|
$25 Billion More Sought to Fund Wars
Thursday 06 May 2004 White House Hoped to Delay Request Until After Election The White House yesterday asked Congress for an additional $25 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the fiscal year that begins in October, reversing course on its plan to wait until after the election to seek more money. White House budget director Joshua B. Bolten and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz made an unscheduled trip to Capitol Hill yesterday afternoon to lay out the request in a meeting with House and Senate Republican leaders. The administration's request was driven by unanticipated combat, higher-than-expected troop levels and rising political pressure, White House and congressional aides said. "While we do not know the precise costs for operations next year, recent developments on the ground and increased demands on our troops indicate the need to plan for contingencies," President Bush said in a statement. "We must make sure there is no disruption in funding and resources for our troops." Virtually all the money would go to Army operations and maintenance, White House spokesman Trent Duffy said. But a senior administration official speaking to reporters said the $25 billion will be treated as a reserve, to be tapped only at the president's request. Bush included no war funding in his fiscal 2005 budget, and he had hoped to avoid such a request until after the November election, fearing a divisive debate over the war's conduct and future, Republican congressional aides said. Congress has approved two wartime emergency spending laws totaling $166 billion - including $149 billion for Iraq. But in recent weeks, military officials publicly stated that U.S. forces were experiencing financial problems and would be likely to run out of money even before Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year. Accounting tricks probably could patch those spending holes, they said, but it was unclear how the military could wait until January or February, when the administration planned to detail its next war spending request. Democrats and some Republicans have urged Bush to detail the cost of operations and request additional funding as soon as possible. The Democrats used their weekly radio address Saturday to air a critique by 1st Lt. Paul Rieckhoff, who spent 10 months in Iraq. "There were not enough vehicles, not enough ammunition, not enough medical supplies, not enough water," he said. "There was not enough body armor, leaving my men to dodge bullets with Vietnam-era flak vests." The White House conceded yesterday that the $25 billion it is seeking is likely to be only the first installment. "We will pursue a full FY 2005 supplemental request when we can better estimate precise costs," Bush said. That will probably be early next year, Duffy said. In February, Bolten said the president would seek as much as $50 billion next year. But at that time the Defense Department expected U.S. troop levels in Iraq to be about 115,000 by now, and about half that number by the summer of 2005. Now, the Pentagon is preparing to maintain a force of 138,000 for at least the next 18 months. House and Senate budget negotiators already agreed to include $50 billion in the budget blueprint for 2005, but defense experts say even that amount will fall short. One House Appropriations Committee aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the full cost of war in 2005 will be around $65 billion, more than 21/2 times the president's request. Rep. David Obey (Wis.), the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said that with the cost of securing embassies and building a new embassy in Iraq, the cost would reach $75 billion. "Given the increased tempo of operations as seen in April and the need for the long-term deployment of troops, it is clear that this is not enough money," Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), an Armed Services Committee member, said yesterday. "It is unfortunate that the administration spends so much energy and time in denying the fact they need any help." Duffy said the administration is making no such denials. "This is a bridge," he said. Sophisticated munitions, combat intensity and the high cost of an all-volunteer army have made the Iraq war expensive. With an additional $25 billion, the war's cost exceeds the inflation-adjusted expenditures of the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War and the Persian Gulf War combined, according to a study by Yale University economist William D. Nordhaus. At $174 billion, the Iraq conflict would be approaching the inflation-adjusted, $199 billion cost of World War I, a level it will almost certainly pass next year. Such numbers figured prominently in the contentious debate last fall over Bush's $87 billion request for war and rebuilding in Iraq and Afghanistan. But a House Republican leadership aide said the debate this year is likely to be far less divisive. The last bill included nearly $20 billion in reconstruction funds that even many Republicans believed were excessive for an oil-rich nation such as Iraq, the aide said. This time, the money will be devoted almost exclusively to U.S. troops and security needs. Congressional aides said the White House changed strategy when it became clear debate over the war would be unavoidable. Leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services committees said they would include money for the war in their annual defense bills. Appropriators were expected to follow suit, with or without a request from the administration. Indeed, Republican and Democratic aides on the Appropriations committees said yesterday that the big fight will be over holding the request to the president's level. For weeks, Republicans and Democrats have been imploring Bush to send up a war request before the military is forced to juggle different accounts to fund combat operations.
The Mulindwas Communication Group
"With Yoweri Museveni, Uganda is in anarchy" Groupe de communication Mulindwas "avec Yoweri Museveni, l'Ouganda est dans l'anarchie" |
