Wednesday, October 01, 2014

Barack's failing plan has a big financial cost

Chris Isidore (CNN) reports the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment puts the cost of Barack's war on the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria at $1 billion and warns it could soon cost $1.8 billion a month.

For those who don't understand how this works, Barack doesn't pay for his wars out of his pocket.  He uses taxpayers' money and when there's been no increase in taxes to pay for the increase in spending, he is taxing future generations by sticking them with the bill.

Though the money's being spent, no one can say it's been spent well.  Darren Boyle (Daily Mail) explains:

Pentagon officials are finding it difficult determining how effective US airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria are because of 'significant gaps in intelligence'. 
Senior current and former US officials have told the Associated Press that American aircraft are running under less restrictive rules than those governing drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen. 
Despite this, they are having difficulties determining the effectiveness of the bombing missions targeting Al-Qaeda and ISIS due the lack of intelligence assets on the ground. These assets identify targets before an airstrike and conduct an after action battle damage assessment.  

Well I guess if Barack's (failing) 'plan' doesn't work out, he can just waste more billions of taxpayer dollars.  It's not like Americans really expect money to be spent on the country's crumbling infrastructure or on a safety net.

Chelsea J. Carter, Gul Tuysuz and Ben Wedeman (CNN) add "that the United Kingdom said it conducted its first airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq, striking targets four days after Parliament voted to approve the country's involvement."  Those bombings were late last night.  For those scratching their heads and thinking, "Wait, didn't . . ."  Yes.  Yes, UK Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond was telling/scolding the press yesterday that the RAF would not be "panicked" into bombing but would instead gather intel and then move cautiously and safely and blah, blah, blah.

RT and NBC both cover the food and ammo drop that the Iraqi military provided to the Islamic State.  It's being called a mistake.

While the UK joins in bombing, the editorial board of Canada's Globe & Mail argues against Canada joining in and notes:

Sometimes, however, sending fighters jets is the right answer. Canada did it in Libya and Kosovo. Both times the public supported the decision, and with good reason. But the fight against the IS is far more loosely defined than those other conflicts. Who exactly are we fighting against? The IS, or all Islamic terror groups? Who are we allied with? The Syrian government or the Syrian opposition? How do we define victory? And what is the postwar political outcome that we seek to achieve? At this point, the answers to each of these questions is foggier than the last.

And while Iraq's new prime minister Haider al-Abadi will apparently tolerate bombings by any and all European and western countries, he does draw a line . . . against Arab countries.  ITV and BBC report that he has declared he is "totally opposed" to Arab countries bombing in Iraq.

The following community sites updated:

The e-mail address for this site is