U.S. spending $1.4 billion per al-Qaeda fighter in Afghanistan

[bobbyw24]

It has been a week since it was announced Osama bin Laden was killed within the borders of Pakistan. And since then, the idea that the United States no longer needs to be in Afghanistan is becoming more and more popular.

On Sunday’s “This Week” on ABC, Washington Post conservative columnist George Will, who has been calling for the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan going back to September 2009, explained the math doesn’t add up if you consider al-Qaeda’s actual presence in Afghanistan.

“Well, it’s our longest war now,” Will said. “It’s ten years old, longest in our national history. Do the arithmetic. There are 140,000 coalition forces there. There are at the top estimate about 100 al-Qaeda fighters there. That’s 1,400 soldiers at $ 1 million per a year, $1.4 billion per al-Qaeda fighter. The arithmetic doesn’t make sense.”

According to Will, the real reason America remains in Afghanistan is because there’s a fear that instability in Afghanistan might spread to nuclear Pakistan.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/08/george-will-u-s-spending-1-4-billion-per-al-qaeda-fighter-in-afghanistan-2/#ixzz1LqqzUBvS

[bobbyw24]

As we mark Osama bin Laden's death, what's striking is how much he cost our nation--and how little we've gained from our fight against him. By conservative estimates, bin Laden cost the United States at least $3 trillion over the past 15 years, counting the disruptions he wrought on the domestic economy, the wars and heightened security triggered by the terrorist attacks he engineered, and the direct efforts to hunt him down. – The Atlantic

Dominant Social Theme: Was it worth it? Not particularly? We need a more effective way to pursue the war on terror.

Free-Market Analysis: The Atlantic Magazine has published a remarkable article totaling up the cost of fighting bin Laden and pursuing the war on terror. Total dollars: US$3 trillion. Given the perilous state of Western finance, this amount of money reveals not the West's determination to fight for its rapidly vanishing "freedoms" but the utter contempt in which the Anglosphere's great banking families hold Western solvency.

more

http://www.thedailybell.com/2246/Cost-of-Bin-Laden-Deception-US-3-Trillion.html

[sailingaway]

I suspect there are contract killers who would deal with these people for less....

[doodle]

It has been a week since it was announced Osama bin Laden was killed within the borders of Pakistan. And since then, the idea that the United States no longer needs to be in Afghanistan is becoming more and more popular.

On Sunday’s “This Week” on ABC, Washington Post conservative columnist George Will, who has been calling for the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan going back to September 2009, explained the math doesn’t add up if you consider al-Qaeda’s actual presence in Afghanistan.

“Well, it’s our longest war now,” Will said. “It’s ten years old, longest in our national history. Do the arithmetic. There are 140,000 coalition forces there. There are at the top estimate about 100 al-Qaeda fighters there. That’s 1,400 soldiers at $ 1 million per a year, $1.4 billion per al-Qaeda fighter. The arithmetic doesn’t make sense.”


We were spending $2 Billion per week if I did not misreas other report.

OBL's goal was to bankrupt US, their plan had worked on USSR.

[Zippyjuan]

If you want to get better "dollars per kill" then you should kill more people. Would that be a more desirable outcome? Bomb all the cities perhaps to up the ratio?