Iraq War Spending

Iraq Syndrome

Mary — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:27:33 -0500

Short Information Teaser

by Robert C. Koehler

Excerpt

by Robert C. Koehler
Published on Thursday, October 27, 2011 by CommonDreams.org

“Then there’s the death toll. Officially, almost 5,000 U.S. troops have died, with another 32,000 wounded. These numbers hardly begin to measure the extent to which vets’ lives have been shattered; most of them return from extended duty with some form of PTSD.

But the numbers go wild, and Iraq Syndrome swells into a raging antiwar movement, when we consider the war’s consequences from the Iraqi point of view. We don’t do body counts, but some years ago the British medical journal Lancet calculated the civilian death toll at more than 650,000. Other estimates go beyond a million dead. In addition, 4.7 million Iraqis were displaced from their homes. And what about the “inspiring democracy” we’ve created? According to Transparency International, Iraq is virtually a failed state, ranking 175th globally in corruption, ahead of only Somalia, Myanmar and (ahem) Afghanistan, as Medea Benjamin and Charles Davis noted on Common Dreams.”

Body

This won’t be Vietnam, exactly. No helicopter whisking the last remaining Americans off the roof of the embassy. A contingent of 16,000 State Department contract employees — over 5,000 of them armed mercenaries — will be staying on, running what’s left of the American operation in Iraq.

But there’s little doubt we lost this war — by every rational measure. Everyone lost, except those who profited from (and continue to profit from) the trillions we bled into the invasion and occupation; and those who planned it, most of whom remain in positions to plan or at least promote the wars we’re still fighting and the wars to come. [ qian] photo: qian

But in a certain profound sense, the war in Iraq, as we have come to know it over the last almost nine years, is shutting down. The Obama team couldn’t get “Iraq’s inspiring but fragile democracy” (in the immortal words of Joe Lieberman, waxing absurd in a USA Today opinion piece) to approve immunity from local prosecution for American troops. Our noble cause trembled, collapsed, and for a moment we became a democracy. The will of the sick-of-war public prevailed.

I find myself reflecting on this the way I might reflect on a berserk car alarm that finally shuts off — with the ringing still in my ears, with anger and frustration still wracking my body. Something that shouldn’t be happening has finally ceased happening, or soon will, but I hardly feel like celebrating.

“If any good comes of the Iraq war,” Michael Lind wrote recently in Salon, “it will come in the form of an Iraq syndrome, like the Vietnam syndrome that made Americans wary of large-scale military intervention abroad from the fall of Saigon in 1975 until the Gulf War of 1990-91. The mantra then was ‘No more Vietnams.’ That needs to be updated: ‘No more Iraqs.’”

I agree, but I don’t think this goes far enough. “No more Vietnams” is still operative: The public still hates war; even neocons acknowledge that Nam was a disaster. Because of it, the war interests spent a generation retooling their agenda, and ultimately American society, to work around this fact. Elimination of the draft, for instance, while seemingly a progressive step, took self-interest out of the antiwar movement.

And war propaganda became savvy and benign. Our post-Vietnam military adventures, while still fear-driven, also had “humanitarian” components, like spreading democracy or defending women’s rights. We developed “smart bombs,” which only destroyed, you know, infrastructure. And as Colin Powell famously proclaimed, as the Iraq adventure was starting to get ugly, “We don’t do body counts.” No daily kill reports this go-around; that would just turn the American stomach. With the help of an embedded media, war became largely invisible. The public went shopping.

Whatever “syndrome” does coalesce around this disastrous mistake must develop an intelligence that transcends the machinations that brought it on. For this to happen, we must stare deeply into the heart of the war’s consequences.

Most commentary has focused on the two most glaring failures from the point of view of national interest: strategic and economic. Strategically, we “lost” in that the war failed to turn Iraq into a stable, subservient ally. Instead, as Jonathan Steele put it recently in the UK Sunday Observer, “thanks to Bush’s toppling of Saddam Hussein, Iran’s greatest enemy, Tehran’s influence in Iraq is much stronger today than is America’s.”

Economically, the Iraq adventure cost more than World War II, as David R. Francis pointed out recently in The Christian Science Monitor. It wasted more than $800 billion in direct appropriations. And when other costs such as ongoing medical treatment for injured vets are figured in, the money bleed grows staggering beyond all imagination — as much as $6 trillion, according to the well-publicized calculations of economists Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes. To realize that such money could have gone into education, health care and the rebuilding of our crumbling, bankrupt nation is to start to feel the weight and scope of Iraq Syndrome.

Then there’s the death toll. Officially, almost 5,000 U.S. troops have died, with another 32,000 wounded. These numbers hardly begin to measure the extent to which vets’ lives have been shattered; most of them return from extended duty with some form of PTSD.

Finally, Iraq Syndrome must include awareness of our toxic legacy, in particular the radioactive fallout resulting from exploding several thousand tons of depleted uranium munitions. Last year, the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health published a study of the devastated city of Fallujah, pointing out that, among much else, it is experiencing higher rates of cancer, leukemia and infant mortality than Hiroshima and Nagasaki did in 1945. And birth defects abound: “Young women in Fallujah are terrified of having children,” a group of British and Iraqi doctors reported.

The failure of the Iraq war is the failure of all wars, past and future: national policy grounded the dehumanization of a people. A military-industrial economy requires such policy to continue, and so it does. Iraq Syndrome may be our best hope in thwarting the power of the war consensus, especially if it includes the awareness that what we do to others we eventually do to ourselves. © 2011 Tribune Media Services, Inc. Robert C. Koehler

Robert Koehler is an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist and nationally syndicated writer. His new book, Courage Grows Strong at the Wound is now available. Contact him at or visit his website at commonwonders.com.

July 2007 Senate Votes on Iraq War Amendments

Jeff Leys — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 14:33:07 -0500

Resource Description
On July 11, 2007, the U.S. Senate took a series of votes on various measures related to the war in Iraq.

Download PDF version of vote tally and text of the amendments.

Download Word version of vote tally and text of the amendments.

The amendments included:

an attempt to require that U.S. Armed Forces returning from Iraq be permitted to be at their home base for at least as long as the length of their tour in Iraq before being deployed back to Iraq.

an attempt to limit the length of the deployment of Army, Army National Guard and Army Reserve units in Iraq to 12 months and of Marine Corps and Marine Corps Reserve units to 7 months in Iraq.

a measure to require a report to Congress on the involvement of Iran in Iraq.

a measure that would state that Armed Forces returning from Iraq SHOULD be allowed a minimum of 12 months at home before being deployed back to Iraq, but it did not require that 12 months elapse before being deployed back to Iraq.

Short Information Teaser
Tally and text of Senate votes on four amendments regarding the Iraq war.
Project
The Occupation Project
Excerpt
On July 11, 2007, the U.S. Senate took a series of votes on various measures related to the war in Iraq.

Download PDF version of vote tally and text of the amendments.

Download Word version of vote tally and text of the amendments.

The amendments included:

an attempt to require that U.S. Armed Forces returning from Iraq be permitted to be at their home base for at least as long as the length of their tour in Iraq before being deployed back to Iraq.

an attempt to limit the length of the deployment of Army, Army National Guard and Army Reserve units in Iraq to 12 months and of Marine Corps and Marine Corps Reserve units to 7 months in Iraq.

a measure to require a report to Congress on the involvement of Iran in Iraq.

a measure that would state that Armed Forces returning from Iraq SHOULD be allowed a minimum of 12 months at home before being deployed back to Iraq, but it did not require that 12 months elapse before being deployed back to Iraq.

Resource: House and Senate Voting Records on War Funding

voices — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 00:22:30 -0500

Resource Description
House Voting Records

A table that tracks the key votes taken in the House between March 2007 and May 2007 on the Iraq – Afghanistan war supplemental spending bill. A quick explanation of the votes precedes the table. You can search by State or by representative name. The three most significant votes for determining legislative strategy are the vote on H.R. 1591, the vote on H.R. 2237 McGovern Bill and the vote on H.R. 2206 Final.

>> View House Voting Records

Senate Voting Records

This table tracks the votes taken in the Senate between March 2007 and May 2007 on the Iraq – Afghanistan war supplemental spending bill. A quick explanation of the votes precede the table. You can search by State or by representative name.

>> View Senate Voting Records

Short Information Teaser
House and Senate Voting Records - tables tracking key votes on funding of the U.S. war in Iraq
Project
The Occupation Project
Excerpt
House Voting Records

A table that tracks the key votes taken in the House between March 2007 and May 2007 on the Iraq – Afghanistan war supplemental spending bill. A quick explanation of the votes precedes the table. You can search by State or by representative name. The three most significant votes for determining legislative strategy are the vote on H.R. 1591, the vote on H.R. 2237 McGovern Bill and the vote on H.R. 2206 Final.

>> View House Voting Records

Senate Voting Records

This table tracks the votes taken in the Senate between March 2007 and May 2007 on the Iraq – Afghanistan war supplemental spending bill. A quick explanation of the votes precede the table. You can search by State or by representative name.

>> View Senate Voting Records

Iraq - Afghanistan War Spending: Legislative Update: Oct 7, 2007

Jeff Leys — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:06:56 -0500

Resource Description
By Jeff Leys

October 7, 2007
Download PDF

Congress will likely act before the end of October on at least a portion of the $192 billion that President Bush is seeking to fund the Iraq - Afghanistan war for Fiscal Year 2008 (which runs from October 1, 2007 through September 30, 2008). Legal and extralegal (civil disobedience / civil resistance) lobbying should take place between now and the end of October.

You can find out who your Representative and Senators are at the website Congress.org, along with phone numbers and contact information.

Following is a likely legislative timeline that Congress may follow.

Defense Authorization and Defense Appropriations Bill Pass House and Senate

On October 1, the Senate passed the Defense Authorization bill. This bill is a policy bill which lays out programs that the Department of Defense is authorized to carry out and also contains a suggested funding amount. However, it does not actually give the Defense Department the legal ability to spend funds in the U.S. treasury. That requires an appropriations bill. So, even though the Senate Defense Authorization bill sets a suggested funding level of about $150 billion to fund the Iraq - Afghanistan war during FY 2008, that money is not yet actually appropriated.

On October 3, the Senate-on a voice vote-passed the Defense Appropriations bill for FY 2008. This is the bill that gives the Defense Department the legal ability to actually spend money out of the U.S. treasury.

The House previously passed its versions of the Defense Authorization and Defense Appropriations Bill in the summer.

Neither the House nor the Senate version of the Defense Appropriations bill contains funding for the Iraq - Afghanistan war.

Continuing Resolution and MRAP Program

Both the House and the Senate did pass a Continuing Resolution near the end of September. A continuing resolution is passed when regular appropriations bills have not yet passed Congress or been signed into law. The continuing resolution allows government agencies to continue to spend money to operate at the levels at which they operated during the previous year, in order to avoid a shut down of the federal government. Thus, this particular Continuing Resolution did allow for continued spending on the Iraq - Afghanistan war at an average expenditure rate of about $5.8 billion per month (while also permitting the Department of Defense to draw upon other funds in its regular baseline military budget to fund the war until the full Iraq - Afghanistan war spending request is acted upon by Congress).

Congress appropriated an additional $5.2 billion for the procurement of Mine Resistant Ambush Protect (MRAP) vehicles in the continuing resolution. In so doing, it fulfilled the spending request which President Bush submitted to Congress at the end of July.

Conference Committee and Possible Bridge Fund for the Iraq - Afghanistan War OR Another Continuing Resolution

Congress may choose one of two routes to continue funding the Iraq - Afghanistan war. It may pass a new continuing resolution to continue funding the war. Or it may attach a bridge fund to the Defense Appropriations bill to fund the war. Either way, there likely will be precious little notice to the public of war funding that is being voted upon by Congress, which makes legal and extra-legal lobbying so important at this time.

A conference committee, made up of Representatives and Senators, must now resolve the differences between the House and Senate versions of the Defense Appropriations bill.

The final vote on the Defense Appropriations bill-which may include some Iraq - Afghanistan war funding-will likely be voted upon in both the House and Senate sometime between October 15 and November 2. The Senate is in recess from October 8 through October 15 and the House plans to adjourn by November 8.

John Murtha, Chair of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, has indicated that he may add a “bridge” fund to the Defense Appropriations bill (as reported by Megan Scully in the October 2, 2007 edition of Congress Daily). This bridge fund would appropriate funds for the military to wage the Iraq - Afghanistan war, probably through the spring of 2008. Such a bridge fund was included a year ago, to the tune of $70 billion, to wage the Iraq - Afghanistan war.

It is very unlikely that there will be much-if any-public awareness of a bridge fund being attached to the final version of the Defense Appropriations bill that will be voted upon by both the House and Senate. For example, this past May the final version of the Iraq - Afghanistan war supplemental was not publicly available until about 5:30 a.m. on the morning that the vote took place.

Thus, pressure must be exerted now upon Representatives and Senators to oppose any additional funding for the Iraq - Afghanistan war. This includes a commitment to vote against the Defense Appropriations Bill if the final version contains any funding for the war.

Iraq - Afghanistan War Supplemental Vote in Early 2008

Sometime in early 2008, Congress will take up an Iraq - Afghanistan war supplemental to provide funding through the end of the fiscal year (September 30, 2008).

Dave Obey, Chair of the House Appropriations Committee, indicated on October 2 he will not send any Iraq - Afghanistan war supplemental to the floor of the House for a vote prior to the end of the year if it does not:

Establish as a goal the end of U.S. involvement in combat operations by January of 2009.

Ensure that troops would have adequate time at home between deployments as outlined in the Murtha and Webb amendments.

Demonstrate a determination to engage in an intensive, broad scale diplomatic offensive involving other countries in the region.

Obey continued his statement, “As Chairman of the Appropriations Committee I have absolutely no intention of reporting out of Committee anytime in this session of Congress any such request that simply serves to continue the status quo.”

Now for the finer points of Obey’s statement. His commitment is specifically tied to THIS SESSION of Congress, which has a targeted adjournment date of October 26, though it is possible the House could stay in session beyond this date. Obey’s statement very concretely DOES NOT refer to what he may or may not do once the Second Session of the 110th Congress begins in January.

Also, the first two conditions of ending combat operations by January 2009 and of guarantees of rest and readiness for troops deploying to Iraq are not substantively different from the conditions included in the original version of the Iraq - Afghanistan war supplemental passed earlier this year but vetoed by Bush. While ending U.S. combat operations in Iraq by January 2009 would be a significant change in current U.S. policy, we should be pushing for the immediate end to combat operations with the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq and with full U.S. funding for the reconstruction of Iraq.

Iraq - Afghanistan War Funding for Fiscal Year 2009

On February 4, 2008 President Bush will submit his budget proposal to Congress for FY 2009 (which runs from October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009). Initial indications, according the website DefenseInsider, are that the military is preparing a budget request in the range of $150 to $200 billion. Initial budget requests from each branch of the military were to be submitted to the DOD comptroller by September 14 of this year. Most probably, this funding request will be debated in the fall of 2008 and be used as an election wedge issue by both the Democrats and Republicans.

Short Information Teaser
Legislative update on status of Iraq - Afghanistan War Spending
Project
The Occupation Project
Excerpt
By Jeff Leys

October 7, 2007
Download PDF

Congress will likely act before the end of October on at least a portion of the $192 billion that President Bush is seeking to fund the Iraq - Afghanistan war for Fiscal Year 2008 (which runs from October 1, 2007 through September 30, 2008). Legal and extralegal (civil disobedience / civil resistance) lobbying should take place between now and the end of October.

You can find out who your Representative and Senators are at the website Congress.org, along with phone numbers and contact information.

Following is a likely legislative timeline that Congress may follow.

Admiral Mullen Announces Afghanistan Strategy: Prepare to Nonviolently Resist

Jeff Leys — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:57:06 -0600

Short Information Teaser
Admiral Mullen announces that Pentagon will seek more war funding for 2010, a clear indicator that Obama will soon order an increase in US troop levels in Afghanistan.
Excerpt
November 9, 2009

This past Wednesday, Admiral Mullen (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced that the Pentagon will seek additional war funds for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in 2010. While he did not give a firm dollar amount, the New York Times reported that defense budget analysts are kicking around the number of $50 billion. The Times also reported that Jack Murtha, Chair of the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, indicated on October 30 that he expects the supplemental spending bill for 2010 to be in the range of $40 billion. The final dollar amount won’t be known until the White House submits its “emergency” supplemental spending request to Congress, most likely around February 2.

In the immortal words of Coach Vince Lombardi: “What the hell is going on out there?”

Body
November 9, 2009

This past Wednesday, Admiral Mullen (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced that the Pentagon will seek additional war funds for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in 2010. While he did not give a firm dollar amount, the New York Times reported that defense budget analysts are kicking around the number of $50 billion. The Times also reported that Jack Murtha, Chair of the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, indicated on October 30 that he expects the supplemental spending bill for 2010 to be in the range of $40 billion. The final dollar amount won’t be known until the White House submits its “emergency” supplemental spending request to Congress, most likely around February 2.

In the immortal words of Coach Vince Lombardi: “What the hell is going on out there?”

We should be so lucky if it were a simple matter of the Green Bay Packers screwing up the power sweep.

Instead, it’s a matter of the Obama Administration now leading us down the path of the most expensive year in war funding since President Bush began the so-called “Global War on Terror” (now morphed into the “Overseas Contingency Operations” under President Obama).

You read that correctly. War spending in 2010 will exceed $190 billion if indeed the Pentagon seeks-and Congress approves—$50 billion in “emergency” funding. That’s more than the $179 billion spent under President Bush in 2008, the previous high water mark for war spending. War spending in 2010 will also far exceed spending in 2009 (which is about $145 billion).

While Admiral Mullen did not announce a new war strategy for Afghanistan, it is difficult to conceive for what this additional $40 to $50 billion will be used if not used to expand the war in Afghanistan (and to perhaps continue the occupation of Iraq at near current troop levels without the substantive reductions promised earlier this year).

Let’s compare the numbers from 2009 to 2010 for three key areas of spending: Personnel costs; Operation and Maintenance costs; and Procurement costs.

Funding levels in 2009 were: Personnel - $19.9 billion; Operation and Maintenance - $80.4 billion; and Procurement - $31.9 billion.

Current funding levels in 2010 are: Personnel - $14.1 billion; Operation and Maintenance - $80.3 billion; and Procurement - $22.2 billion. (With all the talk about building Afghanistan’s army and police forces, it is worth noting that spending on the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund increases from $5.6 billion in 2009 to $6.6 billion in 2010, so it’s not likely that the “emergency” supplemental will include significantly more funds for this category).

Total funding levels in these three main areas are approximately $15.6 billion less in 2010 than in 2009. While Procurement funding declines in 2010 compared to 2009, this decline is most likely the result of returning to a more normative definition of what constitutes “emergency” war spending than the very expansive definition that was implemented under President Bush and that resulted in the explosion of Procurement spending to approximately $45 billion in both 2007 and 2008 (Procurement spending in 2005 was $18 billion and in 2006 it was $22.9 billion before this expansion).

The Congressional Research Service notes in a September 2009 report that the President’s budget for 2010 includes both the increase in troop levels in Afghanistan to 69,000 ordered by President Obama earlier this year and the anticipated reduction in U.S. troop levels in Iraq through August 2010.

Which leads one to ask the question:

In announcing that the Pentagon intends to seek additional war funding for 2010, did Admiral Mullen tip the hat that President Obama intends to dramatically increase the level of U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan—edging towards that 40,000 additional troops that General McChrystal seems to be requesting?

Or that the U.S. intends to otherwise dramatically increase the level of combat operations in Afghanistan and into Pakistan, which would carry the potential for significant increased costs in Operations and Maintenance as well as in Procurement funds?

Or that the U.S. intends to maintain troop levels in Iraq near current levels for the remainder of 2010?

Mullen’s statement comes within the context of Obama’s speech to service members in which he said that the U.S. would not send members of the military into harm’s way without adequate resources. It comes within the context of Obama assuming personal responsibility for his decisions as commander-in-chief when he became the first U.S. President in decades to personally participate in the ceremonies at Dover upon the return of U.S. service members who died in war. The sequencing of events seems to be preparing the way for President Obama to issue the order to dramatically increase U.S. troop levels and combat operations in Afghanistan.

Somehow we must reinvigorate the antiwar movement that seems to have largely gone missing over these past several months.

One campaign under way to rise to the challenge is the Peaceable Assembly Campaign (www.peaceableassemblycampaign.org).

From January 19 through February 2, the PAC will maintain a two week vigil at the White House and engage in regular acts of nonviolent civil disobedience, starting on the day President Obama enters his second year in office, continuing through his anticipated State of the Union address to Congress, and concluding on the day he is to submit his budget for 2011 to Congress.

Then after February 2, the Peaceable Assembly Campaign will focus its work upon Congress. Similar to the Occupation Project effort of 2007, the PAC will organize lobbying—both legal and extralegal (i.e., civil disobedience)—in the home offices of Representatives and Senators who do not commit themselves publicly to oppose additional funding for the wars and occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the occupation of the Palestinian territories.

You can become involved with the Peaceable Assembly Campaign at www.peaceableassemblycampaign.org

Now is not the time to equivocate in our opposition to the continuing and expanding wars. The die is being cast by the Obama Administration. It is our choice on how we respond. And rather than being directed at the Administration, perhaps we should direct Coach Lombardi’s challenge to ourselves. After all…

What the hell IS going on out here?

VCNV Author
Jeff Leys

Health Care vs. Warfare: The Future Costs of the Afghanistan War

Jeff Leys — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:52:37 -0500

Short Information Teaser
The U.S. is poised to spend $55 to $100 billion per year for the next 10 years to wage the war in Afghanistan.
Excerpt
September 8, 2009

On Wednesday, President Obama will address a joint session of Congress on health care. Later this year he will decide whether to deploy additional troops to the war in Afghanistan, on top of the 69,000 troops already deployed. The struggle for health care and the struggle to end warfare are inextricably linked. The cost for substantive (though imperfect) health care reform as envisioned in the House of Representatives approach (with the public option) is projected to average $100 billion per year for the next 10 years. The cost to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are projected to cost anywhere from $55 to $100 billion a year. With a few modest reductions to the baseline military budget and the difference is paid.

The choice is clear: health care or warfare; the Common Good or Common Destruction.

Body
September 8, 2009

On Wednesday, President Obama will address a joint session of Congress on health care. Later this year he will decide whether to deploy additional troops to the war in Afghanistan, on top of the 69,000 troops already deployed. The struggle for health care and the struggle to end warfare are inextricably linked. The cost for substantive (though imperfect) health care reform as envisioned in the House of Representatives approach (with the public option) is projected to average $100 billion per year for the next 10 years. The cost to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are projected to cost anywhere from $55 to $100 billion a year. With a few modest reductions to the baseline military budget and the difference is paid.

The choice is clear: health care or warfare; the Common Good or Common Destruction.

Two key developments in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will likely take place this month. Congress will more than likely pass the Defense Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2010 (which begins on October 1) and General McChrystal will likely request that additional troops be deployed to Afghanistan. The Defense Appropriations Bill contains about $130 billion to wage the wars and occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan through September 30, 2010. General McChrystal is expected to request that 15,000 to 45,000 additional U.S. troops be deployed to Afghanistan—bringing overall U.S. troops levels in Afghanistan to 84,000 to 114,000.

Meanwhile, behind the scenes and out of the public eye, the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force are preparing their respective budget requests for FY 2011 (which begins October 1, 2010 and runs through September 30, 2011).

The publication “Inside the Pentagon” reports:

“Now, as the Pentagon weighs the FY-11 base budget and OCO requests submitted by the services on August 14, it is finding the services’ FY-11 OCO requests are larger than expected. Instead of a ‘substantial’ decrease tied to the draw down in Iraq, the OCO total is ‘roughly flat’ compared with FY-10, a Pentagon official said, noting it is only a bit under the FY-10 level.”

In other words, the military services seem to be seeking $120 to $130 billion in war funds for 2011, during a time period when ostensibly the U.S. will be reducing troop levels in Iraq and at a time when much is made about the $100 billion per year projected cost for providing substantive (though not perfect) health care reform. “OCO” is the new term of art for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the abbreviation for Overseas Contingency Operations.

These initial requests likely will be modified to some extent as they wind their way through the Department of Defense and the White House. However, the size of these requests indicate the importance of current organizing efforts to end funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and occupations.

Regrettably, though, it gets worse, as the U.S. will, without substantive troop reductions, likely continue to expend anywhere from $70 billion to $100 billion per year to continue on-going military operations in Afghanistan in 2012 and beyond.

The decidedly non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) issued a report in August that projects average monthly troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan through FY 2012 (i.e., through September 30, 2012). It then draws upon the work of the Congressional Budget Office to project future war costs. What emerges is a never ending war with never ending costs unless pressure can be brought to bear upon President Obama and Congress to reverse course in Afghanistan and to maintain the course of troop withdrawal in Iraq.

The Congressional Research Service bases its analysis upon average monthly troop levels over the course of a year rather than numbers of troops on the ground in any given month. For example, if 100,000 troops are deployed to a country for the first 6 months of 2010 but then are reduced to 50,000 troops for the final 6 months of 2010, the average monthly troop level in 2010 is 75,000 troops. Using the monthly average over the course of a year evens out the increases and decreases in troop levels as troops are deployed into and redeployed out of a country.

The CRS projects average monthly troop strength in Iraq with the implementation of President Obama’s troop drawdown. In 2010 it projects average monthly troop strength at 88,300, with the number of troops deployed to Iraq falling to 45,000 troops by August 30, 2010 (reflecting the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces—and, for the moment, leaves aside the question of whether combat forces are truly removed from Iraq or are simply renamed and “retasked”). In 2011 monthly average troop strength falls to 42,750 troops (reaching complete withdrawal of all but a small residual force of about 4000 troops by December 31, 2011).

While arguably the troop withdrawals should occur on a more rapid timetable, pressure must be maintained upon Obama to ensure that he does not allow any slippage to occur in his own proposed timetable. The U.S. could, possibly, maintain a high level of troops in Iraq even after a supposed “withdrawal” of combat troops if remaining troops were to be retasked to other missions and redesignated. Also, a new agreement could be reached with Iraq to maintain a larger U.S. military presence in Iraq beyond the end of 2011.

Second, pressure must be exerted to prevent any expansion of the U.S. military force in Afghanistan and then to reverse troop levels in that country. Approximately 69,000 troops are currently deployed to Afghanistan. McChrystal will likely seek an additional 15,000 to 45,000 troops. President Obama will most likely decide about troop levels in Afghanistan by the end of this year.

And this is where the wave of substantive (though imperfect) health care reform comes crashing upon the shoals of warfare. Keep $100 billion in mind—the projected cost for each year of health care reform—as you read the following based upon reports from the Congressional Research Service and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

In January 2009, the CBO projected the costs of maintaining troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. It updated these projections in August 2009. Caution is in order about drawing too firm a conclusion of war costs based upon these projections. However, the projections do give a very strong indicator of the likely lower end costs of continuing these wars.

The CBO projects that the cost to maintain 112,500 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in FY 2012 will be $95 billion. The CBO in January projected that it will cost $70 billion to maintain 75,000 troops in Iraq and / or Afghanistan from FY 2013 onward (though it lowered this projection to $55 billion for FY 2014 onward in its August 2009 report, without an explanation for the lower figure). Now use these cost projections of CBO with the troop projections of the Congressional Research Service and you get the following prescription for never ending warfare.

The CRS projects that average monthly troop levels in FY 2011 will be 106,200. Looking at the $95 billion cost projection of the CBO (for 112,500 troops), one would think that the war costs in FY 2011 will be in the range of $90 to $100 billion. Yet, as indicated at the start of this article the military services are apparently seeking funding somewhere in the range of $130 billion for FY 2011 (or slightly lower). Either way—whether it’s in the range of the $95 billion or so projected by CBO or the perhaps nearly $130 billion in the military services’ initial budget requests—that’s more than adequate funding to pay for substantive health care reform in 2011.

The financial hemorrhaging will continue for as long as the U.S. maintains military troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let’s assume the CRS projections are correct and the U.S. withdraws all but 4000 troops from Iraq by December 31, 2011 and that the U.S. maintains troop levels in Afghanistan at their current level, without any increase of the sort that General McChrystal may propose.

The long term cost of the Afghanistan war will then likely be in the range of $55 to $70 billion per year (with average monthly troop levels of 4000 in Iraq and 67,500 in Afghanistan according to the CRS projections). This is based upon the CBO projection that maintaining a deployment of 75,000 troops will cost somewhere between $55 billion and $70 billion per year from 2013 onward (on a slightly more optimistic note, the CBO projects that it will cost somewhere in the range of $25 billion to $32 billion per year if U.S. troops levels are reduced to 30,000).

All of this leaves out any discussion of reframing the size of the U.S. military following a decade of great expansion. In June 2001, the U.S. maintained about 26,000 troops in the region. In December 2008 the Department of Defense’s Defense Manpower Data Center’s “Location Report” stated that 294,000 troops were stationed in the region and assigned to the military operations in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Of these, 181,000 troops were deployed inside either Iraq or Afghanistan (according to the DoD’s “Boots on the Ground Report” for December 2008) President Obama has yet to address his plans for the redeployment of the 100,000 plus troops stationed in the region as the troop drawdown in Iraq commences.

At this moment of critical decision-making we should utilize all legal and extralegal (i.e., nonviolent civil disobedience) methods and techniques to send the strongest possible message to President Obama and Congress that it is time to completely end the U.S. military misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On October 5, nonviolent civil disobedience / civil resistance will take place at the White House. Organized by such groups as the National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance, Witness Against Torture, War Resisters League and Atlantic Life Community, this effort is an opening salvo in a renewed and revitalized effort to completely end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as to bring the U.S. into full compliance with international law as regards torture and mistreatment of those being held by the U.S. in the erstwhile “war on terrorism”. More information is available on the website of the National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance and of the War Resisters League

The longer term Peaceable Assembly Campaign is an umbrella effort being coordinated by Voices for Creative Nonviolence in an effort to draw the connections between the continuing pursuit by the U.S. and its allies of on-going Common Destruction in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Occupied Palestinian Territories on the one hand and the lack of funding for the Common Good—schools, health care, full employment and living wage policies, the public infrastructure, refugee services—on the other hand. The Peaceable Assembly Campaign seeks as well to draw the connections between the ongoing militarization of the United States and the critical necessity to commit our country to a new environmentalism that, amongst other things, makes the strong commitment to a renewable energy policy that is safe for the environment.

The Peaceable Assembly Campaign begins, this fall, with the development of local campaign committees to advance campaign objectives and to lobby Congress regarding these objectives.

In January 2009, the PAC will focus upon President Obama. From January 19 to February 2 we will maintain a daily vigil—which will include daily acts of civil disobedience—at the White House seeking an end to funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This time period is critical for a final attempt to influence President Obama before he submits his budget request for 2011 to Congress. January 19 marks the start of President Obama’s second year in office with February 2 being the date by which he is supposed to submit his 2011 budget to Congress, a budget that will include funding for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

After February 2, the Peaceable Assembly Campaign will once again emphasize legal and extralegal lobbying work to achieve its objectives. The extralegal lobbying work will consist of nonviolent civil disobedience at the offices of Representatives and Senators who do not agree with the objectives of the campaign—and especially who do not commit to cutting off funding for warfare with a concomitant redirection of funds to serve the Common Good. This phase of the campaign is timed to the legislative calendar during which Congress will be developing and enacting the Defense Appropriations Bill for 2011—a bill which will likely include funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. More than likely the House and Senate will act upon the Defense Appropriations Bill for 2011 by the end of July 2010.

These next several weeks and months are critical in redirecting our country away from Common Destruction and towards the Common Good. Decisions will be made by President Obama and Congress which could send hopes for health care, education, living wage jobs, a new environmental policy crashing upon the shoals of never ending war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We must insert ourselves into this decision-making process. We cannot afford to not utilize legal and extralegal (civil disobedience) lobbying, tactics and strategies to bring about an end to the Common Destruction being waged globally in our name.

VCNV Author
Jeff Leys

Senate Appropriations Supplemental Bill Mark Up May 2009

Jeff Leys — Mon, 18 May 2009 11:08:12 -0500

Excerpt
This is the Senate Appropriations Committee summary of the Senate’s version of the 2009 supplemental spending bill.

Download Summary

Body
This is the Senate Appropriations Committee summary of the Senate’s version of the 2009 supplemental spending bill.

Download Summary

President Obama's War Budget: Analyzing the Numbers

Jeff Leys — Sun, 10 May 2009 00:20:58 -0500

Short Information Teaser
Congress will soon vote on additional funding for the Iraq - Afghanistan war. This analysis examines total war spending for 2009.
Excerpt
May 4, 2009

Download PDF

President Obama’s 2009 supplemental spending request to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is currently before Congress. The House Appropriations Committee will “mark up” (finalize its version) of a war funding bill at a committee hearing on May 7th. The full House will likely vote on the bill the following week. The objective is to have the bill finalized and to Obama for signature by Memorial Day.

President Obama is seeking an additional $75.8 billion in war funds for this fiscal year. It is possible that Congress will add to this amount before final passage. If Congress enacts Obama’s request, total war spending will come to $144.6 billion for Fiscal Year 2009 (which ends on September 30, with Fiscal Year 2010 beginning on October 1). This compares to the $186 billion war spending in 2008. Obama’s proposed war budget for 2010 is $130 billion.

Body
May 4, 2009

Download PDF

President Obama’s 2009 supplemental spending request to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is currently before Congress. The House Appropriations Committee will “mark up” (finalize its version) of a war funding bill at a committee hearing on May 7th. The full House will likely vote on the bill the following week. The objective is to have the bill finalized and to Obama for signature by Memorial Day.

President Obama is seeking an additional $75.8 billion in war funds for this fiscal year. It is possible that Congress will add to this amount before final passage. If Congress enacts Obama’s request, total war spending will come to $144.6 billion for Fiscal Year 2009 (which ends on September 30, with Fiscal Year 2010 beginning on October 1). This compares to the $186 billion war spending in 2008. Obama’s proposed war budget for 2010 is $130 billion.

At first glance, it is easy to conclude that the proposed 22 percent reduction in war spending from 2008 to 2009 represents a significant shift in war strategy and is indicative of a drawing down of the twin wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sadly, such a conclusion would be wrong.

What follows is a discussion of the three main components of the war budget: Personnel costs; Operation & Maintenance costs; and Procurement costs. This discussion is based upon data and material produced by the Department of Defense Comptroller; the Congressional Research Service; the budget justification materials of the branches of the military; and the Fiscal Year 2009 Bridge Fund appropriations passed by Congress last June. (Please see the end of this article for the source material used in preparing this analysis).

This discussion includes total war funding for 2009, including both that amount appropriated by the Democrat-controlled Congress last June and the amount being requested by Obama in the currently pending supplemental spending request. It should be noted that the war funds approved by Congress last year were contained in the bill crafted by the Democratic Party leadership.

It should also be noted that while funding levels are reduced from 2008 to 2009, in each of the three categories, President Obama is in fact seeking new funding to the tune of $75.8 billion. That said, Personnel costs are reduced by $1.7 billion in 2009. Operation & Maintenance costs are reduced by $1.9 billion. Procurement costs are reduced by $37 billion. Even so, a closer look at the numbers behind the numbers reveals that the reductions are not as significant as they may appear to be at first glance.

PERSONNEL COSTS:

Personnel costs will decline by $1.8 billion in 2009. The Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps will all reduce personnel costs. A portion of these cost reductions will be offset by small increases in Personnel costs for the Navy as well as for the Marine Corps Reserve and for the Reserve and National Guard components of the Army and Air Force.

The Army’s personnel costs will drop by $2 billion, declining from $13 billion in 2008 to $11 billion in 2009. While this is a 15 percent decline, it also illustrates that all is not as it seems when reviewing top line budget numbers.

Two significant factors account for nearly all the reduction in the Army’s personnel costs, neither of which is related to the Iraq and Afghanistan war effort. “Active Overstrength” costs are reduced by $1.4 billion and “Recruiting and Retention” costs are reduced by $0.8 billion.

“Active Overstrength” refers to the number of soldiers in the Army over-and-above the number provided for by Congress in the regular baseline Department of Defense budget. In 2008, Active Overstrength consisted of 43,632 soldiers. This declines to 15,658 soldiers in 2009. All this means—and all the $1.4 billion reduction in associated costs means—is that the soldiers’ pay of 27,974 soldiers is now included in the baseline budget of the Army rather than being included in the supplemental spending bills.

Meanwhile, personnel costs for the Army Reserve and Army National Guard increase by $1.1 billion in 2009, reflecting the increased number of Reserve and Guard units being deployed to one of the two wars.

The Army’s reduction in “Recruitment and Retention” costs is perhaps best explained by the current economic depression and the lack of other job opportunities.

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE

Operation & Maintenance funds decline by $1.9 billion in 2009 (down to $91.6 billion compared to $93.5 billion in 2008). This category contains funds for U.S. military operations. It also contains funds for the training and development of the military and police forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. As fate should have it, it’s a decline in funding for Iraq’s military and police forces that results in the cost reduction in 2009.

Of the U.S. military services, only the Air Force receives a slight increase in Operation & Maintenance funding this year, increasing by $0.5 billion. The Army’s O&M budget is reduced by $1 billion; the Army National Guard by $0.5 billion; the Navy by $0.8 billion; and the Marine Corps by $0.1 billion. The Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard together will receive $0.4 billion less in O & M funds (thus offsetting the slight increase in the Air Force budget).

Notably, funding for “Operation and Maintenance – Defense Wide” increases by $2.5 billion in 2009 (up to $8.3 billion from the $5.8 billion n 2008). Funding for the US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is included in this category, as is funding for the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA). If Obama’s supplemental spending request is approved by Congress, total funding for SOCOM will be $2.4 billion in 2009 and for the DSCA, $1.7 billion.

Overall, the Operation & Maintenance funding for U.S. military forces comes out essentially the same this year—$84.2 billion in 2009 compared to $84 billion in 2008.

The cost savings in the overall Operation & Maintenance budget is to be found in those funds designated for the development and training of Iraq’s military and police forces. President Obama seeks no additional funds for the Iraq Security Forces Fund and only an additional $415 million for the Iraq Freedom Fund. In 2009, funding for the Iraq Security Forces Fund is cut by $2 billion and for the Iraq Freedom Fund by $3.4 billion—for a total cut in funding of $5.4 billion.

Resources are shifted to the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund, which will be increased by $2.9 billion (to a total of $5.6 billion in 2009). An entirely new Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund is created with Obama’s supplemental and will initially be funded with $400 million for this fiscal year (which notably ends on September 30). Spending on the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund and the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund account for a $3.3 billion increase in war funds.

So what is left after all of the cost shifts discussed above? The U.S. will spend $84.2 billion on the Operation & Maintenance budget of its own military in 2009—essentially the same as the $84 billion spent in 2008. This compares to the $75 billion spent in 2007; the $60 billion spent in 2006; and the $48 billion spent in 2005. The Operation and Maintenance numbers in Obama’s war budget do not provide significant evidence of a significant shift in the overall strategy for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

PROCUREMENT

Procurement funding drops by $36.9 billion in 2009—from $64.9 billion in 2008 to $28 billion in 2009. Yet it would be inaccurate to conclude that this 57 percent reduction in procurement funding represents a truly significant shift in funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The $28 billion funding level still remains well above the $22.9 billion appropriated in 2006 and the $18 billion appropriated in 2005. Indeed, of the $28 billion in total 2009 funding, $21.9 billion is contained within the supplemental spending request submitted by Obama—in and of itself still above funding levels in 2005 and on a par with 2006.

Significantly, the year 2006 provides one explanation for the reduction in procurement funds in 2009 when compared to 2008 and 2007. In October 2006, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England greatly expanded the parameters on the type of procurement spending that could be included in emergency supplemental spending requests. Prior to October 2006, the DOD financial regulations aimed to limit requests for supplemental spending requests to only cover the incremental costs of the two wars. In simple form, this meant that if a Stryker fighting vehicle is destroyed in Iraq then the Army could request a new Stryker as a replacement. The Air Force could replace Joint Direct Attack Munitions expended in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Used ammunition could be replenished. Yet even with this limitation in place, the Congressional Research Service and others questioned whether many of the items acquired by the military through the supplemental process were indeed incremental costs of war to replace lost equipment – or whether at least some portion of the procurement monies was being used to upgrade existing equipment previously scheduled for upgrade, to acquire new equipment for the new modular structure of the Army, and to buy next generation weapons systems (each of which should have been funded through the regular baseline Department of Defense budget).

In October 2006, England directed the military to submit spending requests to not only cover the incremental costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also to include any new costs attributed to the so-called “long war on terror”.

Procurement appropriations exploded, jumping from $22.9 billion in 2006 (the fiscal year immediately prior to England’s directive) to $45.4 billion in 2007 (the first fiscal year under the new directive), and then to $64.9 billion in 2008.

Thus, it is likely that the reduction in Procurement monies to be appropriated in 2009 simply reflects a reversal of England’s directive, with a shift back to a more normative budgetary process which seeks to limit new “emergency” procurement requests to those incremental costs directly related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, rather than being reflective of significant shifts in the direction of the overall war strategy.

It is also possible that the reduction in procurement monies in 2009 reflects that previously appropriated procurement funds still remain available to be spent. Normally when Congress appropriates funds, those funds must be spent in that fiscal year or be lost. However, procurement monies remain available to be spent for up to three years after being appropriated by Congress. This often results in procurement funds being carried over from one fiscal year to the next. According to the Congressional Research Service, as of October 1, 2007, the Department of Defense carried over $45 billion in war justified procurement appropriations into the new fiscal year.

The sharp reduction in procurement funds in 2009 may also be a result of the prior front-loading of procurement requests by the military. That is to say, in 2007 and 2008 the Department of Defense may well have requested surplus procurement funds as a buffer against future reductions in procurement funds. The Congressional Research Service notes that: “The FY 2007 and FY 2008 war requests both appear to include an extra year of Army and Marine Corps reset requirements. According to statements by Army Chief of Staff, General Peter J. Shoomaker and other military spokesman, Army reset is estimated to be $12 billion to $13 billion a year as long as the conflict lasts at the current level and ‘for a minimum of two to three years beyond’”.

With the passage of Obama’s war supplemental, the Army will be slated to receive a total of $13.5 billion in procurement funds in 2009—essentially what General Shoomaker projected. So again, the question arises: does President Obama’s war budget for 2009 reflect a potentially significant shift in war strategy or does it merely reflect a return to a more normative budget pattern?

Last, as regards procurement, it ought to be noted that fully one-third of the reduction in 2009 Procurement funds will be the result of a $12.4 billion reduction in funding for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles. In 2008, Congress appropriated $16.8 billion to rapidly acquire and deploy MRAPs for use in Iraq. In 2009, the $4.4 billion is included in total spending for a new version of MRAPs to be designed and produced for use in the different terrain and environment of Afghanistan.

THE AFGHANISTAN – PAKISTAN WAR

Obama’s 2009 war budget sheds light on the expansion of the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. While overly broad conclusions perhaps should not be drawn from the available data, the trends are indeed troubling.

In its summary “Fiscal Year 2009 Supplemental Request” the Department of Defense states that funding for the Afghanistan war will increase to $46.9 billion in 2009, a 31 percent increase over the $35.9 billion in 2008 and the $32.6 billion in 2007.

This $11.3 billion increase includes an additional $2.8 billion for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund; $400 million for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund; and $4.4 billion for MRAPs designed for use in Afghanistan. Increased troop levels will also account for a portion of the increase.

Military construction projects in Afghanistan are expanded under Obama’s war budget. In the 2009 supplemental now before Congress, Obama seeks an additional $620 million to fund Army construction projects and $240 million to fund Air Force construction projects. The Army projects include construction and upgrade of air facilities at various bases to accommodate the CH-47 Chinook helicopters and to construct additional troop housing to accommodate the increased troop levels.

The supplemental spending request also points towards the increased use of the MQ – 1 Predator and the MQ-9 Reaper drones in the war. Obama seeks $57.4 million to acquire 742 Predator Hellfire missiles and $196 million for ten new MQ-9 Reapers.

Funding is included to upgrade the MQ-1 and MQ-9 systems in order that a second remote split operations site can be established to control the drones. This second site is necessary since the current site is reaching its operational capacity for the control of the increasing drone flights. As noted in the justification materials submitted by the Air Force: “Both Predator and MQ-9 Reaper conduct their missions through ‘Remote Split Operations’ whereby a minimum number of operators and maintenance personnel are deployed forward for launch and recovery of the aircraft. After launch, the aircraft is ‘handed-off’ to CONUS-based mission crews for actual mission prosecution. For this mode of operations, the command and control and full motion video (FMV) is currently relayed through a single forward communications site. This site is nearing capacity with the current increase in Predator operational tempo…This project procures satellite terminals and video dissemination equipment to establish a second remote split operations relay site.”

WHAT THE FUTURE MAY HOLD

President Obama is seeking $130 billion to fund the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in his budget request for 2010. This is a mere $14 billion less than overall funding in 2009. It won’t be possible to determine the direction Obama seeks to take war funding until the Department of Defense releases its justification materials to lay out how this $130 billion will be spent.

Yet the reality that Obama’s Fiscal Year 2010 request is only $14 billion less than the 2009 war budget is not at all encouraging. Quite likely some minor reductions will take place in the Personnel costs of the budget, as the remaining Army Overstrength numbers are absorbed into the baseline military budget and as, perhaps, fewer National Guard and Reserve units are deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps some small reductions will take place within the Operation & Maintenance budget as brigade combat teams are withdrawn from Iraq, though savings may well be eaten up by increases in the O & M costs in Afghanistan as a troop buildup continues and military operations potentially intensify. Procurement costs may be slightly reduced, though that may simply indicate a shift of procurement funds into the baseline military budget of the Department of Defense.

All of which is to say that our work to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is really only just beginning anew. We should not allow ourselves to be deceived into believing that a shift in war strategy and policy is underway simply because of a reduction in appropriations for the war. The top dollar line is itself deceiving.

SOURCE MATERIAL:

“The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11” (Updated October 15, 2008), Congressional Research Service. By Amy Belasco (Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division). Available at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

U.S. Department of Defense. Fiscal Year 2009 Supplemental Request. Summary Justification Material. April 2009. Available at: http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2009/Supplemental/FY2009SupplementalRequest/pdfs/FY2009SupplementalRequest04-08-09.pdf

Office of the Secretary of Defense. “Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 Supplemental Request. Exhibits for FY 2009. Military Personnel. Operation and Maintenance. Procurement. Research, Development, Test and Evaluation. Military Construction. Revolving and Management Funds” (April 2009). Available at: http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/Budget2009.html

Fiscal Year 2009 Justification Materials produced by each branch of the military are available on-line at:

Army, http://www.asafm.army.mil/budget/fybm/fybm.asp#sup

Air Force, http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/budget/

Navy and Marine Corps, http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/fmb/09pres/supplemental/FY2009OverseasConOpsSup.pdf

Public Law 110-252 - June 30, 2008. Available at: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/toGPObss/http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110congpublic_laws&docid=f:publ252.110.pdf

VCNV Author
Jeff Leys

Iraq - Afghanistan War Supplemental for FY 2008 to Be Voted on Soon -- Questions & Answers -- April 30, 2008

Jeff Leys — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:46:44 -0500

Short Information Teaser
A Question and Answer on the Iraq War Supplemental Before Congress
Excerpt
April 29, 2008

Download in Word - Complete with Charts
Download in PDF — Complete with Charts

According to an April 29 article on CQ Politics, the House will likely vote on a new Iraq – Afghanistan war supplemental during the week of May 5, with Senator Harry Reid stating that he wants the Senate to vote on the bill prior to Memorial Day.

Details of the supplemental are being closely guarded by the Democratic party leadership. However, the supplemental is based upon President Bush’s request for an additional $108 billion in supplemental funding for the Iraq – Afghanistan war for the current fiscal year (FY 2008, which ends on September 30, 2008). Of this amount, $102 billion will be for the military.

Body
April 29, 2008

Download in Word - Complete with Charts
Download in PDF - Complete with Charts

According to an April 29 article on CQ Politics, the House will likely vote on a new Iraq – Afghanistan war supplemental during the week of May 5, with Senator Harry Reid stating that he wants the Senate to vote on the bill prior to Memorial Day.

Details of the supplemental are being closely guarded by the Democratic party leadership. However, the supplemental is based upon President Bush’s request for an additional $108 billion in supplemental funding for the Iraq – Afghanistan war for the current fiscal year (FY 2008, which ends on September 30, 2008). Of this amount, $102 billion will be for the military.

Congress may also appropriate—in the same bill—an additional $70 billion as a “down payment” on funding the war in FY 2009 (which runs from October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009). This additional $70 billion would fund the war through at least March 2009 and (depending upon how it is spent and how other Department of Defense funds are utilized) most likely through June 2009.

That would bring the total Iraq – Afghanistan war supplemental for military spending to $178 billion (with more no doubt to be appropriated after the next President assumes office in January 2009). And don’t forget that in a series of votes in October, November and December 2007, Congress already appropriated $86.8 billion for the Iraq – Afghanistan war for this fiscal year.

Negotiations to develop the current supplemental spending bill have been taking place behind closed doors between Democratic leadership in the House and the Senate. These negotiations are laying the ground work for a quick vote on the bill once it reaches the floor of the House and the floor of the Senate. These negotiations are also laying the groundwork for the possibility that identical bills may be voted upon in both the House and the Senate, which would eliminate the necessity to create a conference committee (consisting of members of the House and Senate) to craft a final compromise bill.

According to an April 29 report by CQ Politics:

“A senior House aide said that the current plan is to hold three separate votes in the House: one for the war funding, one for domestic items, and one for a series of Iraq-related war policy provisions. These votes, which likely would all be called ‘amendments,’ would then be joined together and sent to the Senate as a package.”

It is quite possible—indeed probable—that the House version will not be publicly available until the morning of the vote. It is also quite possible that the date the vote takes place on Iraq – Afghanistan war spending won’t be known until the night before the vote is scheduled to occur. This means that it will be next to impossible to mobilize significant opposition to the Iraq – Afghanistan war spending bill.

Therefore, it is indeed critical that phone calls begin now to Representatives and Senators to express opposition to any additional funding for the Iraq war—and especially so if the funding does not have concrete, date-certain timetables for complete withdrawal from Iraq with the provision that the funds can only be used for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

CALL CONGRESS TODAY

It is critical that phone calls and lobbying—both legal and extralegal civil disobedience—be on-going at the offices of Representatives and Senators with the message being simple: Vote against any additional funds for the Iraq war.

You can contact your Representative and Senators via the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121.

You can find out your Representative’s and Senators’ direct contact information by visiting the website of Contacting Congress: http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

Following is a “Question and Answer” piece on the status of the Iraq – Afghanistan war supplemental as well as two charts that summarize the components of the war spending request.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE IRAQ – AFGHANISTAN WAR SUPPLEMENTAL FOR FY 2008

How much did President Bush request for the Iraq – Afghanistan war supplemental?

President Bush requested a total of $189.3 billion in funding for the Iraq – Afghanistan wars in Fiscal Year 2008. This Fiscal Year runs from October 1, 2007 through September 30, 2008.

This includes: $17.8 billion for Personnel Costs; $92.5 billion for Operations & Maintenance costs; and $71.6 billion for Procurement costs.

How much has Congress already appropriated for the wars in Fiscal Year 2008?

$86.8 billion is already appropriated by Congress for FY 2008. Funds were appropriated on three occasions. In September, Congress appropriated $5.2 billion in the Continuing Resolution (HR 52). In November, Congress appropriated $11.6 billion and included this amount in the baseline budget for the Department of Defense. In December, Congress appropriated an additional $70 billion as a supplemental included in the Omnibus Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2008.

How much remains to be appropriated for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles in FY 2008?

Congress fully funded the procurement of MRAP vehicles in the Continuing Resolution of September and in the Department of Defense baseline budget of November. It appropriated a total of $16.8 billion for procurement, maintenance and transport of MRAPs. This is the total amount requested by the Bush Administration for FY 2008 for MRAP vehicles.

How much remains to be appropriated of the amount requested by President Bush?

Of the funds requested by President Bush for the military, $102.4 billion remains to be considered by Congress.

This includes: $16.7 billion for Personnel costs; $34.9 billion for Operations & Maintenance costs; and $44.4 billion for Procurement costs.

Will the final Iraq – Afghanistan war supplemental be available to the public before the vote in Congress?

Yes, but substantively no. The probability is high that the pattern of prior supplemental spending bills will be followed. Backroom deals will be negotiated by the powers-that-be and a final bill will be posted on the House of Representatives website on the morning of the vote. In May 2007, the final version of the House supplemental spending bill was not posted and available to the public until 6 a.m. on the morning of the vote.

Do funds appropriated by Congress for FY 2008 have to be spent by the military before September 30, 2008?

A Fiscal Year for the federal government begins on October 1 and ends the following September 30.

Funds appropriated for Personnel Costs and for Operations and Maintenance costs must be spent during the fiscal year for which they are appropriated—or, in this case, by September 30, 2008.

However, Procurement funds can be carried over from one year into the next. The military operates on a 3 year procurement cycle. In order to allow for bids to be placed; contracts to be signed; production to be completed and equipment to be delivered, Congress allows money appropriated for procurement to be spent up to three years into the future. Therefore, if Congress ends up approving the full $71.6 billion for procurement originally requested by President Bush, the Department of Defense will have until September 30, 2010 to actually spend the money for procurement. Much of the equipment to be purchased with these funds won’t be delivered to the military until 2009 or 2010.

The purchase of body armor and other protective gear for soldiers is contained within the Operation and Maintenance portion of the budget, a portion of the budget that must be spent by September 30, 2008.

Is President Bush seeking any Iraq – Afghanistan war funds for Fiscal Year 2009?

Yes. President Bush included a $70 billion “placeholder” in his budget for FY 2009 (which runs from October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009). This is the same tactic that was used in prior fiscal years when Congress approved “bridge” funds or “reserve” funds for the Iraq – Afghanistan wars which were then contained as separate “supplemental” sections within the baseline Defense appropriations bill.

In testimony before Congress in early February, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates estimated that the total spending request for FY 2009 for the Iraq – Afghanistan wars will be about $170 billion. He stated that this is only a guess and is based solely upon a straight line projection of current year costs into next year.

VCNV Author
Jeff Leys

Assessing House Voting Records on Iraq War Funding - Feb 15, 2008

Jeff Leys — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 11:25:34 -0600

Short Information Teaser
Assessments of Voting Records of Representatives on Iraq War Funding - Feb 15, 2008
Excerpt
February 15, 2008

Download Full Report as PDF

Congress is now considering President Bush’s request for an additional $102.5 billion in supplemental spending for the Iraq – Afghanistan wars. The central objectives of the antiwar effort must continue to be an end to all funding for the war in Iraq; an end to all military action against Iraq; and the complete and immediate withdrawal of all U.S. military forces from Iraq.

At the same time, it is important to examine the recent voting records of Representatives. An assessment of voting records will assist in developing strategies and tactics to use in lobbying Representatives to bring the Iraq war to an end. These strategies will no doubt include both legal and extralegal (i.e., nonviolent civil disobedience and nonviolent civil resistance) forms of lobbying.

The following assessments should be used as a tool in developing lobbying strategies rather than as the “be all, end all” assessment of Representatives and there are varying degrees of support or opposition to the Iraq war within each grouping that follows.

Download Full Report as PDF

Body
February 15, 2008

Download Full Report as PDF

Congress is now considering President Bush’s request for an additional $102.5 billion in supplemental spending for the Iraq – Afghanistan wars. The central objectives of the antiwar effort must continue to be an end to all funding for the war in Iraq; an end to all military action against Iraq; and the complete and immediate withdrawal of all U.S. military forces from Iraq.

At the same time, it is important to examine the recent voting records of Representatives. An assessment of voting records will assist in developing strategies and tactics to use in lobbying Representatives to bring the Iraq war to an end. These strategies will no doubt include both legal and extralegal (i.e., nonviolent civil disobedience and nonviolent civil resistance) forms of lobbying.

The following assessments should be used as a tool in developing lobbying strategies rather than as the “be all, end all” assessment of Representatives and there are varying degrees of support or opposition to the Iraq war within each grouping that follows.

Download Full Report as PDF

VCNV Author
Jeff Leys
Project
The Occupation Project