d\u00e9j\u00e0<\/a> mentionn\u00e9, pr\u00e9sente la nouvelle dans ce sens. Il s’avance m\u00eame jusqu’\u00e0 pr\u00e9senter des chiffres de d\u00e9penses suppl\u00e9mentaires. Ce sont \u00e9videmment ceux-l\u00e0 qui nous int\u00e9ressent.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00abAlthough the president offered no specifics, other U.S. officials said the administration is preparing plans to bolster the nation’s permanent active-duty military with as many as 70,000 additional troops.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbA force structure expansion would accelerate the already-rising costs of war. The administration is drafting a supplemental request for more than $100 billion in additional funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, on top of the $70 billion already approved for this fiscal year, according to U.S. officials. That would be over 50 percent more than originally projected for fiscal 2007, making it by far the costliest year since the 2003 invasion.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbSince the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Congress has approved more than $500 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as for terrorism-related operations elsewhere. An additional $100 billion would bring overall expenditures to $600 billion, exceeding those for the Vietnam War, which, adjusted for inflation, cost $549 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t()<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\t\u00bbThe Army has already temporarily increased its force level from 482,000 active-duty soldiers in 2001 to 507,000 today and soon to 512,000. But the Army wants to make that 30,000-soldier increase permanent and then add between 20,000 and 40,000 more on top of that, according to military and civilian officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Every additional 10,000 soldiers would cost about $1.2 billion a year, according to the Army. Because recruitment and training take time, officials cautioned that any boost would not be felt in a significant way until at least 2008.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tCes chiffres donnent difficilement une id\u00e9e pr\u00e9cise de la situation r\u00e9elle qu’impliquerait une augmentation s\u00e9rieuse telle qu’elle est envisag\u00e9e (70.000 hommes pour 20.000-30.000 combattants r\u00e9els) des forces arm\u00e9es US. Fixer le co\u00fbt de 10.000 nouveaux soldats \u00e0 un budget annuel de $1,2 milliard est ridicule aux standards actuels de gaspillage du Pentagone. $10 milliards seraient plus proches de la r\u00e9alit\u00e9. Encore ne s’agirait-il que d’un d\u00e9but.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tLa r\u00e9alit\u00e9 est que, s’il est s\u00e9rieux, GW Bush ouvre une nouvelle p\u00e9riode et donne un nouvel \u00e9lan, s’ajoutant aux pr\u00e9c\u00e9dents, de la d\u00e9rive incontr\u00f4lable de l’augmentation des d\u00e9penses du Pentagone. On ignore (quoique l’on s’en doute un peu), l’effet de l’augmentation des forces US en Irak sur la crise irakienne ; on peut d’ores et d\u00e9j\u00e0 \u00eatre assur\u00e9 de son effet sur la crise du Pentagone. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\tMis en ligne le 20 d\u00e9cembre 2006 \u00e0 19H11<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Il semble qu’il nous faille croire que GW Bush est s\u00e9rieux lorsqu’il annonce que les forces arm\u00e9es US vont \u00eatre renforc\u00e9es. On verra. Le Washington Post, dans le m\u00eame article d\u00e9j\u00e0 mentionn\u00e9, pr\u00e9sente la nouvelle dans ce sens. Il s’avance m\u00eame jusqu’\u00e0 pr\u00e9senter des chiffres de d\u00e9penses suppl\u00e9mentaires. Ce sont \u00e9videmment ceux-l\u00e0 qui nous int\u00e9ressent.… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[6239,3127,3228,3198,3194,6049],"class_list":["post-68323","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-augmentation","tag-budget","tag-crise","tag-gw","tag-pentagone","tag-soldats"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68323","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=68323"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68323\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68323"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68323"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68323"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}