Trump: US Troops are Mercenaries

[lpetrich]

Justin Amash on Twitter: "He sells troops.
“We have a very good relationship with Saudi Arabia—I said, listen, you’re a very rich country. You want more troops? I’m going to send them to you, but you’ve got to pay us. They’re paying us. They’ve already deposited $1B in the bank.” https://t.co/rc1f7heyCP" / Twitter


He has said that earlier. From 2019 Oct 21, Trump’s claim the Saudis will pay ‘100 percent of the cost’ - The Washington Post

“You read where we’re sending some troops to Saudi Arabia. That’s true. Because we want to help Saudi Arabia. They have been a very good ally. They’ve agreed to pay for the cost of those troops. They’ve agreed to pay fully for the cost of everything we’re doing over there. . . . Saudi Arabia is paying for 100 percent of the cost, including the cost of our soldiers. And that negotiation took a very short time — like, maybe, about 35 seconds.”
(Oct 16)

“We are sending troops and other things to the Middle East to help Saudi Arabia. But are you ready? Saudi Arabia, at my request, has agreed to pay us for everything we’re doing. That’s a first. But Saudi Arabia — and other countries, too, now — but Saudi Arabia has agreed to pay us for everything we’re doing to help them.”
(Oct 11)

“Then the president said, ‘Well, the reason I’m taking the troops out of Syria is because I promised them at campaign to bring the troops home.’ My question to him was, ‘Is Saudi Arabia home? Is Saudi Arabia home? Why are our troops going to Saudi Arabia if you promised to bring them home?’ He said, ‘Well, the Saudi Arabians are paying for it.’ Really, we’re putting our troops in harm’s way for Saudi Arabia because they’re paying — it just didn’t add up.”
(Nancy Pelosi on Oct 17)

I also recall something from earlier in which he described Saudi Arabia as a very good ally, because that nation is much more willing to pay for American military protection than most others.

 

[Elixir]

Justin Amash on Twitter: "He sells troops.
“We have a very good relationship with Saudi Arabia—I said, listen, you’re a very rich country. You want more troops? I’m going to send them to you, but you’ve got to pay us. They’re paying us. They’ve already deposited $1B in the bank.” https://t.co/rc1f7heyCP" / Twitter


He has said that earlier. From 2019 Oct 21, Trump’s claim the Saudis will pay ‘100 percent of the cost’ - The Washington Post

“You read where we’re sending some troops to Saudi Arabia. That’s true. Because we want to help Saudi Arabia. They have been a very good ally. They’ve agreed to pay for the cost of those troops. They’ve agreed to pay fully for the cost of everything we’re doing over there. . . . Saudi Arabia is paying for 100 percent of the cost, including the cost of our soldiers. And that negotiation took a very short time — like, maybe, about 35 seconds.”
(Oct 16)

“We are sending troops and other things to the Middle East to help Saudi Arabia. But are you ready? Saudi Arabia, at my request, has agreed to pay us for everything we’re doing. That’s a first. But Saudi Arabia — and other countries, too, now — but Saudi Arabia has agreed to pay us for everything we’re doing to help them.”
(Oct 11)

“Then the president said, ‘Well, the reason I’m taking the troops out of Syria is because I promised them at campaign to bring the troops home.’ My question to him was, ‘Is Saudi Arabia home? Is Saudi Arabia home? Why are our troops going to Saudi Arabia if you promised to bring them home?’ He said, ‘Well, the Saudi Arabians are paying for it.’ Really, we’re putting our troops in harm’s way for Saudi Arabia because they’re paying — it just didn’t add up.”
(Nancy Pelosi on Oct 17)

I also recall something from earlier in which he described Saudi Arabia as a very good ally, because that nation is much more willing to pay for American military protection than most others.

Maybe the American public needs to pool its funds so they can out-bid the Saudis and BRING THEM HOME.
This is not only the most corrupt Administration in American history, it might be the most brazenly corrupt government in the world. Period.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

War with Iran and subsequent occupation will cost $10 Trillion.

 

[Politesse]

If we go to war with Iran, we'll lose. So will "they", but Iranians will get their country back eventually, and the resulting government will be hostile to us.

Just like every other war we've fought in the last 75 years.

Saudi Arabia is a better horse to back, from a con man's perspective. They are strong if evil force in the region and unlikely to go anywhere. I can see Trump liking the idea of throwing in with an existing victor and authoritarian state.

 

[lpetrich]

War with Iran and subsequent occupation will cost $10 Trillion.

How did you come up with that estimate?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

War with Iran and subsequent occupation will cost $10 Trillion.

How did you come up with that estimate?

He made it up. It doesn't seem unrealistic... other than the issue that the US doesn't have a standing military with a large enough size to invade and occupy Iran. We can bomb it, strafe it, fire tomahawks at it, drone attack it, but on the ground... we simply lack the staffing to pull that off with out a draft and trillions of dollars. Also a lot of lives.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

War with Iran and subsequent occupation will cost $10 Trillion.

How did you come up with that estimate?

He made it up. It doesn't seem unrealistic... other than the issue that the US doesn't have a standing military with a large enough size to invade and occupy Iran. We can bomb it, strafe it, fire tomahawks at it, drone attack it, but on the ground... we simply lack the staffing to pull that off with out a draft and trillions of dollars. Also a lot of lives.

And all because of your president's ego and some people who want to make money on oil.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

War with Iran and subsequent occupation will cost $10 Trillion.

How did you come up with that estimate?

He made it up. It doesn't seem unrealistic... other than the issue that the US doesn't have a standing military with a large enough size to invade and occupy Iran. We can bomb it, strafe it, fire tomahawks at it, drone attack it, but on the ground... we simply lack the staffing to pull that off with out a draft and trillions of dollars. Also a lot of lives.

It will be a lot cheaper if we just buy of the mullahs. It seems so obvious.

 

[lpetrich]

War with Iran and subsequent occupation will cost $10 Trillion.

How did you come up with that estimate?

He made it up. It doesn't seem unrealistic... other than the issue that the US doesn't have a standing military with a large enough size to invade and occupy Iran. We can bomb it, strafe it, fire tomahawks at it, drone attack it, but on the ground... we simply lack the staffing to pull that off with out a draft and trillions of dollars. Also a lot of lives.

I'm guessing that it was some hand-waving scaling up from the Iraq War. I recall estimates of its costing over a trillion dollars, but I'd have to look more closely at that.

 

[fromderinside]

It will be a lot cheaper if we just buy of the mullahs. It seems so obvious.

From the looks of their economy someone has already bought the Mullahs. They tax people, force people to suffer because of how they use what has been received in tax, then they punish anyone who protests those dictates of their ultra religious wing. I think the fanatic chicken faerie is the cause of this behavior.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

War with Iran and subsequent occupation will cost $10 Trillion.

How did you come up with that estimate?

Let's start with a strawman: Iraq. Up to the time before we were fighting ISIS, we were in for 1 trillion. After ISIS and up to present? 2 trillion? In another 25 years, when we can finally leave... Total $5 trillion? You must certainly agree the order of magnitude is correct, right, that we're talking trillions? That's the straw.

Now consider Iran. It's twice the size as Iraq. Its military is roughly twice the size and twice the eq Saddam had. Twice the land. Twice the number of petsons. So double it.

Yes, it would take a generation at least to turn hearts and minds. We can see this with other historically occupied areas.

$1 billion from Saudis is a spit in a bucket. When we finally do this, maybe even years from now, who knows, the price tag in dollars will be huge....one would reckon.

ETA:
costs for scenarios for just the first 3 months:
https://fas.org/blogs/security/2013...ially-staggering-costs-to-the-global-economy/

 

[lpetrich]

Wikipedia has  Financial cost of the Iraq War - a Congressional Budget Office estimate is $1.9 trillion. Scaling up by population size gives $4 trillion for Iran.

From  Iraq War US troops stayed in Iraq over 2003 - 2011 -- 8 years, making about $250 billion / year. Scaling up to Iran gives $500 billion / year.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wikipedia has  Financial cost of the Iraq War - a Congressional Budget Office estimate is $1.9 trillion. Scaling up by population size gives $4 trillion for Iran.

How in the world does that work? Despite common misconceptions, the US didn't wage a war in Iraq. The US invaded Iraq, bombed some stuff, and coordinated with the Iraqi military to give up. The major expenses came when the insurgency began, but again, that wasn't a war. That was a battle against an insurgency.

Iran would be nothing like Iraq, where our military zoomed through the nation to the Capital. We'd have to actually fight a war, so the costs would be completely different. More bombs, munitions, more planes, a lot more tanks, and a lot more time. And Iraq was done on a shoe string. We'd need maybe 4 times the number of troops, maybe 8 times. A much larger naval presence to protect the straight of Hormuz.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Wikipedia has  Financial cost of the Iraq War - a Congressional Budget Office estimate is $1.9 trillion. Scaling up by population size gives $4 trillion for Iran.

From  Iraq War US troops stayed in Iraq over 2003 - 2011 -- 8 years, making about $250 billion / year. Scaling up to Iran gives $500 billion / year.

Probably accurate but it does not include the post-2011 occupation/forces/nation building or ISIS fighting or any future things we will do over the next decade(s) or however long it takes...So, I was also scaling out by time, not just population. This is because we are not done in Iraq by far. In any case, I was also rounding and it's just an estimate. The point is this is 3 to 4 times the order of magnitude of what Trump is discussing as a boon to US citizens. This is a spit in the bucket of cost.