Writings by 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

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

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

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

Resisting the Afghanistan - Pakistan War

Dan Pearson — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 09:52:19 -0500

Short Information Teaser

From “Ground the Drones…Lest We Reap the Whirlwind” a ten-day vigil outside of Creech Airforce base in Nevada

Excerpt

April 10, 2009

Creech AFB — Fourteen peace and social justice activists were arrested on April 9 at Creech Air Force Base in Indian Springs, Nevada. The arrests occurred during a 10 day vigil at the gates to Creech–which is home to members of the Air Force who “pilot” the Predator and Reaper drones used in the Afghanistan - Pakistan war.

Body

April 10, 2009

Participants in the Sacred Peace Walk (organized by Nevada Desert Experience) arrived at Creech in the late afternoon, after walking 14 miles that day en route to the Nevada Test Site. With the vigil’s numbers strengthened by the walkers, participants gathered together to reflect upon the lessons to be learned from the examples of the White Rose student movement in Nazi Germany and Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s work to oust Hitler from power through a coup attempt.

The White Rose distributed fliers calling upon the German people to actively resist their country’s continuation of the war and to work for the downfall of Hitler. For this act, many were executed. Bonhoeffer returned to Germany from the safety of the United States in order to participate in the work to overthrow Hitler. In explaining his decision to return to Germany, rather than riding out the war in the U.S., Bonhoeffer said that the choice before the German people was clear–to work for a German victory in the war and thereby destroy civilization or to work for Germany’s defeat such that civilization might survive. He wrote that he could not make this choice from the safety of the U.S. but, rather, must return to Germany to act upon his convictions despite the risks.

As the reflections upon the White Rose and Dietrich Bonhoeffer drew to a conclusion, the Ground the Drones campaign vigil began to move towards the main gate of Creech Air Force Base. Remarkably enough, the gates were left open and fourteen people entered the base.

Air Force security personnel immediately ordered the fourteen to stop and to leave the base. The fourteen sat down to defuse any tension in the air yet firmly informed the Air Force that they intended to remain. They were seeking an audience with the men and women who work and serve at Creech so that a conversation might take place regarding the on-going use of the Predator and Reaper drones in the Afghanistan - Pakistan war. Needless to say, their request for such a conversation did not carry the day.

The Nevada State Highway Patrol was called to the scene, as well as the Las Vegas Metro Police. The Creech 14 were offered a deal in which, if they agreed to walk off the base, they would be issued a citation and released on the spot. All fourteen declined to walk off the base. Subsequently, the state and local law enforcement agencies arrested the fourteen on the charge of trespass. The 14 were transported to the Clark County Detention Facility to be booked, processed and, hopefully, released on a personal recognizance bond with a date to return for court proceedings. As of this writing though, it is not certain whether in fact all fourteen will be released on their own recognizance or whether, instead, they will be held on cash bail.

This act of nonviolent resistance points the way forward to build opposition to the expansion of the U.S. war in Central Asia. Earlier this week, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced that he will seek additional funding in the Department of Defense budget to build and sustain an additional 50 Predator and Reaper unmanned aerial vehicles. This will be a 62 percent increase in the military’s capability to utilize drones in on-going warfare. Secretary Gates comments follow up on President Obama’s earlier decisions: 1) to continue attacks along the Afghanistan - Pakistan border (including attacks into Pakistan itself); and 2) to increase troop levels first by 17,000 followed by another 4,000 troops. As well, President Obama is seeking over $80 billion in additional supplemental funds for this fiscal year alone (which ends on September 30) to fight the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Those arrested at Creech Air Force Base came from all parts of the country, north to south, east to west, and included: John Dear, S.J. (New Mexico); Kathy Kelly (Chicago - Voices for Creative Nonviolence); Louie Vitale, O.F.M. (Oakland); Renee Espeland (Des Moines Catholic Worker); Steve Kelly, S.J. (California - Pacific Life Community); Judy Homanich (Binghamton, NY); Jerry Zawada, O.F.M. (Arizona); Mariah Klusmire (New Mexico); Dennis DuVall (Arizona); Elizabeth Pappalardo (Illinois); Brian Terrell (Strangers & Guests Catholic Worker Farm, Maloy, Iowa); Eve Tetaz (Washington, D.C.); Brad Lyttle (Illinois); and Sister Megan Rice, S.H.C.J. (Nevada Desert Experience).

To learn more about the Predator and Reaper, please visit the website of the Nevada Desert Experience or email Voices for Creative Nonviolence at .

Jeff Leys is Co-Coordinator of Voices for Creative Nonviolence. He can be reach via email,

VCNV Author

Jeff Leys

Project

Ground the Drones…Lest We Reap the Whirlwind

13 Arrested at Fort McCoy for Opposing Iraq War

Jeff Leys — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 03:11:31 -0500

Project

WITNESS AGAINST WAR 2008: From Chicago to St. Paul

Short Information Teaser

Arrests at Fort McCoy Wisconsin on August 10

Excerpt

August 10, 2008

View Photos

August 9 was a day of preparation for Witness Against War. Preparation for the act of nonviolent civil resistance to take place the following day.

We gathered at the Lafayette Town Hall just north of Sparta. Our host’s family goes back 7 generations on this land. His aunt and uncle donated the property on which the town hall now sits.

VCNV Author

Jeff Leys

Voices Author

Jeff Leys

Body

August 10, 2008

View Photos

August 9 was a day of preparation for Witness Against War. Preparation for the act of nonviolent civil resistance to take place the following day.

We gathered at the Lafayette Town Hall just north of Sparta. Our host’s family goes back 7 generations on this land. His aunt and uncle donated the property on which the town hall now sits.

The nonviolence workshop was to begin at 2:00 p.m. At 1:50 p.m. we looked at the clock on the wall and wondered aloud whether anyone would be coming. Only our friend Steve Carlson from Trego, Wisconsin had arrived by that time. The surrounding hills and bluffs prevented our cell phones from receiving signals, so we had no way of knowing whether those we expected to arrive were 30 seconds away or 30 minutes away (or stranded on the side of the road).

Then, as if they were waiting together just down the road and around the curve, all our colleagues began to arrive within minutes of each other. Christian Peacemaker Teams arrived with the 15 people currently training to become team members or reservists for CPT. Brian and Renee arrived from Des Moines. Ceylon and Christine arrived from Memphis. Joy from Madison and John from Eau Claire. The Lafayette Town Hall was transformed from the grouping of Witness Against War walkers to a near overflow gathering of committed social justice advocates.

Planning progressed for the following day’s action at Fort McCoy as we began to put flesh on a fairly skeletal action concept. By the end of the evening plans were in place for the following day.

Sunday, August 10, began with breakfast at the home of Dick and Violet, our hosts. We arrived at Tunnel City, our starting point that day, at 9:30 a.m., in time to meet with Sheriff Pederson to discuss the day’s walk. We explained that we intended to walk on the shoulder of the road facing traffic, as required by state traffic laws. He explained that he’d met with his officers and with officers of the Wisconsin State Highway Patrol that morning. Their intent was to ensure that the walk was able to proceed safely, and not to interfere with the walk’s progress. Indeed State Patrol and County Sheriff patrol cars accompanied the walk as it processed from Tunnel City to the edge of Fort McCoy and onward. One patrol officer turned on his vehicles flashing red and blue lights to slow traffic down along the highway (with a speed limit of 55 miles per hour and a fairly narrow shoulder), keeping a health distance form the front of the walk and backing up on an even pace with the walk.

We began walking at about 9:45 a.m. The first question mark of the day arrived three miles into the walk. At that point Highway 21, on which we were walking, enters Fort McCoy with a yellow sign informing motorists that they are “Entering a Military Area.” We were relatively certain we’d be able to proceed without any difficulty since we’d received a letter from Colonel Daniel Culver of the base advising us that normally the only time the base law enforcement would get involved along Highway 21 is if the operations of the base were being interfered with. Since we were walking on the shoulder, we were relatively certain we’d be fine. Yet, the question mark remained: would there be a change in the base’s position now that the walk had arrived? Would we be met by Fort McCoy security determined to prevent us from crossing the base?

The answer was “No”. Fort McCoy’s command would not block the progress of the walk. We would keep on walking forward, never turning back.

Witness Against War aimed to engage in civil disobedience / civil resistance at the main gate of Fort McCoy. A flashing traffic control sign located along the highway near the entry to Fort McCoy advised incoming traffic that the main gate was closed and directed traffic elsewhere.

Had Fort McCoy decided to wait us out? To allow us to engage in a vigil on the entryway into the base, without allowing us onto the base? Since our intent was to remain in order to gain entry into the base to talk with soldiers about the war, the question began to be raised: How long would we have to wait to gain entry?

Witness Against War arrived at Fort McCoy at 11:45 a.m. We gathered along the shoulder of the highway, across from the main gate. Those of us intending to seek entry into the base-and to risk arrest in doing so-gathered together. We thirteen crossed the highway together when a break in traffic made it safe to do so.

Fort McCoy had placed wooden horses across the driveway entrance to the base. Two officers from the base security were present. As we approached, and began to pass the wooden horses, Fort McCoy’s law enforcement engaged us in conversation. The officer advised us that if we went beyond the horses and continued to walk up the driveway towards the entrance that we would be subject to arrest. He asked if there was any communication which would like to present to him for him to relay to the base commander. We replied that we sought to distribute an open letter regarding the Iraq war to those currently serving on the base and to engage in dialogue with those on the base.

The letter we sought to deliver began:

“”We today come to Fort McCoy to seek an end to the war in and occupation of Iraq by the United States. We come to Fort McCoy because of its key role in training National Guard units deploying to Iraq-a training that should end immediately with the commitment of the U.S. to keep National Guard units home and withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq….”

The letter concluded:

“…the strain upon service men and women and their families continues unabated with repeat deployments to Iraq. The Washington National Guard’s 81st Heavy Brigade Combat Team will deploy to Iraq for the second time this fall. The 32nd Red Arrow Brigade Combat Team of the Wisconsin National Guard will deploy to Iraq in 2009. This will be the largest deployment to combat of the Wisconsin National Guard since World War II when it logged the most days in theater of any U.S. Army unit. We call upon the United States to keep the National Guard at home in the U.S. and to end these repeat deployments abroad.

“We come to Fort McCoy to, in some small way, act in solidarity with members of the military who choose to nonviolently resist this war by refusing to be deployed to Iraq. We encourage members of the active duty military, Reserve and National Guard to consider refusing deployment orders and to be in contact with the GI Rights Hotline regarding their rights within the military at 1-800-394-9544.”

We stated that we intended to move forward to deliver the letter to those on the base and that we understood the potential consequences of doing so. He said he understood what we intended to do and moved aside as we processed up the driveway.

Then a “swarm” of officers from Fort McCoy emerged from the garage at the base entry point. We were walking slowly and deliberately towards them. They were walking slowly and deliberately towards us. It was clear that we would meet somewhere in the middle but that neither felt intimidated by the other nor that either side felt as if it was necessary to try to intimidate the other side.

We thirteen were arrested, processed and released in short order on the offense of trespass to land. We’ll be notified at some later time the date on which we are to appear in court. Those arrested include: Kathy Kelly, 54, Co-Coordinator of Voices for Creative Nonviolence ; Jeff Leys, 44, of Watertown, Wisconsin; Joy First, 54, of Madison, WI; John Bachman, 56, Eau Claire, WI; Brian Terrell, 52, of Des Moines, IA; Renee Espeland, 47 of Des Moines, IA; Kryss Chupp, 49, Christian Peacemaker Teams, Chicago; Ceylon Mooney, 33, Memphis, TN; Eileen Hanson, 34, Winona, MN; Joshua Brollier, 25, Clarkesville, TN; Lauren Cannon, 38, seminarian at Chicago Theological Seminary, Chicago, IL; Alice Gerard, 51, of Grand Island, NY; and Gene Stoltzfus, 68, of Ontario, Canada.

All but one were released the same day. Kathy Kelly was detained on an outstanding warrant that dates back over ten years to an act of nonviolent civil resistance at Project ELF. ELF was the Navy’s old transmitter system, closed in 2004, that played a key role in the nuclear first strategy of the United States (ELF was the bell ringer to call U.S. nuclear missile subs to the ocean’s surface to receive precise launch orders for a nuclear first strike against another country). It’s expected that she will be transferred to Ashland County to appear before the judge on the warrant. Arrest warrants have also been issued for several others previously arrested and convicted for acts of resistance to Project ELF who refused to pay fines.

Witness Against War continues westward to La Crosse later this week and then begins its northwestward trek along the Mississippi River, aiming to arrive in Saint Paul on August 30, in time for the Republican National Convention. Emphasizing that the issue is not about Democrat or Republican; that it’s not about Left or Right; but rather that it is about what is Right and Wrong-Witness Against War began its trek in Chicago, site of the 1968 Democratic Convention and will end in Saint Paul, site of this year’s Republican Convention. It truly is a matter of challenging the powers-that-be within both political parties and holding both accountable for ending the Iraq and Afghanistan war.

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

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

VCNV Author

Jeff Leys

Project

The Occupation Project

Q & A: Iraq - Afghanistan War Supplemental, Feb 13, 2008

Jeff Leys — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:01:04 -0600

Short Information Teaser

Q & A on the $102 billion war spending request still before Congress. Written Feb 13, 2008.

Excerpt

Download Q & A
PDF file - Q & A with charts
PDF file — charts only

February 14, 2008

Congress will soon begin consideration of an additional $102.4 billion in supplemental funding for the Iraq – Afghanistan wars. On February 13, Representative Jack Murtha (Chair of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee) announced that he intends to produce a final version of the latest 2008 Iraq – Afghanistan war supplemental spending bill by the end of February. After this it will be considered by the full House Appropriations Committee and then go to the full floor of the House for a vote. The Senate similarly is beginning to develop its version of the latest war supplemental spending bill.

The House bill will be developed behind closed doors. No hearings are scheduled between now and the end of February to discuss the bill in the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee. It is not known when the final war supplemental spending bill will be made available to the public. It may well end up that the final supplemental spending bill is presented as a “fait accompli”—an accomplished act—on the floors of the House and of the Senate only hours before the vote is to take place. In May 2007, the final spending bill was not released to the public until about 6 a.m. on the morning of the vote. In December 2007, the funds for the Iraq war were tucked into a Senate amendment to an omnibus appropriations bill—an amendment available to the public only after it was submitted on the floor of the Senate by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

It is also highly unlikely that any language on partial troop withdrawal will be included in the supplemental spending bill this time around. Representative Murtha stated that he will recommend the inclusion of some form of withdrawal language in the bill, though stopped short of stating partial withdrawal language will in fact be included in the bill. However, such language was stripped out of the final version of war supplemental spending bills that passed Congress in May 2007 and in December 2007.

Therefore, 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

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.

Body

Download Q & A
PDF file - Q & A with charts
PDF file — charts only

February 14, 2008

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

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 $189.2 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: $17.7 billion for Personnel Costs; $84.3 billion for Operations & Maintenance costs; and $67.2 billion for Procurement costs.

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

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

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

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

This includes: $16.7 billion for Personnel costs; $34 billion for Operations & Maintenance costs; and $44.3 billion for Procurement costs.

When will Congress act upon the remaining $102.4 billion requested by President Bush?

It is not known precisely when Congress will act upon the remaining $102.4 billion of President Bush’s request.

However, Representative Murtha stated that he intends to have a final bill prepared by the end of February. The bill will then go to the full House Appropriations Committee for a vote and, after that, to the full House of Representatives for a vote. In each of the last two years, the House voted on its version of the bill in the week leading up to the start of a two week recess. The recess this year begins on March 15 and ends on March 31.

The Senate must then pass its version of a supplemental spending bill. In each of the past two years, the Senate passed its version between mid-April and the first week of May.

It is possible that a vote on the latest Iraq – Afghanistan war supplemental could be delayed in both the House and the Senate until sometime after General Petraeus (Commander of the Multi-National Forces – Iraq) presents a report to Congress in April (expected during the week of April 7).

Will Congress hold hearings on the President’s request for additional Iraq – Afghanistan war funds before crafting legislation to appropriate the funds?

Perhaps. Perhaps not. In the spring of 2007, Representative John Murtha (Chair of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee) held hearings on the Iraq – Afghanistan war supplemental spending request. Similar hearings were conducted in the Senate. These were hearings on the President’s request for war appropriations for Fiscal Year 2007 (which ended on September 30, 2007).

However, no such subcommittee hearings were held in the fall of 2007 before Congress appropriated money for the Iraq – Afghanistan wars. Indeed, when Congress appropriated $70 billion for the wars in December 2007, about half of that money was added through an amendment made by Senator Mitch McConnell on the floor of the Senate which was included in the final bill.

Normally, when Congress appropriates money, a conference committee writes a report detailing how the money is to be spent. No such report accompanies the $70 billion appropriated by Congress. Instead, the details are included in documentation submitted by Senator McConnell and inserted into the Congressional Record at the time of the vote.

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

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 $67.2 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.

Will Congress attempt to attach any loose language on withdrawal to the Iraq – Afghanistan war supplemental?

It seems highly unlikely that Congress will attach any loose language on partial troop withdrawal to an Iraq – Afghanistan war supplemental this spring.

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

Download charts for Q & A - PDF file

VCNV Author

Jeff Leys

Project

The Occupation Project

Slip Sliding Away: House Votes on Iraq War Funding Today, November 14

Jeff Leys — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:56:32 -0600

Short Information Teaser

House prepares to vote on new Iraq war spending bill

Excerpt

November 14, 2007

The Democratic Party’s Barbershop Quartet strikes again-caving in marvelous manner on the Iraq war. “You know the nearer your destination, the more you slip sliding away,” sang Simon and Garfunkel.

If ending the Iraq war is our destination, then Pelosi, Obey, Murtha and the Democrats are slip sliding us all further away.

Today, November 14, the House will vote on H.R. 4156-the newest Iraq - Afghanistan war supplemental spending bill. In the finest tradition of democracy, the text of the bill was not publicly available until last night.

Body

November 14, 2007

If ending the Iraq war is our destination, then Pelosi, Obey, Murtha and the Democrats are slip sliding us all further away.

HR 4156 provides $50 billion to wage the Iraq - Afghanistan wars through September 30, 2008. It also moves backwards in setting any form of timetable for an ultimate withdrawal from Iraq. HR 4156 is a definite setback when compared to the war spending bill initially passed by the House in March 2007.

Back then, the Democratic party leadership crafted a plan that required that the redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq begin by March 1, 2008 and be completed within 180 days (end of August 2008). The plan provided that U.S. troops could be left in Iraq for certain purposes, namely protecting the U.S. Embassy and U.S. personnel; training the Iraqi Army; and engaging in counter-terrorist military action. Erik Leaver of the Institute for Policy Studies estimated that these provisions would have left upwards of 40 to 60 thousand U.S. troops in Iraq.

But compare the plan of March 2007 to the plan of December 2007, as laid out in HR 4156.

HR 4156 requires that the redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq begin within 30 days of enactment of the law. That is the only portion of the redeployment language that is mandatory rather than permissive.

Regarding completion of the redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq, HR 4156 states that:

“The goal for the completion of the transition of United States Armed Forces to a limited presence and missions and described in subsection (e) shall be a date that is not later than December 15, 2008.”

So, the Democratic Party leadership in the House shifts its position on redeployment from a MANDATORY completion date of the end of August 2008 to a GOAL completion date of December 15, 2008. The only thing mandatory about the goal date is that it be by December 15, 2008. But, as any labor union negotiator will tell you, a GOAL is permissive and unenforceable absent any language to make it enforceable. And, guess what, there is no enforcement mechanism in HR 4156 if President Bush does not meet the goal of completing redeployment by December 15, 2008.

But that’s only the half of it.

HR 4156 would significantly expand the purposes for which U.S. troops could remain in Iraq when compared to the provisions of the Iraq supplemental passed by the House in March 2007.

In March 2007, the House war spending bill provided that U.S. troops remaining in Iraq after partial redeployment would remain for: “Engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with global reach.”

Compare that language to the language in the bill the House will vote on today. HR 4156 leaves U.S. troops in Iraq for: “Engaging in targeted counter-terrorism operations against al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda affiliated groups and other terrorist organizations in Iraq.”

Gone from the current bill, HR 4156, is any language stating that the organizations have “global reach.” This is a potentially significant expansion of the role of U.S. troops remaining in Iraq when compared to that perhaps envisioned last March. Under the March 2007 language, it could plausibly have been argued that the Mehdi Army and various Iraqi militias are not “terrorist organizations with global reach” and therefore outside the scope of the mission of the remaining U.S. forces in Iraq. With the elimination of “global reach” from this clause, the Mehdi Army and all other Iraqi militias are fair game for U.S. military action in Iraq (assuming the U.S. makes the argument that any militia outside of Iraq’s standing army is a “terrorist organization”).

Another significant change from March 2007 to the bill being voted upon today is the elimination of the clause “limited in duration and scope”. While that clause was never defined in the prior legislation that passed the House, it would have served to potentially put some limitations on the scale and length of U.S. military operations in Iraq. Absent that clause, no such limitation exists within HR 4156.

So, then, what is to be done?

Immediately, all should call their Representative and urge them to vote against HR 4156. It is a bill that continues the war with no end in sight, with no enforceable timetable for withdrawal, and expands the mission of any U.S. forces which might remain after a partial withdrawal. You can reach your Representative via the Capitol Switchboard, 1-202-224-3121.

Congress will take up additional Iraq - Afghanistan war funding when it returns in January, regardless of what happens with HR 4156-whether it becomes law or not. We must be prepared to use all forms of nonviolent action to bring about an end to the war. This includes legal lobbying. But it also includes extralegal lobbying.

The Occupation Project, coordinated by Voices for Creative Nonviolence (http://www.vcnv.org), will be refocused and re-energized come the turn of the year to focus upon Representatives and Senators who refuse to publicly commit to voting against additional war funding for the Iraq - Afghanistan wars. Over 400 arrests occurred in 2007 at the offices of over 42 Representatives and Senators as part of the Occupation Project campaign. Let’s double, triple or more that number of arrests and our commitment to the use of nonviolent civil disobedience as a form of extralegal lobbying.

And let us press those who would be President to publicly commit to the complete and immediate withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq when they become President of the U.S.-and to publicly commit to opposing any U.S. military action against Iran. Work within the primary and caucus systems is necessary and important. Nonviolent civil resistance during the campaign is necessary as well. Launched last week in Des Moines, Iowa, social justice and anti-war advocates are occupying the campaign offices of Presidential candidates to press for an immediate end to the Iraq war. Dubbed SODaPOP (Seasons of Discontent: A Presidential Occupation Project)(http://www.vcnv.org) the campaign is focused upon Iowa and will expand nationally.

We have a choice to make. We can roll over and play dead and bemoan the betrayal of those who reside in the House, Senate and White House. Or we can reclaim the best of our heritage of struggles for social justice and begin to take the risks commensurate with the risks encountered by Iraqi citizens and U.S. soldiers every day that the war in Iraq continues.

We should lobby Congress legally, by all means. But we should also lobby Congress by all nonviolent means at our disposal-including the extralegal lobbying means of civil disobedience and nonviolent civil resistance.

And we should vote-at the ballot box, in the primaries and in the caucuses. But we should also vote with our lives-in nonviolent civil disobedience and civil resistance to the war that engulfs Iraq and the U.S.

VCNV Author

Jeff Leys

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

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

Short Information Teaser

Legislative update on status of Iraq - Afghanistan War Spending

Excerpt

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.

Body

October 7, 2007
Download PDF

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.

VCNV Author

Jeff Leys

Project

The Occupation Project

Our Bonhoeffer Moment

Jeff Leys — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:09:01 -0500

Short Information Teaser

Closing statement Jeff Leys prepared for a jury trial in Waukegan, Illinois.

Excerpt

Voices for Creative Nonviolence (Co-Coordinator)
October 2, 2007

The Bonhoeffer Moment of nonviolent civil resistance and disobedience to the world war being waged by the United States is clearly at hand. As Congress considers an additional $190 billion to fund the Iraq – Afghanistan war through September 2008 and as the threats of war against Iran become increasingly loud, it is time for us to learn lessons from the German resistance to Hitler, to the Nazi regime and to the war waged by the German nation-state. We must engage in the Long Resistance to this current world war, using every nonviolent means to bring about its end.

I was set to be tried on October 2 for an act of nonviolent civil resistance at the U.S. Military Entrance Processing Command. The judge dismissed the charge the day of the trial. Following is the closing statement I prepared for the jury trial in Waukegan, Illinois.

Body

Voices for Creative Nonviolence (Co-Coordinator)
October 2, 2007

Our Bonhoeffer Moment:

In 1942, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Lutheran theologian engaged in resistance work to bring about an end to the Nazi regime, penned the following lines in his letter “After Ten Years”. He was in prison and under investigation when he wrote:

“We have been silent witnesses of evil deeds; we have been drenched by many storms; we have learnt the arts of equivocation and pretence; experience has made us suspicious of others and kept us from being truthful and open; intolerable conflicts have worn us down and even made us cynical. Are we still of any use? What we shall need is not geniuses, or cynics, or misanthropes, or clever tacticians, but plain, honest, straightforward men. Will our inward power of resistance be strong enough, and our honesty with ourselves remorseless enough, for us to find our way back to simplicity and straightforwardness?”

Silence.

Silence is golden.

Silence is Death.

Silence in the face of our country waging a world war is complicity in the war; is complicity in the deaths of thousands of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens; is complicity in a crime against humanity.

I chose to break the silence at the U.S. Military Entrance Processing Command (MEPCOM) on July 5, 2006. I choose to break the silence today.

I chose to act at MEPCOM last July for a number of reasons. MEPCOM is the command headquarters for the system of Military Entrance Processing Stations. Each person entering the military takes their oath of enlistment at one of these stations. MEPCOM, as the command headquarters of this system, is the focal point of injustice being done to those who serve in our country’s military.

I acted to oppose the injustice of stop-move orders which force service members to extend their tour of duty beyond its scheduled end date.

I acted to oppose the injustice of stop-loss orders which force service members to remain in the military beyond the agreed upon end of enlistment date.

I acted to demand that our country provide the highest quality health care for veterans and their families, as well as for all who live within the U.S.

I acted in solidarity with those members of the military who have chosen to risk prison for refusing to comply with orders to deploy to Iraq to fight in an unjust war.

I acted to demand that our country immediately withdraw from Iraq and recommit itself to rebuilding the Common Good in Iraq and in the United States—funding hospitals, health care clinics, schools, jobs programs and the like rather than funding war, death and destruction.

I acted to engage in a conspiracy of Life with Iraqi citizens suffering over these past 16 years of economic and military warfare and to act in a conspiracy of Life with U.S. soldiers, citizens and others who are engaged in nonviolent action to end the U.S. war in and occupation of Iraq.

Does this form of civilly disobedient action accomplish anything? I don’t know. I believe it does, but I simply don’t know within the context of a world war—the first world war begun by a democracy. For guidance, I look to those German citizens who engaged in resistance work to bring an end to the Nazi regime and to end the world war.

In 1943, German students formed the group the White Rose which advocated for the overthrow of the Nazi regime and for an end to the war. Their simple, yet profound, act was to distribute flyers advancing their positions calling for resistance to Hitler and his regime. Once discovered and arrested, they were executed by the German state. Yet 50 years later, everyone in Germany would come to know of Hans and Sophie Scholl and their comrades in the struggle to end the war and the regime.

In 1945, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and many others were also executed by the German state for engaging in resistance activities to overthrow Hitler. Bonhoeffer, in 1939, had the option of remaining in the U.S. where he would have been able to ride out the war in the safety of academia. Instead he chose to return to Germany to participate in resistance work. Writing as a Christian theologian about his country in which the Church was a willing accomplice in crimes against humanity, Bonhoeffer stated his reason for returning:

“Christians in Germany will face the terrible alternative of either willing the defeat of their nation in order that Christian civilization may survive, or willing the victory of their nation and thereby destroying our civilization. I know which of these alternatives I must choose; but I cannot make this choice in security.”

Bonhoeffer knew what choice he had to make, he made it, and he paid the price for it.

Let this be our Bonhoeffer Moment of resistance to our country’s world war in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere that the guns are being aimed.

The examples of Hans Scholl, Sophie Scholl and Dietrich Bonhoeffer echo down through the years. In 1983, German judges and prosecutors recalled the example set by the German resistance efforts to Hitler and the Nazi regime and crimes against humanity and determined that it was their obligation to act to prevent nuclear genocide from occurring. German judges and prosecutors actively blockaded the U.S. military bases to which Pershing nuclear cruise missiles were being deployed. They acted to uphold international law even though that meant violating national law.

So does an act of entering the U.S. Military Entrance Processing Command do any good? I don’t know. I do know that my action did not stand alone on that day. I do know that others are engaged in active nonviolent civil disobedience to end the Iraq war. Since February 5 of this year, over 700 people have been arrested across the U.S. in actions to end the Iraq war—with many more arrests to come.

I ask you today to join with us in this conspiracy of Life. You have the opportunity today to find me guilty or not guilty. If you believe that the war in Iraq is proper and just, you should find me guilty—regardless of what the law says. If you believe the war in Iraq must be brought to an end today, you should find me not guilty—regardless of what the law says.

The choice is clear and stark. Life or Death. Not guilty or guilty. The future of the war is in your hands today. I urge you to follow your conscience—regardless of the law.

Jeff Leys is Co-Coordinator of Voices for Creative Nonviolence (http://www.vcnv.org) and a national organizer with Seasons of Discontent: A Presidential Occupation Project as well as the Occupation Project. He can be contacted via email, .

VCNV Author

Jeff Leys