http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/06/iraq/main3584247.shtml
2007-12-12 05:33:50 · 7 answers · asked by David K 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
US Military LOST $1,000,000,000 in arms
IN IRAQ ALONE.
Read the link BEFORE ANSWERING.
2007-12-12 05:42:42 · update #1
Ok CBS is not the only place reporting the loss.
The Commander in Chief is in charge of the transfer and use of arms given to the US Military and anyone else so yes it is a question for the military whether its Petraeus or anyone else.
2007-12-12 10:14:45 · update #2
It really makes no difference who receives the weapons or arms. If its incompetence on the part of the Iraq government then the ones that gave them the arms shall have to answer for their error that being the US Government and the Commander in Chief.One Bush appointee says in the article he is resigning because of the matter. Remember who pays for the USmilitary and the arms it uses and gives to Saudi Arabia(15 BILLION) and others.
THE PEOPLE
WE PAY EVERY DIME YOU SPEND
So if you bankrupt the United States
guess who will hold the US Government and the US Military accountable?
2007-12-12 11:48:38 · update #3
Absolutely the military is efficient and downright squared away.
Now the civilian employees who handle some of the logistics, not so much.
2007-12-12 05:39:47 · answer #1 · answered by MrOrph 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
The US Military doesn't count the money. Congress does. What the military is efficient at is moving men and equipment and stepping on foreign armies. If you want efficiency, in WWII they might use 200 planes, manned by 2,000 men, to take out one facility, loose 1/4 of them in a single mission and count it a success if the facility is actually hit, while taking out 1/2 of the surrounding countryside. Today, one plane will take out the same facility with 4 bombs and do no more than knock out some windows on nearby windows. Still you will have those who ***** about the cost of the single plane and the night watchman that was killed.
I would also caution you to take with a grain of salt most things you get from the Clinton Broadcasting System.
2007-12-12 14:04:20 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You would have to gather a lot of data to fully answer this question so I will try to help. I was in the Navy for 4 years and I must say they were horribly inefficient! You have to jump through so many hoops on a daily basis to do a simple task. You very rarely had the right equipment you need to do the right job. In the enlisted ranks seniority has more to do with intelligence when it comes to leadership. It was very frustrating at times! I am glad to be done with it and all it was good for in my opinion is the GI Bill, I certainly would not be able to afford going to school without it.
2007-12-12 16:28:04 · answer #3 · answered by michael c 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Specifically regarding the story you link to, the DoD is NO less efficient than ANY government agency. Reading the REPORT attached to the article, the blame isn't upon the military, but the civilian government employees of the various agencies involved.
Think back to FEMA who distributed several million to "Katrina survivors" who were complete frauds... including some who filed for aid while serving prison sentences.
Think of the TSA who still can't efficiently provide security at our airports, and hires illegal aliens despite the billions invested.
Think of DHS... who hasn't built the border-fence, secured our ports and nation after Trillions were allocated.
Think of CONGRESS who continues to STEAL from the SSI-fund, runs up the deficet, spends trillions on PORK.
2007-12-12 14:26:20 · answer #4 · answered by mariner31 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That link shows nothing but how inefficient the Iraqi's are, how is the US responsibility for missing equipment once it is handed over to the Iraqi's ? This has no reflection or bearing on how effect the US Military is, and the US Military is very efficient at what their job is, They took Iraq, they are defeating the Taleban in Afghanistan what more do you want ??
"provided to the Iraqi security forces" did you miss that sentence ???
2007-12-12 13:52:04 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
yes they are, but your talking about the civilian part of it which means government which is totally inefficient, and always has been,and always will be.
2007-12-12 14:28:48 · answer #6 · answered by darrell m 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
OMG, I can't stop laughing!
In all seriousness, they have some things they are very good at and quite efficient and other where they are, shall we say, marginal at best. It all comes down to who is in charge, just like with any other organization.
I did read it. And it doesn't change my answer!
2007-12-12 13:42:04 · answer #7 · answered by KD 5 · 1⤊ 4⤋