on Thursday, July 10, 2003 by the New York Times
>>Rumsfeld Doubles Estimate for Cost of Troops in Iraq
>>by Thom Shanker
>>
>>WASHINGTON, July 9 -
>>
>>Gen. Tommy R. Franks said today that violence
>>and uncertainty in Iraq made it unlikely that troop
>>levels would be reduced "for the foreseeable future,"
>>and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld nearly
>>doubled the estimated military costs there to $3.9 billion a month.
>>
>>"We have about 145,000 troops in there right now,"
>>
>>General Franks told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
>>
>>He said he had talked to
>>"commanders at every level inside Iraq,"
>>and found that the size and structure of
>>those forces were appropriate for the
>>current situation.
>>
>>Mr. Rumsfeld has never laid out a
>>timetable for bringing American troops home,
>>and has repeatedly pledged that the forces
>>would stay as long as required, but no longer.
>>
>>Even so,
>>the acknowledgement today of the scope
>>of the long-term military commitment to Iraq
>>was the strongest indication to date that the
>>reconstruction effort requires the continued
>>deployment of large numbers of troops -
>>and that the undertaking carries a hefty price tag.
>>
>>Under intense questioning from
>>
>>Senator Robert C. Byrd,
>>Democrat of West Virginia,
>>
>>Mr. Rumsfeld or his aides telephoned Pentagon
>>financial officers during a break and reported
>>back to the committee that cost estimates for
>>the Iraq campaign had reached $3.9 billion per month,
>>on average from this past January through September.
>>
>>A Pentagon official said the $3.9 billion figure
>>"is the estimated cost to maintain the current
>>force level in Iraq,"
>>
>>which includes expenses for military operations,
>>including fuel, transportation, food,
>>ordinance and personnel,
>>but not reconstruction costs.
>>
>>The $3.9 billion figure is almost double the
>>$2 billion per month estimate issued by
>>administration officials in April.
>>
>>In addition,
>>
>>the cost of operations in Afghanistan
>>are now $900 million to $950 million monthly,
>>Mr. Rumsfeld said.
>>
>>During a grueling four-hour hearing,
>>committee members alternately complimented
>>the military's war plan but criticized the Pentagon's
>>planning for the postwar stabilization of the nation.
>>
>>In particular, Mr. Rumsfeld was pressed
>>to detail efforts to reach out to allies -
>>
>>including those like France and
>>Germany who opposed the war -
>>
>>for contributions of troops to replace Americans.
>>
>>General Franks,
>>
>>who stepped down this week from
>>the top job at Central Command,
>>
>>gave no indication that commanders were
>>requesting more troops to combat guerrilla-style attacks.
>>
>>When pressed to predict how long a force
>>comparable to the current one would be
>>needed, he said,
>>
>>"It is for the foreseeable future."
>>
>>Moments later, Mr. Rumsfeld sought to erase
>>the impression that those comments meant
>>that the American commitment could not
>>shrink more rapidly.
>>
>>"The numbers of U.S. forces could change,
>>while the footprint stayed the same,
>>in the event that we have greater
>>success in bringing in additional
>>coalition forces,
>>
>>in the event we are able to accelerate the Iraqi Army," he said.
>>
>>With American forces suffering almost daily attacks in Iraq,
>>that statement did not satisfy Senator Edward M. Kennedy,
>>Democrat of Massachusetts,
>>
>>who challenged Mr. Rumsfeld by saying that
>>
>>"we have the world's best-trained soldiers
>>serving as policemen in what seems to be
>>a shooting gallery."
>>
>>Mr. Kennedy said that
>>
>>"the lack of a coherent plan is hindering our
>>efforts at internationalization and aggravating
>>the strain on our troops."
>>
>>Mr. Rumsfeld said 142,000 military
>>personnel had returned to their home bases,
>>although most of those serve in the Air Force
>>and Navy, leaving the burden in Iraq to
>>American ground forces.
>>
>>The current ground force figure,
>>145,000, is down from its peak of 151,000.
>>
>>And he announced the withdrawal of one
>>high-profile unit from the war zone, saying
>>all three brigades of the Third Infantry Division,
>>which spearheaded the attack on Baghdad,
>>would leave Iraq by September.
>>
>>In sketching how Iraqis will help stabilize their nation,
>>General Franks said that 35,000 Iraqi police officers
>>had been hired and that plans called for training a
>>new Iraqi army of 12,000 within one year and
>>40,000 within three years.
>>
>>As recently as May, senior allied officials
>>speaking to correspondents in Baghdad
>>said the Bush administration had hoped
>>to shrink the American military presence
>>in Iraq to two divisions,
>>
>>about 30,000 to 40,000 troops, by autumn,
>>with a third multinational division also present.
>>
>>Answering complaints that American
>>unilateralism had alienated its allies,
>>Mr. Rumsfeld and General Franks said
>>that 19 nations now had forces supporting
>>the Iraq effort,
>>
>>that 19 others had promised troops and that
>>discussions were under way with 11 more.
>>
>>Those allied forces already in Iraq,
>>and those committed, totaled 30,000, they said.
>>
>>Asked by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan,
>>the ranking Democrat on the committee,
>>if he would support having France and
>>Germany take part in the postwar stability force,
>>Mr. Rumsfeld said he would.
>>
>>"We have reached out to NATO," Mr. Rumsfeld said.
>>
>>But he cautioned that
>>
>>"it would be incorrect to say that we expect that
>> international forces will replace all of U.S. forces.
>>
>> We don't anticipate that."
>>
>>Mr. Rumsfeld refused to issue a concrete
>>schedule for withdrawing American forces.
>>
>>"Nobody knows the answer to that question,
>>how long it will take," he said.
>>
>>"It will take some time."
>>
>>But he said that
>>
>>"when it's done,
>>it's going to have been darn well worth having done."
>>
>>Senators from both parties -
>>James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma,
>>and Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island -
>>pressed Mr. Rumsfeld on whether the Pentagon
>>should consider increasing the number of
>>people in uniform to handle global missions.
>>
>>"It seems to me that we have to be prepared
>>to increase our Army, the number of brigades
>>in our Army, or to activate National Guard divisions,
>>and we have to make that decision soon," Mr. Reed said.
>>
>>Mr. Rumsfeld said there were no plans to expand the military.
>>
>>Sen. John McCain, Republican of Arizona,
>>asked Mr. Rumsfeld about the threat from Iran,
>>and Mr. Rumsfeld said he had received reports
>>that Iran had relocated some border posts a
>>few miles into Iraqi territory, and he cautioned
>>the government in Tehran against such adventurism.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

--
You can't run a country
By a book of religion
Not by a heap
Or a lump or a smidgeon
Of foolish rules
Of ancient date
Designed to make
You all feel great
While you fold, spindle
And mutilate
Those unbelievers
From a neighboring state
(FZ 1980)

	#1
torresD	IRAQ = $3.9 billion a month. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0710-05.htm Published on Thursday, July 10, 2003 by the New York Times Rumsfeld Doubles Estimate for Cost of Troops in Iraq by Thom Shanker WASHINGTON, July 9 - Gen. Tommy R. Franks said today that violence and uncertainty in Iraq made it unlikely that troop levels would be reduced "for the foreseeable future," and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld nearly doubled the estimated military costs there to $3.9 billion a month. "We have about 145,000 troops in there right now," General Franks told the Senate Armed Services Committee. He said he had talked to "commanders at every level inside Iraq," and found that the size and structure of those forces were appropriate for the current situation. Mr. Rumsfeld has never laid out a timetable for bringing American troops home, and has repeatedly pledged that the forces would stay as long as required, but no longer. Even so, the acknowledgement today of the scope of the long-term military commitment to Iraq was the strongest indication to date that the reconstruction effort requires the continued deployment of large numbers of troops - and that the undertaking carries a hefty price tag. Under intense questioning from Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, Mr. Rumsfeld or his aides telephoned Pentagon financial officers during a break and reported back to the committee that cost estimates for the Iraq campaign had reached $3.9 billion per month, on average from this past January through September. A Pentagon official said the $3.9 billion figure "is the estimated cost to maintain the current force level in Iraq," which includes expenses for military operations, including fuel, transportation, food, ordinance and personnel, but not reconstruction costs. The $3.9 billion figure is almost double the $2 billion per month estimate issued by administration officials in April. In addition, the cost of operations in Afghanistan are now $900 million to $950 million monthly, Mr. Rumsfeld said. During a grueling four-hour hearing, committee members alternately complimented the military's war plan but criticized the Pentagon's planning for the postwar stabilization of the nation. In particular, Mr. Rumsfeld was pressed to detail efforts to reach out to allies - including those like France and Germany who opposed the war - for contributions of troops to replace Americans. General Franks, who stepped down this week from the top job at Central Command, gave no indication that commanders were requesting more troops to combat guerrilla-style attacks. When pressed to predict how long a force comparable to the current one would be needed, he said, "It is for the foreseeable future." Moments later, Mr. Rumsfeld sought to erase the impression that those comments meant that the American commitment could not shrink more rapidly. "The numbers of U.S. forces could change, while the footprint stayed the same, in the event that we have greater success in bringing in additional coalition forces, in the event we are able to accelerate the Iraqi Army," he said. With American forces suffering almost daily attacks in Iraq, that statement did not satisfy Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, who challenged Mr. Rumsfeld by saying that "we have the world's best-trained soldiers serving as policemen in what seems to be a shooting gallery." Mr. Kennedy said that "the lack of a coherent plan is hindering our efforts at internationalization and aggravating the strain on our troops." Mr. Rumsfeld said 142,000 military personnel had returned to their home bases, although most of those serve in the Air Force and Navy, leaving the burden in Iraq to American ground forces. The current ground force figure, 145,000, is down from its peak of 151,000. And he announced the withdrawal of one high-profile unit from the war zone, saying all three brigades of the Third Infantry Division, which spearheaded the attack on Baghdad, would leave Iraq by September. In sketching how Iraqis will help stabilize their nation, General Franks said that 35,000 Iraqi police officers had been hired and that plans called for training a new Iraqi army of 12,000 within one year and 40,000 within three years. As recently as May, senior allied officials speaking to correspondents in Baghdad said the Bush administration had hoped to shrink the American military presence in Iraq to two divisions, about 30,000 to 40,000 troops, by autumn, with a third multinational division also present. Answering complaints that American unilateralism had alienated its allies, Mr. Rumsfeld and General Franks said that 19 nations now had forces supporting the Iraq effort, that 19 others had promised troops and that discussions were under way with 11 more. Those allied forces already in Iraq, and those committed, totaled 30,000, they said. Asked by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the committee, if he would support having France and Germany take part in the postwar stability force, Mr. Rumsfeld said he would. "We have reached out to NATO," Mr. Rumsfeld said. But he cautioned that "it would be incorrect to say that we expect that international forces will replace all of U.S. forces. We don't anticipate that." Mr. Rumsfeld refused to issue a concrete schedule for withdrawing American forces. "Nobody knows the answer to that question, how long it will take," he said. "It will take some time." But he said that "when it's done, it's going to have been darn well worth having done." Senators from both parties - James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, and Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island - pressed Mr. Rumsfeld on whether the Pentagon should consider increasing the number of people in uniform to handle global missions. "It seems to me that we have to be prepared to increase our Army, the number of brigades in our Army, or to activate National Guard divisions, and we have to make that decision soon," Mr. Reed said. Mr. Rumsfeld said there were no plans to expand the military. Sen. John McCain, Republican of Arizona, asked Mr. Rumsfeld about the threat from Iran, and Mr. Rumsfeld said he had received reports that Iran had relocated some border posts a few miles into Iraqi territory, and he cautioned the government in Tehran against such adventurism.

	#2
Siva	Re: IRAQ = $3.9 billion a month. It would be illogical for either France or Germany to send ANY troops to Iraq. The idiot babybush created this mess all by himself. Why should Chirac or Schroeder milk their country's taxpayers to help clean it up. . . .. . .unless, of course, they're naive enough to think that, in the zillion-to-one chance the international community does manage to stabilize Iraq, the presence of their tropps there would give them more say in how Iraq is run. This would be wishful thinking, and also illogical thinking, given that there IS, in fact, a zillion-to-one chance that the Iraqi people would actually accept a foreign government--whether it be Germany, U. S. France, or Somalia--making significant decisions about their country. "torresD" <torresD30@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:HPtPa.267$7S.21@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com... > http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0710-05.htm > > Published on Thursday, July 10, 2003 by the New York Times > Rumsfeld Doubles Estimate for Cost of Troops in Iraq > by Thom Shanker > > WASHINGTON, July 9 - > > Gen. Tommy R. Franks said today that violence > and uncertainty in Iraq made it unlikely that troop > levels would be reduced "for the foreseeable future," > and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld nearly > doubled the estimated military costs there to $3.9 billion a month. > > "We have about 145,000 troops in there right now," > > General Franks told the Senate Armed Services Committee. > > He said he had talked to > "commanders at every level inside Iraq," > and found that the size and structure of > those forces were appropriate for the > current situation. > > Mr. Rumsfeld has never laid out a > timetable for bringing American troops home, > and has repeatedly pledged that the forces > would stay as long as required, but no longer. > > Even so, > the acknowledgement today of the scope > of the long-term military commitment to Iraq > was the strongest indication to date that the > reconstruction effort requires the continued > deployment of large numbers of troops - > and that the undertaking carries a hefty price tag. > > Under intense questioning from > > Senator Robert C. Byrd, > Democrat of West Virginia, > > Mr. Rumsfeld or his aides telephoned Pentagon > financial officers during a break and reported > back to the committee that cost estimates for > the Iraq campaign had reached $3.9 billion per month, > on average from this past January through September. > > A Pentagon official said the $3.9 billion figure > "is the estimated cost to maintain the current > force level in Iraq," > > which includes expenses for military operations, > including fuel, transportation, food, > ordinance and personnel, > but not reconstruction costs. > > The $3.9 billion figure is almost double the > $2 billion per month estimate issued by > administration officials in April. > > In addition, > > the cost of operations in Afghanistan > are now $900 million to $950 million monthly, > Mr. Rumsfeld said. > > During a grueling four-hour hearing, > committee members alternately complimented > the military's war plan but criticized the Pentagon's > planning for the postwar stabilization of the nation. > > In particular, Mr. Rumsfeld was pressed > to detail efforts to reach out to allies - > > including those like France and > Germany who opposed the war - > > for contributions of troops to replace Americans. > > General Franks, > > who stepped down this week from > the top job at Central Command, > > gave no indication that commanders were > requesting more troops to combat guerrilla-style attacks. > > When pressed to predict how long a force > comparable to the current one would be > needed, he said, > > "It is for the foreseeable future." > > Moments later, Mr. Rumsfeld sought to erase > the impression that those comments meant > that the American commitment could not > shrink more rapidly. > > "The numbers of U.S. forces could change, > while the footprint stayed the same, > in the event that we have greater > success in bringing in additional > coalition forces, > > in the event we are able to accelerate the Iraqi Army," he said. > > With American forces suffering almost daily attacks in Iraq, > that statement did not satisfy Senator Edward M. Kennedy, > Democrat of Massachusetts, > > who challenged Mr. Rumsfeld by saying that > > "we have the world's best-trained soldiers > serving as policemen in what seems to be > a shooting gallery." > > Mr. Kennedy said that > > "the lack of a coherent plan is hindering our > efforts at internationalization and aggravating > the strain on our troops." > > Mr. Rumsfeld said 142,000 military > personnel had returned to their home bases, > although most of those serve in the Air Force > and Navy, leaving the burden in Iraq to > American ground forces. > > The current ground force figure, > 145,000, is down from its peak of 151,000. > > And he announced the withdrawal of one > high-profile unit from the war zone, saying > all three brigades of the Third Infantry Division, > which spearheaded the attack on Baghdad, > would leave Iraq by September. > > In sketching how Iraqis will help stabilize their nation, > General Franks said that 35,000 Iraqi police officers > had been hired and that plans called for training a > new Iraqi army of 12,000 within one year and > 40,000 within three years. > > As recently as May, senior allied officials > speaking to correspondents in Baghdad > said the Bush administration had hoped > to shrink the American military presence > in Iraq to two divisions, > > about 30,000 to 40,000 troops, by autumn, > with a third multinational division also present. > > Answering complaints that American > unilateralism had alienated its allies, > Mr. Rumsfeld and General Franks said > that 19 nations now had forces supporting > the Iraq effort, > > that 19 others had promised troops and that > discussions were under way with 11 more. > > Those allied forces already in Iraq, > and those committed, totaled 30,000, they said. > > Asked by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, > the ranking Democrat on the committee, > if he would support having France and > Germany take part in the postwar stability force, > Mr. Rumsfeld said he would. > > "We have reached out to NATO," Mr. Rumsfeld said. > > But he cautioned that > > "it would be incorrect to say that we expect that > international forces will replace all of U.S. forces. > > We don't anticipate that." > > Mr. Rumsfeld refused to issue a concrete > schedule for withdrawing American forces. > > "Nobody knows the answer to that question, > how long it will take," he said. > > "It will take some time." > > But he said that > > "when it's done, > it's going to have been darn well worth having done." > > Senators from both parties - > James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, > and Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island - > pressed Mr. Rumsfeld on whether the Pentagon > should consider increasing the number of > people in uniform to handle global missions. > > "It seems to me that we have to be prepared > to increase our Army, the number of brigades > in our Army, or to activate National Guard divisions, > and we have to make that decision soon," Mr. Reed said. > > Mr. Rumsfeld said there were no plans to expand the military. > > Sen. John McCain, Republican of Arizona, > asked Mr. Rumsfeld about the threat from Iran, > and Mr. Rumsfeld said he had received reports > that Iran had relocated some border posts a > few miles into Iraqi territory, and he cautioned > the government in Tehran against such adventurism. > > > > >

	#3
grandwazoo	Re: IRAQ = $3.9 billion a month. Siva wrote: > It would be illogical for either France or Germany to send ANY troops to > Iraq. The idiot babybush created this mess all by himself. Why should > Chirac or Schroeder milk their country's taxpayers to help clean it up. . . > > . . .unless, of course, they're naive enough to think that, in the > zillion-to-one chance the international community does manage to stabilize > Iraq, the presence of their tropps there would give them more say in how > Iraq is run. > > This would be wishful thinking, and also illogical thinking, given that > there IS, in fact, a zillion-to-one chance that the Iraqi people would > actually accept a foreign government--whether it be Germany, U. S. France, > or Somalia--making significant decisions about their country. I remember the old Smothers Brothers joke. Dick: You do what people tell you to...and if someone told you to go jump off a bridge, you would do that too? Tom: Not again. > > "torresD" <torresD30@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:HPtPa.267$7S.21@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com... > >>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0710-05.htm >> >>Published on Thursday, July 10, 2003 by the New York Times >>Rumsfeld Doubles Estimate for Cost of Troops in Iraq >>by Thom Shanker >> >>WASHINGTON, July 9 - >> >>Gen. Tommy R. Franks said today that violence >>and uncertainty in Iraq made it unlikely that troop >>levels would be reduced "for the foreseeable future," >>and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld nearly >>doubled the estimated military costs there to $3.9 billion a month. >> >>"We have about 145,000 troops in there right now," >> >>General Franks told the Senate Armed Services Committee. >> >>He said he had talked to >>"commanders at every level inside Iraq," >>and found that the size and structure of >>those forces were appropriate for the >>current situation. >> >>Mr. Rumsfeld has never laid out a >>timetable for bringing American troops home, >>and has repeatedly pledged that the forces >>would stay as long as required, but no longer. >> >>Even so, >>the acknowledgement today of the scope >>of the long-term military commitment to Iraq >>was the strongest indication to date that the >>reconstruction effort requires the continued >>deployment of large numbers of troops - >>and that the undertaking carries a hefty price tag. >> >>Under intense questioning from >> >>Senator Robert C. Byrd, >>Democrat of West Virginia, >> >>Mr. Rumsfeld or his aides telephoned Pentagon >>financial officers during a break and reported >>back to the committee that cost estimates for >>the Iraq campaign had reached $3.9 billion per month, >>on average from this past January through September. >> >>A Pentagon official said the $3.9 billion figure >>"is the estimated cost to maintain the current >>force level in Iraq," >> >>which includes expenses for military operations, >>including fuel, transportation, food, >>ordinance and personnel, >>but not reconstruction costs. >> >>The $3.9 billion figure is almost double the >>$2 billion per month estimate issued by >>administration officials in April. >> >>In addition, >> >>the cost of operations in Afghanistan >>are now $900 million to $950 million monthly, >>Mr. Rumsfeld said. >> >>During a grueling four-hour hearing, >>committee members alternately complimented >>the military's war plan but criticized the Pentagon's >>planning for the postwar stabilization of the nation. >> >>In particular, Mr. Rumsfeld was pressed >>to detail efforts to reach out to allies - >> >>including those like France and >>Germany who opposed the war - >> >>for contributions of troops to replace Americans. >> >>General Franks, >> >>who stepped down this week from >>the top job at Central Command, >> >>gave no indication that commanders were >>requesting more troops to combat guerrilla-style attacks. >> >>When pressed to predict how long a force >>comparable to the current one would be >>needed, he said, >> >>"It is for the foreseeable future." >> >>Moments later, Mr. Rumsfeld sought to erase >>the impression that those comments meant >>that the American commitment could not >>shrink more rapidly. >> >>"The numbers of U.S. forces could change, >>while the footprint stayed the same, >>in the event that we have greater >>success in bringing in additional >>coalition forces, >> >>in the event we are able to accelerate the Iraqi Army," he said. >> >>With American forces suffering almost daily attacks in Iraq, >>that statement did not satisfy Senator Edward M. Kennedy, >>Democrat of Massachusetts, >> >>who challenged Mr. Rumsfeld by saying that >> >>"we have the world's best-trained soldiers >>serving as policemen in what seems to be >>a shooting gallery." >> >>Mr. Kennedy said that >> >>"the lack of a coherent plan is hindering our >>efforts at internationalization and aggravating >>the strain on our troops." >> >>Mr. Rumsfeld said 142,000 military >>personnel had returned to their home bases, >>although most of those serve in the Air Force >>and Navy, leaving the burden in Iraq to >>American ground forces. >> >>The current ground force figure, >>145,000, is down from its peak of 151,000. >> >>And he announced the withdrawal of one >>high-profile unit from the war zone, saying >>all three brigades of the Third Infantry Division, >>which spearheaded the attack on Baghdad, >>would leave Iraq by September. >> >>In sketching how Iraqis will help stabilize their nation, >>General Franks said that 35,000 Iraqi police officers >>had been hired and that plans called for training a >>new Iraqi army of 12,000 within one year and >>40,000 within three years. >> >>As recently as May, senior allied officials >>speaking to correspondents in Baghdad >>said the Bush administration had hoped >>to shrink the American military presence >>in Iraq to two divisions, >> >>about 30,000 to 40,000 troops, by autumn, >>with a third multinational division also present. >> >>Answering complaints that American >>unilateralism had alienated its allies, >>Mr. Rumsfeld and General Franks said >>that 19 nations now had forces supporting >>the Iraq effort, >> >>that 19 others had promised troops and that >>discussions were under way with 11 more. >> >>Those allied forces already in Iraq, >>and those committed, totaled 30,000, they said. >> >>Asked by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, >>the ranking Democrat on the committee, >>if he would support having France and >>Germany take part in the postwar stability force, >>Mr. Rumsfeld said he would. >> >>"We have reached out to NATO," Mr. Rumsfeld said. >> >>But he cautioned that >> >>"it would be incorrect to say that we expect that >> international forces will replace all of U.S. forces. >> >> We don't anticipate that." >> >>Mr. Rumsfeld refused to issue a concrete >>schedule for withdrawing American forces. >> >>"Nobody knows the answer to that question, >>how long it will take," he said. >> >>"It will take some time." >> >>But he said that >> >>"when it's done, >>it's going to have been darn well worth having done." >> >>Senators from both parties - >>James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, >>and Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island - >>pressed Mr. Rumsfeld on whether the Pentagon >>should consider increasing the number of >>people in uniform to handle global missions. >> >>"It seems to me that we have to be prepared >>to increase our Army, the number of brigades >>in our Army, or to activate National Guard divisions, >>and we have to make that decision soon," Mr. Reed said. >> >>Mr. Rumsfeld said there were no plans to expand the military. >> >>Sen. John McCain, Republican of Arizona, >>asked Mr. Rumsfeld about the threat from Iran, >>and Mr. Rumsfeld said he had received reports >>that Iran had relocated some border posts a >>few miles into Iraqi territory, and he cautioned >>the government in Tehran against such adventurism. >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- You can't run a country By a book of religion Not by a heap Or a lump or a smidgeon Of foolish rules Of ancient date Designed to make You all feel great While you fold, spindle And mutilate Those unbelievers From a neighboring state (FZ 1980)