Why I Write, Pt. II

We don't know with any certainty
what hit the aircraft
--General Allen, Army Times

Ranger Word of the Day
Repsychled (df):
Having gone through the
military-entertainment complex enough times
that you believe what they say
____________________

[Happy Labor Day.]

Consider the monetary cost of the Chinook shoot down:

30 U.S. dead = at least 60 man years of costly training, to the tune of ~ $100 million. This will also cost another 60 man years of training to replace these men, not including the cost of the Chinook and its replacement, nor the cost of post-action airstrikes and clean-up.

The Service Government Life Insurance (SGLI) death payouts are ~$400,000 each, plus the costs of survivor's benefits. The wives will get retirement and dependent benefits; children (until age 23) and wives get G.I. Bill educational benefits and health care benefits.

Simply, this one action had a cost in excess of a quarter of a billion dollars (probably a light estimate). Army Times (27 Aug 11) brags that after the shoot down, the U.S. bombed and killed 10 of the fighters that took part in this fiasco we call a combat action.

If the U.S. killed 10 and lost 37 friendlies at such a dollar cost, we cannot afford to fight this war. This is a favorable kill ratio for a primitive, non-technological adversary facing the most sophisticated, specialized troops in the world (or so we are told). That is 3.7:1 -- respectable in any soldier's handbook.

The cost of each dead insurgent was at least $25 million. Ranger reckons the ISAF force has not heard about the budget cuts and cash shortfalls here in The Homeland ™.

It is too much lost for too little of a return on our investment. Thirty U.S. dead is not worth the heads of middling Taliban leaders at any cost.

I may no longer be a soldier, but these are things even a civilian should understand.

The Bombardier

Everyone thinks chiefly of his own,
hardly at all of the common interest;
and only when he is himself concerned as an individual.
Everybody is more inclined to neglect the duty
which he expects another to fulfill
--Aristotle, Politics

In the councils of government,
we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military industrial complex
--Dwight D. Eisenhower (1961)
___________________

In the Vietnam War it has been estimated that every dollar of bomb damage inflicted upon North Vietnam cost the U.S. $10.

That does not seem justifiable from a cost-benefit viewpoint, and makes Ranger wonder the cost-kill ratio of killing a suspected terrorist today. It seems the trillions spent have not dented the al-Qaeda roles; even if it has where is the data justifying this expenditure of our tax dollars?

We used to say in Vietnam, it wasn't a great war, but it was the only war we had. The idea was to keep it going since it was a great career-builder. An old soldier looks at the current three wars flapping in the breeze and concludes: The intention is not to win but merely to continue an endless campaign.

The purpose of the wars is to war, and winning is not a consideration as there is nothing to be won. That is, unless one looks at cost-benefits, this time from the corporate standpoint. How does a war end when there is no incentive to do so?

When profits = expediency, campaigns become indefinable and peace is not a dividend that pays off.