10-12-2003 21:22									#1
	Mercenaries now outnumber Brit troops in Iraq Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Just found this, and as there's a link I'll provide it - Click "Skip" to get there quicker.

Guardian Story

To those that thought the Canadians stayed at home... Wrong! They just didn't go in waving their flag.

Last edited by Cruddy on 10-12-2003 at 21:28

	10-12-2003 21:41									#2
	Tired of ads?

This explains partly the tremendous costs of the war, and raises big issues.

	10-12-2003 21:54									#3
	Increase Your PM Length

This is a good addition to the forces on the ground. American soldiers cost $300,000 apiece per annum, including all of their fancy schmancy equipment. Defensive mercenaries (e.g. guards, force protection specialists) are expensive, but not nearly as expensive as an American soldier.

If it were a question of trading conscripts for mercenaries, that would be a different situation. So, for instance, it would not be a correct thing to do for many European countries. Also, if this became the bulk of the force rather than a small addition, I would be concerned. Lastly, perhaps there should be a discussion about discipline procedures. But as a general rule, I have nothing against utilizing defensive mercenaries.

Last edited by DanS on 10-12-2003 at 22:02

	10-12-2003 22:12									#4
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I am certainly wrong, but it seems that the US citizens are not eager to engage in the Army (although they are patriots and shout quite convincingly : USA USA USA), but are willing to enrole in private companies for military duties because of the higher salaries, which is not really patriotic.

According to your figure, 30 billions could finance 100000 US soldiers for one year. Does that mean that the mercenaries cost tenfold more than regular soldiers?

I assume that casualties are not reported by the Army.

	10-12-2003 22:53									#5
	Remove this text

I think the $30 billion figure includes all of the support functions for our real troops in theater, so I don't know how you would really account for that. For instance, if the army buys gas locally, this would be included in the $30 billion figure. If the army contracts locally for some electrical work done on base, it is included in the $30 billion figure.

quote: I assume that casualties are not reported by the Army.

They are reported by the army (i.e., they are not hidden in any way), but as far as I've seen, they are not listed in the official casualties.

	10-12-2003 23:22									#6
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by DanS I think the $30 billion figure includes all of the support functions for our real troops in theater, so I don't know how you would really account for that. For instance, if the army buys gas locally, this would be included in the $30 billion figure. If the army contracts locally for some electrical work done on base, it is included in the $30 billion figure.

Lot of gas and miscellaneous ! Lets assume that the mercenaries cost 300000$ a year each (as a regular soldier), that makes 3 billions$. Private contractors would get 27 billions$ for providing support functions , that is 270000$ per regular soldier.

From the total 87 billions, we deduct 19 billions for reconstruction, 30 billions for contractors, it remains 38 billions for wages and benefits (3 billions) and something else costing 35 billions. What could that be?