[The current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are hideously expensive – even when costs for previous wars are adjusted. I suspect this war includes lots of “nonsense” costs relating to establishing “democracy” in Iraq… rather than purely military operations.

Personally, I am amazed at the inefficiency of the current US wars. I am sure the US military strategy is playing right into the arms of America’s enemies. The Chinese have openly discussed “Asymetric warfare”… which is warfare where you pit simple methods against high-tech methods… and where a simple device can cause tremendous damage. e.g. Using a pair of pliers you can bring down and aircraft. The theory is, that the terrorists, using simple methods, can cause the USA incredible economic damage. In one of Bin Laden’s messages, he spoke about the concept of bankrupting the USA through this war. And so far… this strategy is succeeding admirably… Furthermore… this war is not FINISHED… and if NEW FRONTS open up… The USA could end up in more debt than even its massive economy can handle.

The US strategy… being high-tech focussed… is no doubt saving valuable troops’ lives… BUT.. the strategy is militarily unsound in that it focusses all the effort on winning over friends from people who are sworn enemies… who in the end… will probably hate the USA even more than in the beginning.

I believe, simpler methods, which are cruder, and more VIOLENT too… would have had greater effect. I think, for example, executing terrorists by firing squad… and televising it… would have a sobering effect… Take the bodies… wrap them in pig-skins… and bury them… This will totally take the wind out of the terrorist’s sails (No virgins in heaven). War… is the controlled use of VIOLENCE… And violence, has merits in certain situations. Terrorism being an example. Terrorism is violence aimed at anyone… even civilians… in fact… more likely civilians. Terrorism is violence used to create a state of sheer terror, with the aim of the enemy surrendering due, more to FEAR than for any other reason. Terorrism is really a type of bluffing game… done by murdering selected people violently and cruelly… BUT… in the end… Terrorism IS A BLUFF. Make no mistake about it. It really has no substance behind it… Its effects are all in your mind… But if you approach terror with the wrong ATTITUDE and wrong METHODS… it WILL DEFEAT YOU. Approach it with the right attitude, and the right methods, and the terrorist doesn’t stand a chance in hell.

In my view… terror is best fought using… counter-terror. Terror is really violence of the weak. It is the weak, who try to make themselves appear strong by using extreme violence where ANYONE can be a target. To beat terror, you must also use clandestine methods coupled with one’s own EXTREME VIOLENCE to get them to surrender from FEAR!!

I think… the whole US Strategy is flawed, because the Muslims are learning to exploit US weaknesses… and they are getting better at it. Practise makes perfect… and the Muslims are learning fast… (Because the USA did not crush them with enough VIOLENCE to cause them to stop altogether). So now… being given a breather… the terrorists are learning… and this will be the undoing of the USA…

In my view, the USA should be finding terrorist supply lines, bases, nations which are supplying them, etc… and should be hammering them to pieces. Cross-border raids, etc – should be carrying on all the time.

When terrorists hide in Mosques… bomb the Mosque out of existence – problem solved.

Let me be frank – there is NO END IN SIGHT TO THE CURRENT WAR. None whatsoever. This thing could run for the next 10 years… easily.

If the USA continues along this path… this war is going to cost far more than any war before… and little will have been achieved.

IF the USA attacked Iraq, and totally controlled Iraq, to the extent of being able to withdraw its troops… and peace would remain… then YES… this would have been money well spent. But, the opposite is the case.

Instead… troops are needed in BOTH “conquered” countries: Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s nonsense… If the USA attacks another country… then it will find itself with THREE countries which have to be occupied simultaneously. This is madness. Leaving incomplete wars… with fires burning in the rear… is very very bad. This can bleed the USA badly. This is a very shoddy military strategy.

Note too… how many billions Bush needs for Afghanistan… which was “easily won” in the beginning without hardly a fight.

In my view… the war’s which Bush has engaged in… are MERE FOREPLAY FOR THE ENEMY… This is asymetrical warfare at its finest… wearing an enemy down… before the MAIN WAR HAS BEGUN… The Main War has not started yet… But it can… and by then… the USA will have wasted so much money, time and effort… and morale will be flagging… In my view, enemy generals (in Russia for example)… could be sitting quietly… biding their time… letting the USA fight on and tire itself… while they are idling and doing nothing. When the USA is caught firmly in many wars… and when Americans start tiring… the enemy can start launching NEW WARS and NEW COUNTER-ATTACKS… to pin the USA down… and catch Americans at their weakest. The enemy will be fresh and rested… and keen to get into a scrap. I have believed, since the beginning… that this is a strategic trap which is designed to suck the USA into many pointless wars… And IF the USA falls into the trap properly… you will know about it… when suddenly… massive conventional wars start breaking out…

So I stick to my original views, going back to at least 2003 – if not earlier – that these wars could be a carefully laid trap… and it remains to be seen, if the US Govt will be lured, using various terrorist actions as the bait… into attacking and getting bogged down in unwinnable wars. I would imagine… that these pointless wars can drag on forever… slowly… but when the strategic trap is SPRUNG… it will happen overnight… and then US Forces around the world will be stretched to beyond breaking point. From there… things could escalate fast, as “allies” suddenly start sensing defeat and quickly switch loyalties to the USA’s enemies… THEN… all hell will break loose… Jan]

By ALAN FRAM

WASHINGTON (AP) – The Bush administration plans to announce Tuesday it will request about $80 billion more for this year’s costs of fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, congressional aides said Monday.

The request would push the total provided so far for those wars and for U.S. efforts against terrorism elsewhere in the world to more than $280 billion since the first money was provided shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, airliner attacks on New York’s World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

That would be nearly half the $613 billion the United States spent for World War I or the $623 billion it expended for the Vietnam War, when the costs of those conflicts are translated into 2005 dollars.

White House officials refused to comment on the war spending package, which will be presented as the United States confronts a new string of violence in Iraq as that country’s Jan. 30 elections approach.

The forthcoming request underscored how the war spending has clearly exceeded initial White House estimates. Early on, then-presidential economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey placed Iraq costs of $100 billion to $200 billion, only to see his comments derided by administration colleagues.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Monday it was Congress'”highest responsibility” to provide the money that American troops need. But in a written statement, she said Democrats would ask questions about Bush’s policies there.

“What are the goals in Iraq, and how much more money will it cost to achieve them? Why hasn’t the president and the Pentagon provided members of Congress a full accounting of previous expenditures?,” Pelosi added.

She also said she wanted to know why Iraqi troops aren’t playing a larger role in security there.

The package will not formally be sent to Congress until after President Bush introduces his 2006 budget on Feb. 7, said the aides, who spoke on condition of anonmity. They said White House budget chief Joshua Bolten or other administration officials would describe the spending request publicly Tuesday.

Until now, the White House had not been expected to reveal details of the war package until after the budget’s release.

The decision to do so earlier comes after congressional officials argued to the administration that withholding the war costs from Bush’s budget would open the budget to criticism that it was an unrealistic document, one aide said. Last year, the spending plan omitted war expenditures and received just that critique.

Adding additional pressure, the Congressional Budget Office planned to release a semi-annual report on the budget Tuesday that was expected to include a projection of war costs. Last September, the nonpartisan budget office projected the 10-year costs of the wars at $1.4 trillion at current levels of operations, and $1 trillion if the wars were gradually phased down.

Aides said about three-fourths of the $80 billion was expected to be for the Army, which is bearing the brunt of the fighting in Iraq. It also was expected to include money for building a U.S. embassy in Baghdad, which has been estimated to cost $1.5 billion.

One aide said the request will also include funds to help the new Afghan government combat drug-trafficking. It might also have money to help two new leaders the U.S. hopes will be allies, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and Ukraine President Viktor Yushchenko.

The aides said the package Bush eventually submits to Congress will also include money to help Indian Ocean countries hit by the devastating December tsunami.

Not including the latest package, lawmakers have so far provided the Defense Department with $203 billion for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and against terrorists, according to the Congressional Research Service.

That includes $121 billion for the war in Iraq, $53 billion for Afghanistan and $29 billion for improved security and anti-terror efforts in the United States and abroad.

The research service is an arm of Congress that provides reports to lawmakers and aides.

In addition, Congress has provided nearly $21 billion for rebuilding Iraq and almost $4 billion for Afghan reconstruction. Large portions of that money has not been spent, especially in Iraq, where an armed insurgency and bureaucratic delays have slowed many projects.

Source: AP News
URL: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050125/D87Q…/p>