Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mecenaries now outnumber Brit troops in Iraq

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Mecenaries now outnumber Brit troops in Iraq

    Just found this, and as there's a link I'll provide it - Click "Skip" to get there quicker.

    Guardian Story

    To those that thought the Canadians stayed at home... Wrong! They just didn't go in waving their flag.
    Last edited by Cruddy; December 10, 2003, 12:28.
    Some cry `Allah O Akbar` in the street. And some carry Allah in their heart.
    "The CIA does nothing, says nothing, allows nothing, unless its own interests are served. They are the biggest assembly of liars and theives this country ever put under one roof and they are an abomination" Deputy COS (Intel) US Army 1981-84
    Tags: None
  • #2
    This explains partly the tremendous costs of the war, and raises big issues.
    Statistical anomaly.
    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

    Comment

    • #3
      This is a good addition to the forces on the ground. American soldiers cost $300,000 apiece per annum, including all of their fancy schmancy equipment. Defensive mercenaries (e.g. guards, force protection specialists) are expensive, but not nearly as expensive as an American soldier.

      If it were a question of trading conscripts for mercenaries, that would be a different situation. So, for instance, it would not be a correct thing to do for many European countries. Also, if this became the bulk of the force rather than a small addition, I would be concerned. Lastly, perhaps there should be a discussion about discipline procedures. But as a general rule, I have nothing against utilizing defensive mercenaries.
      Last edited by DanS; December 10, 2003, 13:02.
      I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

      Comment

      • #4
        I am certainly wrong, but it seems that the US citizens are not eager to engage in the Army (although they are patriots and shout quite convincingly : USA USA USA), but are willing to enrole in private companies for military duties because of the higher salaries, which is not really patriotic.

        According to your figure, 30 billions could finance 100000 US soldiers for one year. Does that mean that the mercenaries cost tenfold more than regular soldiers?

        I assume that casualties are not reported by the Army.
        Statistical anomaly.
        The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

        Comment

        • #5
          I think the $30 billion figure includes all of the support functions for our real troops in theater, so I don't know how you would really account for that. For instance, if the army buys gas locally, this would be included in the $30 billion figure. If the army contracts locally for some electrical work done on base, it is included in the $30 billion figure.

          I assume that casualties are not reported by the Army.
          They are reported by the army (i.e., they are not hidden in any way), but as far as I've seen, they are not listed in the official casualties.
          I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

          Comment

          • #6
            Originally posted by DanS
            I think the $30 billion figure includes all of the support functions for our real troops in theater, so I don't know how you would really account for that. For instance, if the army buys gas locally, this would be included in the $30 billion figure. If the army contracts locally for some electrical work done on base, it is included in the $30 billion figure.
            Lot of gas and miscellaneous ! Lets assume that the mercenaries cost 300000$ a year each (as a regular soldier), that makes 3 billions$. Private contractors would get 27 billions$ for providing support functions , that is 270000$ per regular soldier.

            From the total 87 billions, we deduct 19 billions for reconstruction, 30 billions for contractors, it remains 38 billions for wages and benefits (3 billions) and something else costing 35 billions. What could that be?
            Statistical anomaly.
            The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

            Comment

            Previous template Next
            Working...
            X