Guest Post by Jonathan Guyer: McCrstyal Ball Foretells 40,000 More Troops

-

Jonathan Guyer is a program associate at the New America Foundation/Middle East Task Force.
mccrstal ball026.jpg
— Jonathan Guyer

Comments

5 comments on “Guest Post by Jonathan Guyer: McCrstyal Ball Foretells 40,000 More Troops

  1. questions says:

    POA, I don’t yell “conspiracy theory” every time someone questions the official narrative. The yellow cake stuff, the aluminum tubes stuff, the ex-generals all over tv multiplying away, the Tillman cover up — these are all legit stories. They got plenty of coverage in the stuff I read. But then, I don’t stick to MSM (don’t even have cable, haven’t watched network news in many many years), and I don’t do much in the blogosphere either. No worldnet, no rawstory, no bradblog….
    Edmonds, disappearing websites, Isr/Turko/Pakistani whatevers…, my being someone else, my being hasbara, Israel’s controlling absolutely everything there is…
    (Check out by the way the comparative receptions of Mia Farrow in Gaza and Cynthia McKinney “in” Gaza…. Kind of interesting.)
    You show no sense of the ways that institutions function, no sense of the ways that interests come together, no sense of how Congress could produce exactly what it produces from diffuse interests and individual incentives rather than some overarching conspiracy…. These are things to think through with every one of your panic attacks.
    If Israel declared tomorrow that it wanted no aid anymore, what do you think Congress would do? Congress can’t even stop military procurement that the military itself wants to get rid of. The money we give Israel is not a huge part of its budget at this point (I looked up numbers yesterday), but 75 per cent of that money has to be spent on US shit — so where’s the real pressure at this point? Jobs, jobs, jobs, home district, home district, home district, matches between campaign money and re-election…. Institutional pressures, not conspiracy.
    Of course the military is going to protect its turf. That’s not really a conspiracy. Arguing that hundreds of people go together to plan 9/11, fake huge amounts of data/events/evidence, kept silent about it all these years… all so that 2 years afterwards we could declare war on Iraq so that we could play ME domino theory…. That’s conspiracy.
    Playing games with public relations is de rigueur.
    So that’s my point. Which, once again, you miss entirely.

    Reply

  2. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Tillman and Lynch. Message Force Multipliers. Miller, Novak, and Armstrong.
    Yet Questions yells “conspiracy theory” every time anyone questions the official narrative.
    I saw the towers fall, live, on TV. Anyone that believes that a paper passport could survive that, much less be found, is a damned fool.
    Then, of course, you have the Niger fantasy. And the infamous aluminum tubes.
    Now we have THE EXACT SAME con job being ran about Iran. By Barack Obama, and the “liberal media”.
    “Change” your children can die for.

    Reply

  3. Kathleen Grasso Andersen says:

    I saw that, POA..Anyone see Pat Tilman in that McChrystal ball? Afterall, he played a key role in the cover up surrounding Tilman’s death…we should really put a lot of stock in what this guys tells us, huh?

    Reply

  4. PissedOffAmerican says:

    $400 per gallon gas to drive debate over cost of war in Afghanistan
    By Roxana Tiron – 10/15/09 08:34 PM ET
    The Pentagon pays an average of $400 to put a gallon of fuel into a combat vehicle or aircraft in Afghanistan.
    The statistic is likely to play into the escalating debate in Congress over the cost of a war that entered its ninth year last week.
    Pentagon officials have told the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee a gallon of fuel costs the military about $400 by the time it arrives in the remote locations in Afghanistan where U.S. troops operate.
    “It is a number that we were not aware of and it is worrisome,” Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), the chairman of the House Appropriations Defense panel, said in an interview with The Hill. “When I heard that figure from the Defense Department, we started looking into it.”
    The Pentagon comptroller’s office provided the fuel statistic to the committee staff when it was asked for a breakdown of why every 1,000 troops deployed to Afghanistan costs $1 billion. The Obama administration uses this estimate in calculating the cost of sending more troops to Afghanistan.
    The Obama administration is engaged in an internal debate over its future strategy in Afghanistan. Part of this debate concerns whether to increase the number of U.S. troops in that country.
    The top U.S. general in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, reportedly has requested that about 40,000 additional troops be sent.
    Democrats in Congress are divided over whether to send more combat troops to stabilize Afghanistan in the face of waning public support for the war.
    Any additional troops and operations likely will have to be paid for through a supplemental spending bill next year, something Murtha has said he already anticipates.
    Afghanistan — with its lack of infrastructure, challenging geography and increased roadside bomb attacks — is a logistical nightmare for the U.S. military, according to congressional sources, and it is expensive to transport fuel and other supplies.
    A landlocked country, Afghanistan has no seaports and a shortage of airports and navigable roads. The nearest port is in Karachi, Pakistan, where fuel for U.S. troops is shipped.
    From there, commercial trucks transport the fuel through Pakistan and Afghanistan, sometimes changing carriers. Fuel is then transferred to storage locations in Afghanistan for movement within the country. Military transport is used to distribute fuel to forward operating bases. For many remote locations, this means fuel supplies must be provided by air.
    One of the most expensive ways to supply fuel is by transporting it in bladders carried by helicopter; the amount that can be flown at one time can barely satisfy the need for fuel.
    The cheapest way to transport fuel is usually by ship. Other reasonable methods to provide fuel are by rail and pipeline. The prices go up exponentially when aircraft are used, according to congressional sources.
    The $400 per gallon reflects what in Pentagon parlance is known as the “fully burdened cost of fuel.”
    “The fully burdened cost of fuel is a recognition that there are a lot of other factors that come into play,” said Mark Iden, the deputy director of operations at the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC), which provides fuel and energy to all U.S. military services worldwide.
    The DESC provides one gallon of JP8 fuel, which is used for both aircraft and ground vehicles, at a standard price of $2.78, said Iden.
    The Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. James Conway, told a Navy Energy Forum this week that transporting fuel miles into Afghanistan and Iraq along risky and dangerous routes can raise the cost of a $1.04 gallon up to $400, according to Aviation Week which covered the forum.
    “These are fairly major problems for us,” Conway said, according to the publication.
    continues……
    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/63407-400gallon-gas-another-cost-of-war-in-afghanistan-
    Surely, if we can afford $400.00 a gallon gasoline, we can afford to give Nadine and WigWag one way tickets to Israel.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *