Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 300346" data-attributes="member: 2189">AV, From what I've read in dollars adjusted for inflation, Vietnam cost anywhere from $518 bil to $670 bil and the reason the difference first off it would depend on what they consider direct costs and what period of time. Did they go from 1964' to 1974' or from earlier period when we used advisors on back in the 1950's when we first got involved in the French-Indo-china war and helping the French save what was left of it's old empire. Ironically this is also the same thing we are doing in the Mideast and trying to salvage what is left of the old British/French post WW1 partition but that's another thread. As just a comparison, the Gulf War cost $94 bil and Korea was $290 bil but I think here is where the current Iraq/Afghanistan is different from the past so actual comparison is in reality a disservice to the present situation. Past wars relied purely of manpower to achieve strategic goals but we live in an age of obviously more technically advanced weapons which in themselves have a higher $ cost but huge savings in human life cost. I mean just compare the number of lives lost in Vietnam in say 64' to 69' and then compare the number of lives lost in Iraq since the start of the current war or even include from the beginning back in 1991'. The stark contrast is obvious. Now this also counts on US lives lost and not Iraqi civilians so if you factor that, the picture may be a bit different although some would argue the collateral damage of our smart bombs. When you compare that and it's total cost to say Operation Arc-Light of the B-52 strikes in Vietnam and the carpet bombing, again our smart bombs prove more cost effective although a higher upfront cost. The backend cost are lower because post war cleanup/rebuild tends to be less from actual direct warfare destruction. Hey AV, here's you a side note to consider. Smart bombs and strategic strike weapons just as bunker penetrating weapons I believe in time will make nuclear strike weapons of mass yield obsolete. What has also hurt Iraq verses these other past conflicts is the actual war itself was of very short duration, just a few months. What has been the cost eater is the occupation and democratization process which is where the contractors play a much bigger role. When I look at Gulf War 1 costing $94 bil I can only conclude that the Gulf War Part 2 may have been at best double that that's just a guesstimate on my part which leaves around $400 bil in post war (occupation/democratization) costs and as I said how much of that is Private contractor costs? There are also IMO other factors in play that makes comparing warfare today to warfare in the past a hard question to answer and this goes back to the issue of private contractors and concerns.  Going back to my original point, when gov't abuses the public trust and the public's money through fraud and waste we cry foul and argue for private sector solutions. SS, welfare and education of 3 major areas where hard arguments are made for private solutions verses public ones. However, if we have private sector solutions in other areas and we see examples of waste and maybe even the potential of fraud, those of us who by principle are opposed to gov't solution should be the very first to stand up and demand the absolute most from the very private sector solutions we want. If we sit on our hands and allow those who calm to side with us, to instill their own system of fraud and abuse, then we in fact are no better than that which we oppose.  In 94' a large part of America joined with others to vote in a group of Congresspeople who's started purpose was to cut gov't and limit it's presence in our daily lives. And these are people not driven by party loyalities but rather what they feel is right. As time went by, they realized these people had in fact betrayed them so they again stepped up and in 2006' sent a message and my guess is, that message could become extended this Nov. If we don't hold ourselves to the same principles we hold on others, I think we are in fact worse and should never be allowed to hold power and thus we suffer what we deserve! JMO.</blockquote>

Verification