The Cost of 'Enduring' in Iraq

[laststeamtrain]

Source: Washington Post

The Cost of 'Enduring' in Iraq

By Walter Pincus
Monday, July 30, 2007; A13

The House passed a bill Wednesday barring the Defense Department from building any military installation or base that could serve as a permanent station for U.S. forces in Iraq.

Similar prohibitions are already on the books, and their practical effect has been to "limit the use of concrete structures and emphasize building of relocatable units" as a way to show that U.S. facilities in Iraq are not "permanent," according to a recent study by the Congressional Research Service.

So, what exactly is the Defense Department building in Iraq with the billions in military construction dollars it has received over the past five years? Congress approved $1.7 billion for military construction in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2007, according to CRS, but offered no breakdown of how the money was spent.

Both the House and Senate appropriations committees have finished work on the fiscal 2008 military construction bills and have put out their relevant reports. In congressional testimony in April, Keith E. Eastin, Army assistant secretary for installations and environment, said that the $738.8 million budget request was "for 33 critical construction projects for Iraq and Afghanistan," including airfield and operational support facilities, along with roads and fuel handling and storage units.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072901219.html?nav=rss_world/mideast/iraq

[Whoa_Nelly]

1. And breaking the cost of war in Iraq down to the moment...

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Cost-of-War/Cost-of-War-6.html

[Supersedeas]

2. another one of those truths, the GOP/Corp Media would rather divert you from

[cliss]

3. Ok, correct me if I'm wrong -

haven't we already built those 14 bases? What good does it do to bar something that's already completed. I've seen photos and they look quite permanent to me.