Congress' economic forecasters have written that they can't forecast how many billions of dollars a Syrian military campaign might consume
Experts tell MailOnline that a 90-day mission, if needed, could carry a price tag as large as $21 billion
Adding 'boots on the ground' sufficient to secure Bashar al-Assad's chemical weapons could add another $15 billion in personnel costs
Published: 04:16 BST, 12 September 2013 | Updated: 22:35 BST, 24 September 2013>
If members of Congress want to know how much a military strike on Syria will cost, they'll have to wing it.
The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan has written on Monday that it's not capable of forecasting the price tag on what Secretary of State John Kerry has called an 'unbelievably small and limited' attack on sites related to dictator Bashar al-Assad's chemical weapons stockpiles.
That declaration was published on Monday, hours before President Obama changed tack in a series of television news interviews that were expected to be rallying cries for war powers but instead became diplomatic dog-whistles.
The turnaround followed an international flurry prompted by Kerry's gaffe-induced suggestion that Assad could avoid a military attack from the United States if he agreed to quickly turn his chemical weapons over to international control for destruction.
War powers: The X-47B pilotless drone combat aircraft carries laser-guided bombs and can fly faster than 500 miles per hour at 40,000 feet. The Pentagon has spent an estimated $1.8 billion on research, development and testing
Warbucks: A single sea-launched tomahawk missile can cost upwards of $1.4 million
War drone: The U.S. Air Force MQ-1 Predator unmanned aerial vehicle carries an estimated price tag of $4 million, not including each $58,000 Hellfire anti-armor missile in its airborne arsenal
War winner: Syrian president Bashar al-Assad stands to lose much of his chemical weapons stockpiles but will likely remain in power, fighting his civil war with conventional weapons sent from Russia by the boatload
More than a week ago Obama proposed Senate Joint Resolution 21, a measure that Democrats have put on a temporary back-burner while a surprising Russia-brokered diplomatic solution plods its way forward. It would authorize the White House to attack Syrian sites if the president determined it is in America's national interest.
'I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan' against Assad, Obama pledged in a televised national address on Tuesday. But without specifics, CBO declared on Monday, the price tag remains open-ended.
- >McCain says Obama is victim of Putin's 'game of rope-a-dope'... >'The United States military doesn't do pinpricks': Obama... >John Kerry gets advice from Henry Kissinger on dealing with... >John Kerry reveals Arab countries have offered to PAY...
- >Senators who backed Syria resolution got 83 per cent more...
Share this articleShare
'The Administration has not detailed how it would use the authority that would be provided by this resolution,' read CBO's report, a little-noted one-page notice.
'[T]hus, CBO has no basis for estimating the costs of implementing S. J. Res. 21.'
During a Sept. 4 hearing in the House of Representatives, Florida Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen asked Kerry to address the potential expenses related to carrying out attacks on Syria if Congress were to authorize them.
Following through on a use-of-force resolution, she said, 'could potentially cost ... billions.'
On that same day, three different defense and national security analysts gave MailOnline their 'educated guesswork' estimates of the cost of a 90-day military action in Syria, a length of time corresponding to the longest period covered in the Senate's joint resolution.
Those estimates ranged from $5 to $21 billion.
Oops: Kerry's unintentional diplomatic offer to Syria on Monday in London singlehandedly shifted the Obama administration from an offensive to a defensive posture
Who stands taller now? Russian President Vladimir Putin (L) is suddenly in the driver's seat, with Obama forced to mute his military threats in favor of a drawn-out and possibly years-long diplomatic process in Syria
Kerry is en route to Geneva, Switzerland for two days of talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. The two will reportedly discuss a beginning framework for keeping Assad accountable as his chemical arms are slowly dismantled
They were based on a scenario that required providing anti-Assad resistance groups with small arms, launching missiles and armed drones from the Mediterranean Sea, and flying Turkey-based military aircraft over Syria after chemical weapons launch sites and anti-aircraft positions are destroyed.
And while both Obama and Kerry have insisted that any U.S. plan would not involve 'boots on the ground,' a 2012 Pentagon estimate prepared for the White House's National Security Council found that securing Assad's chemical weapons themselves would require 75,000 ground troops.
That scenario is decidedly on hold while Syria explores diplomatic options with Russia, its strongest ally.
A Pentagon spokesman told CNN in 2012 that it costs $815,000 per year to pay, deploy, feed, house, arm and maintain each soldier on the ground in Afghanistan. Applying that figure to the 75,000 troops the Pentagon has said it would need to secure Syrian chemical weapons sites, a three-month deployment at similar costs would cost another $15.27 billion.
Obama asked Congress on Tuesday night to keep his war-powers resolution open as a viable future option, calling on legislators to 'postpone,' not cancel, a scheduled vote in the Senate.
If the measure should win future approval and the president wanted to launch a strike, CBO notes, he 'would be required to provide a determination to the Congress addressing several criteria to show that such action is necessary and in the national interest.'
'In addition, it would require the President to submit to the Congress a strategy for negotiating a political settlement to the Syrian conflict, a comprehensive review of U.S.policy towards Syria, and periodic reports on the progress of military operations.'
This news has been published by title Arizona’s $3.2B Golf Economy Faces A Decidedly Subpar Future
If the page you access is mistake or not admittance perfectly, please visit the indigenous web in source CLICK HERE
Thank you for your visit to our website, hopefully the guidance we convey is useful, get not forget to allocation and subscribe our web to acquire more information.[TAG]1813