Another $190 Billion
The Pentagon says it needs another $190 billion dollars to keep the invasion and occupation of Iraq going another year.
I remember the good old days when, instead of fighting them over there so we wouldn’t be fighting them here, we just told them if they started fighting over here, we’d launch the nuclear arsenal. But, once we let 9/11 happen (and there’s tons of evidence that a subset of folks at the top DID let 9/11 happen…), the holes in that plan must have become clear. Else, we would have just made a parking lot out of Afghanistan — the country that had allowed al-Qaeda to set up all those training camps.
But we didn’t (thank the Universal Intelligence…you know Allah, Santa Claus, God, the Collective Unconscience — whichever name of reference you prefer), and so we find we probably spent way more on those missile silos than we should have.
Or not.
Actually, we’re thinking about this all wrong. The billions of dollars we spent on those missiles, and the $760 billion we’ll appropriate to get an already dead bin Laden (oops, I’m sorry…forget bin Laden, let’s just call it the war on terror…gosh, we gotta hurry up and get into Iran before everybody and his brother realizes bin Laden has actually been dead for years…), didn’t go toward missiles and it didn’t go toward war.
No, all those billions are going toward the Military Industrial Complex. And let’s get specific, $18 million went to Robert J. Stevens, Lockheed Martin’s CEO. And part of that $190 billion dollars the Pentagon is asking for will go to more $2 million bonuses, like the one Raytheon’s CEO, William Swanson, got on top of his nearly million dollar salary and another $2 million in restricted stock awards in 2005. And General Dynamics’ CEO Nicholas D. Chabraja got an $18 million cut of that pie, too. And there’s Northrop Grumman, United Technologies, General Electric, the Carlyle Group, and Blackwater.
And what about all those average grunt soldiers on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan? The real troops make around $22,000 a year. And don’t feel too bad for them because they have to work 24/7, because you know…clothes, food, tents, and tax breaks are included.
But, do keep that in mind when the Pentagon asks you to fork over $190 billion for the troops. $190 billion would pay the salaries of over 8 million pairs of boots on the ground. Divided among the 160,000 troops in Iraq, that comes to over a million dollars in support for each soldier.
Yes, I know the Pentagon has to pay for gas and groceries and improperly-armored Hummers, too. But clearly, more of the $190 million they’re begging for is headed towards some CEO’s frivolous lifestyle than is going to support our troops.
Read More: Iraq War
Related Articles
September 27th, 2007 at 10:40 am
I just can’t even wrap my head around this madness anymore.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:39 am
I believe that the source for the pay of grunt soldiers is exaggerated or incorrect.
E-1 though E-3 (initial training or initial assignment) make a minimum base pay of $15K plus subsistence allowance of $279.88 plus family separation allowance of $250.00 per month plus combat pay, hazardous duty pay…
These guys don’t make big bucks, but the numbers requoted here do not seem correct.
http://www.dfas.mil/army2/militarypaycharts/2007MilPaycharts-cc.pdf
September 27th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
MR is right, my initial yearly totals for soldier pay ($2-4K) are way off. In my defense, I hadn’t had coffee yet this morning before I played with the calculator. I think I was counting $7.50 as part of a 40 hour workweek, and the article must have figured hourly pay on a 168 (24/7) workweek, and a workweek for a soldier in Iraq IS 24/7.
So, here’s a recalculation ( and corrections have been made in the post, too…):
Family Separation Allowance (FSA) only goes to soldiers with dependents, so there are still a lot of soldiers in Iraq not getting this…so I’m leaving this out.
An E1 gets = $1301.40 per month, or $15,617 per year.
Add in $2,700 in combat pay ($225 per month), and that brings it to $18,317 per year.
I’ll take MR’s word for subsistence allowance of $279.88 per month, which brings a total year’s combat zone pay to $21,676.
So, actually, War Profiteering CEOs only make 830 times what some troops in combat make.
September 27th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Since we are nitpicking:
I think the Blackwater boys are making up and around $150K a year. I believe $80K of that is tax free.
I heard Alan Greenspan say the other day that he doesn’t believe we simply “lost” $9 Billion in crated U.S. Dollars…but he has no further info.
A close friend of mine was taken out of his new “outreach” station with a few others last January 20th and shot in the head by unknown persons in Iraq somewhere. He was just a Captain, so probably was making only 700 times less than a war profiteering CEO.
I expect Bush and buddies will make a bundle going around the country giving speeches to friendly facists and others who love to hate and blame others for their incompetence and they will be planning the next generation of Freedom and Success, American style.
I need to read again on how and why Rome fell.
September 28th, 2007 at 5:46 am
Funny how when the high-paid private army is working for us, the term “mercenary” isn’t batted around a lot. Seems like the heavy reliance on mercenaries is usually in the mix when great empires of the past fell. My take is that when you have a worthy cause, you don’t have to pay people to fight and risk their lives for it. The fact of Blackwater’s existence doesn’t bode well for our nation, but then, that’s only one signpost on a strip that’s currently flashing like Las Vegas.
September 28th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
“when you have a worthy cause, you don’t have to pay people to fight and risk their lives for it”.
Roger that.
September 28th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Why worry about a little sum like 190 billion. Another year or two with China holding all of our paper it will be their problem. So for now all we have to worry about is who will win all those football games on Saturday and Sunday.
September 29th, 2007 at 6:15 am
The dimly lit and evil ones have succeeded in reducing us all to bean counters.
All the gold in Fort Knox won’t save our bacon once the fat is fully in the fire.
What an egregious waste of resource.
Now we find out our cocksure fearless-leader told the Spanish prez, as he was arm-twisting for war support, it would cost 50b to take Iraq. This, on top of his dismissal of Saddam’s offer to go into exile, provided he could take 1b with him.
Some businessman, our prez. Some visionary. Some world he’ll leave behind.
September 29th, 2007 at 7:25 am
Good post, Joe.
Kucinich actually voted against the latest $190B funding, yet he still can’t break out of single digits in the polls. Why do the others duck the vote and the tough questions? Richard Nixon fended off accusations that he was “evasive.” Why are the successful candidate evasive? Sadly, because it works. When confronted with a barage of non-commital political pablum, the voters are free to define the candidates based on “gut feelings.”
September 29th, 2007 at 9:34 am
Pelmo: I’m thinking China may be the next world empire…Spain, England, U.S., and then China…they’re playing their cards right and we’ve got a monkey and a bunch of traitors playing our cards who only seem to be worried about planning their retirement to Dubai and South America.
Indigobusiness: Holy cow…hadn’t seen the bit about Saddam’s $1 billion dollar exile offer, and that was his own money, not ours, right? Wouldn’t have cost us a cent. Holy crap…Bush is the upsidedown crapper over our heads that just keeps on giving. (For those looking for the story, check out the link.
JohnF: I’m afraid you’re right…non-commital political pablum plays right into allowing everybody’s perfect-candidate fantasies to survive. And it doesn’t help that the the MSM keeps ignoring Ron Paul and Kucinich…just check out the photo of the latest debate candidates, where Kucinich is cropped out of the picture that appeared on CNN’s main page: link. Corporate America has already narrowed the candidates down to their top two or three choices, all of who will play establishment ball and continue feeding the Military Industrial Complex with the blood and sweat of the vanishing middle class America.
P.S. Sorry it took so long…adding your page, Sustainable Middle Class to the bloglist. Good stuff!
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:50 am
Kucinich: the only Democratic candidate for President who voted against the original war authorization and every war-appropriation since.
The mainstream media ignores him and cuts him out of the photos. Democrats around the country beg for an end to the invasion and invasion funding yet continue to chant “He can’t win”.
I don’t get it.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:31 pm
How many of the yellow ribbon crowd even think about the massive profits being made at their own expense, off all of this mayhem? Oh wait…they do… they call it free enterprise!