This Just In: FOX News Discovers War Cost Money


Um, right:

The cost of the American and European assault on Libya already easily tops hundreds of millions of dollars, and has the potential to rise significantly if the operation drags on for weeks or months.

Coalition efforts to undermine Muammar al-Qaddafi’s air defenses and save the rebels from defeat have lasted for four nights already. If the U.S. role continues to be limited, with the Pentagon using its existing budget to cover the expense, the price tag on involvement will only rise moderately.

As of Tuesday, a U.S. defense official told Fox News the U.S. has fired 161 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Libyan territory, with 24 missiles being fired overnight Monday into Tuesday. Each missile is priced at $1 million to $1.5 million apiece and dispatched B-2 stealth bombers -- round-trip from Missouri -- to drop 2,000-pound bombs on Libyan sites.

Fair enough. Wars do cost money and if only we hadn't, you know, run a budget surplus into the single biggest debt ever built on this planet, perhaps FOX would be right to point this out.

And yet, a few hundred million pails when compared to:

The Pentagon has requested $553 billion for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1, plus $118 billion in war costs for Iraq and Afghanistan.

So let me see...four nights = $100 million, times ninety would be...carry the one...$9 billion. So, its less than ten percent of the cost of the Iraq and Afghan wars today, and those wars have been scaled back (in toto) from the Bush administration.

Now, go Google "Bush war cost: Fox News" and see if anything comes up...


Actor 212 March 23, 2011 - 8:47am

Incidentally: "And yet, a few hundred million pales when compared to..."

rumor March 23, 2011 - 9:10am

you could raise taxes on the rich to keep the savings sought in these budget proposals, but that's like spitting in God's face.

Lesly March 23, 2011 - 9:27am

Take for example the cruise missiles.
This is hardware that has already been bought, and will cost the same if it is used or if it is not used. There is no 'resale' or 'salvage' value for a cruise missile. You may think that it costs $XXX to replace it when expended in combat, but it is an item that would be replaced anyway within the next 5 years or so due to obsolescence, or it would need to upgraded and maintained at a certain cost anyway. If a missile is at 'end of life', there is a cost to dispose of it. So basically that missile is going to cost you about 75% of it's value weather you use it or not. It's still money down the drain.

Our daily peacetime military costs several times what the actions in Libya are estimated to cost. At over $350 Billion, the F-35 fighter program costs 100's of times what the Libyan intervention costs. One Space Shuttle launch to a useless ISS costs a couple Billion dollars.

Personnel costs are fixed, the Airmen and Marines get paid the same regardless (no overtime in the military). Losing an F-15 is virtually no cost, since it is at end-of-life and would be retired fairly soon, and we have plenty of spares just sitting there in mothballs from squadrons that have transitioned to different aircraft, such as the F-22.

So military costs for an action as that being taken in Libya are not easy to calculate, and are from a hardware perspective maybe 1/5th or less than the apparent cost. The real cost is in fuel to fly the sorties, transport the inventories, etc.

Awake March 23, 2011 - 9:34am

All military suppliers should be forced to be either not for profit or capped at say 5% over costs. After all, everyone needs to sacrifice right? When war makes profit, corporations will always want war.

On a side point, what's more disturbing: FOX's completely lack of concern over the cost of wars, or that the Pentagon is so over-funded, they can start a brand new war without needing to request extra funds? Ugh...

zot23 March 23, 2011 - 10:26am

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.