this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2023
12 points (87.5% liked)
World News
32316 readers
1270 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The article says:
No idea what this all means. $46bn worth of weapons that never make it to the front and instead enter the European black markets? Middle managers and administrative costs? Maybe it subtly recognises that the US overpays by 10:1 for it's weapons, with the $46bn being what the shareholders make above the profit made on $5bn worth of actual weapons? Or it's just playing with the numbers to make it seem like the US is doing loads to 'help'. We could ask the same auditors who lost between $2tn and $22tn or more in the last couple of decades.
But if the real cost is closer to $51bn, including weapons, it makes me wonder how expensive Afghanistan really was.
Edit: added missing words.