[release]Call him the billion-dollar man. One billion for one dictator.
According to the Pentagon, that was the cost to U.S. taxpayers for Muammar el-Qaddafi’s head: $1.1 billion through September, the latest figure just out of the Defense Department.
And that’s just for the Americans.
The final totals will take some time to add up, and still do not include the State Department, CIA, and other agencies involved or other NATO and participating countries. Vice President Joe Biden said that the U.S. "spent $2 billion total and didn’t lose a single life." NATO does not track the operational costs to each member country, but the funds directly taken from a common NATO account for Libya operations have totaled about $7.4 million per month for electronic warfare capabilities and $1.1 million per month for headquarters and command staff, a NATO spokesman said.
(RELATED: Why Qaddafi's Demise Has Little Political Promise)
From the beginning of Operation Unified Protector in March, critics have questioned whether the U.S. could afford to open a third front. The Congressional Research Services estimate the Afghanistan war has cost nearly $500 billion so far. With Iraq, the figure easily tops $1 trillion.
In the first week of Libya operations, bombs were dropped from B-2 stealth planes flown from Missouri and roughly 200 missiles launched from submarines in the Mediterranean, causing alarm that any extended campaign would quickly cost billions more.
But after the U.S. military ramped up the operation, other NATO countries shouldered most of the air burden. Americans took a supporting role: aerial refueling tankers, electronic jamming, and surveillance.
(RELATED: Why What Happened in Libya Will Stay in Libya)
The behind-the-scenes role was something President Obama celebrated in remarks in the Rose Garden on Thursday.
“Without putting a single U.S. service member on the ground, we achieved our objectives and our NATO mission will soon come to an end,” Obama said.
As to when that mission would end, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said in a statement NATO issued from Brussels, “We will terminate our mission in coordination with the United Nations and the National Transitional Council.”
(RELATED: Obama to Libyans: You've Won Your Revolution)
U.S. and NATO officials steadily maintained their mission was never to hunt, capture or kill the Libyan leader. The mission, they said, was to enforce the arms embargo, establish and hold a no-fly zone, and take actions to protect civilians from attack or the threat of attack.
That last directive seemed to give plenty of reason to target Libya’s top commander. But Pentagon officials said for months that if Qaddafi should happen to be at one of those locations when NATO missiles strike, so be it.
Since the operation began on March 31, getting to Qaddafi's final stand required 7,725 air sorties and 1,845 strike sorties, 397 of which dropped ordnance, and 145 Predator drone strikes.
NATO aircraft, including those supplied by the U.S., totaled 26,089 sorties and 9,618 strike sorties through Wednesday.
More than 70 U.S. aircraft have supported the operation, including Predator drones.
NATO flew 67 sorties and 16 strikes sorties over Libya one day before Qaddafi was killed.
The NATO mission also employed submarines, aircraft carriers, amphibious assault ships, destroyers, frigates, and supply ships—as many as 21 vessels at one time.
Additionally, as of one week ago, the U.S. had sold participating countries in the operation roughly $250 million in ammunition, parts, fuel, technical assistance, and other support, according to the Pentagon.
Several members of Congress put out statements celebrating Qaddafi’s downfall but did not comment on the cost. Several offices contacted did not provide additional reaction to the monetary figures.
But presidential candidate Ambassador Jon Huntsman did question the cost of the Libya operation. His statement on Thursday said, “I remain firm in my belief that America can best serve our interests and that transition through non-military assistance and rebuilding our own economic core here at home.”[/release]
Source: [url=http://nationaljournal.com/for-1-billion-one-dictator-muammar-el-qaddafi-20111020]National Journal[/url]
America really just wastes our taxes on things they want done but nothing done for us don't they?
think of the other things that money couldve been spent on
$1 billion is absolutely nothing compared to the [b]TRILLIONS[/b] we are spending in other parts of the Middle East.
We managed to spread out that $1 billion over 8 months too, compared to trillions over 10 years.
Worth every penny.
[QUOTE=Shiftyze;32884697]
America really just wastes our taxes on things they want done but nothing done for us don't they?[/QUOTE]
But... but... you're Chinese.
[QUOTE=richard9311;32884724]But... but... you're Chinese.[/QUOTE]
How did he avoid the "all op's are from US bug?"
Uh, capture?
[QUOTE=richard9311;32884724]But... but... you're Chinese.[/QUOTE]I'm not. I live in America. Just here for the moment when college comes around.
[QUOTE=richard9311;32884724]But... but... you're Chinese.[/QUOTE]
He studies there and his family has money. He's American.
Incoming meet the heavy joke
It cost 1.1 billion dollars to capture Gaddafi, for twelve seconds.
A B2 bomber costs around the same.
[QUOTE=richard9311;32884724]But... but... you're Chinese.[/QUOTE]he moved from the US because of its agressive militarized police.
[QUOTE=Shiftyze;32884751]I'm not. I live in America. Just here for the moment when college comes around.[/QUOTE]
Oh, my mistake. Carry on then.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;32884798]he moved from the US because of its agressive militarized police.[/QUOTE]Uh no. Because Savannah College of Arts & Design in Hong Kong is a great college to go to for Computer Animation.
Electronic warfare: 7.4 million.
Command and Coordination services: 1.1 million
Hellfire missiles, each: 68,000.
Killing your oppressor: Priceless.
There are some things you can solve with diplomacy, for everything else, there's air strikes.
One billion dollars without a single troop on the ground, and we helped take out his entire regime? I don't mind. Compare it to what we've spent and accomplished in the Middle East.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32884788]A B2 bomber is $2.2 billion.[/QUOTE]
I'll take 10.
[editline].[/editline]
Actually I just found out the real price, they're $1.01 billion.
[QUOTE=Ninja Duck;32884856]I'll take 10.[/QUOTE]
Zoidberg, you crafty consumer, you.
[QUOTE=AGMadsAG;32884741]How did he avoid the "all op's are from US bug?"[/QUOTE]
China has taken over the US
As much as I don't mind seeing Gaddafi gone, it really wasn't our business. Libya was not a threat to us, so why should we attack them?
If anything, these wars have made us more of a target. We can't keep expecting to invade other countries without any future retaliation.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;32884951]As much as I don't mind seeing Gaddafi gone, it really wasn't our business. Libya was not a threat to us, so why should we attack them?
If anything, these wars have made us more of a target. We can't keep expecting to invade other countries without any future retaliation.[/QUOTE]They are the 4th biggest country in the world that holds oil. What we do for them favors us to keep getting that oil. America looks like they are helping, but really we are just selfish and want to keep getting oil.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;32884951]As much as I don't mind seeing Gaddafi gone, it really wasn't our business. Libya was not a threat to us, so why should we attack them?
If anything, these wars have made us more of a target. We can't keep expecting to invade other countries without any future retaliation.[/QUOTE]
We were supporting a NATO operation, that's kinda what we are supposed to do.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;32884951]As much as I don't mind seeing Gaddafi gone, it really wasn't our business. Libya was not a threat to us, so why should we attack them?
If anything, these wars have made us more of a target. We can't keep expecting to invade other countries without any future retaliation.[/QUOTE]
Except the rebels love us because we helped them. They captured and killed Gaddafi themselves; all we did was give them the kickstart they needed.
And Libya was definitely a threat to us. Not on a nation to nation conflict, but Gaddafi sponsored terrorist groups. 1988 Lockerbie bombing? Also, it was a humanitarian situation. Gaddafi was killing thousands of innocent civilians. We attacked to stop the deaths of innocent people.
Of course, your political opinion is that we shouldn't be involved in these humanitarian conflicts, but I am of the complete opposite opinion.
[editline]20th October 2011[/editline]
It also only cost the fraction of our military budget, and not to mention it was a NATO operation and not an American one.
There is a guy in the US Government who watches the world for situations in which the US can extract resources from a country while looking like they are doing moral good. Every time he thinks of a country to help, he gets a cookie. He is not a hungry man.
[url=http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_10/the_gops_thank_america_last_cr032939.php]And republicans still refuse to give obama credit for anything good[/url]
[QUOTE=Shiftyze;32884998]They are the 4th biggest country in the world that holds oil. What we do for them favors us to keep getting that oil. America looks like they are helping, but really we are just selfish and want to keep getting oil.[/QUOTE]
Most of Libya's oil goes towards Europe, not the United States. We get hardly anything from them.
[QUOTE=Nikota;32884753]He studies there and his family has money. He's American.[/QUOTE]
他我的朋友，他是美国人。
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;32885126]Most of Libya's oil goes towards Europe, not the United States. We get hardly anything from them.[/QUOTE]
Which is something we would like to change, clearly. If we get more oil from this new government, that guy I mentioned earlier will get an additional cookie.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32884788]A B2 bomber is $2.2 billion.[/QUOTE]
And we used three of them on our first strike in Libya.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
