Nate, how reliable do you think this site is as a source? I am not familiar with them.
The article cited(from the hill.com) by Paul Craig Roberts appears to reliable. His article is clearly an editorial. One can argue about his opinion on what the numbers mean, but I haven't seen anyone successfully dispute the information that came from the Pentagon. There appeared to be a misunderstanding about actual cost vs. loaded cost, but I think it's been cleared up. I can illustrate it in simple business terms: If I'm supplying material and labor to do renovation work on the third floor of a building, I can't ignore the cost to get the material from the place of purchase to the site and up to the third floor where it will be used. If I figure only on the actual cost of the material and my labor to install it, I'm eating a lot of hidden labor.
If you say so, David S. Do you have any legitimate way of disputing the article from the hill.com? I know from reading your posts that you regularly listen to Rush Limbaugh(not credible) and also noticed that you wrote the following:
"Can you name a single arrogant or fascist group from a century ago who still exists?"
The Democrat Party.
Is there something factual about the article that you'd like to question?
To be fair, you need to consider that even if we weren't in a war, our forces would be spending a staggering amount on fuel for flight training, local mobility, and exercises just to be ready for the next problem. It's an environmental hazard too, but simulators don't really cut it for keeping combat reflexes sharp.
Take a look at this article on the 1-45th Agri-Business Development team departing Oklahoma for Afghanistan. It's just one example of the things we're doing over there that don't involve killing. I wish this stuff got more publicity.
I don't doubt that sincere effort is being made by many to help the people of Afghanistan.