|
from $5.4 billion in FY 2005 to $6.4 billion in FY 2006-a 20 percent increase. If the war costs are calculated to include non-operational expenses, average monthly expenditures will increase from $8.2 billion in FY 2005 to $9.8 billion in FY 2006-a 19 percent increase. As noted by the Congressional Research Service, these non-operational costs include defense health, working capital funds, the Iraq Freedom Fund, Afghan and Iraq Training Forces Fund, intelligence, and investment. [see Congressional Research Service, pages CRS-8 to CRS-10]
The supplemental spending bill provides for spending $6.6 billion on pay to service members. This includes $5.9 billion for "incremental wartime costs" and $642.7 million for "active duty overstrength".
"Incremental wartime costs" includes basic military pay, special pay and entitlements for Reserve and National Guard members on active duty. It also includes "incremental pay above the normal military compensation for active component personnel participating in or directly supporting" the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Active duty overstrength" is the amount spent to maintain U.S. military forces at a force strength above budgeted enlistment numbers. [See "Department of Defense: FY 2006 Supplemental Request for Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF)", February 2006, pages 4 to 6] [Budget supplemental amounts are from: "Report 109-388; House of Representatives; 109th Congress, 2nd Session", Report of the House Appropriations Committee committed to the Committee of the Whole of the House of Representatives on March 13, 2006, pages 8 and 9]
Other personnel related expenses amount to $3.3 billion, including $1.3 billion for supplemental life insurance and death benefits; $345 million for recruitment and retention incentives; and $1.2 billion as a basic housing allowance. [see "Report 109-388; House of Representatives; 109th Congress, 2nd Session, pages 8 and 9]
Expenditures for Operation and Maintenance skyrockets in FY 2006, when total funding will be $65.6 billion (which includes $37 billion in the pending supplemental spending bill and $28.6 billion in the FY 2006 bridge fund). This compares to $45.8 billion in FY 2005-an increase of 43 percent or $19.8 billion.
The supplemental spending bill allocates $17.7 billion for procurement purposes. These monies would be available for use through September 30, 2008. In its initial request for supplemental funding, the Department of Defense requested that ".its procurement funds be available for three years to take into account the one to three years that it takes to contract, order, produce and receive military parts and equipment." [Congressional Research Service, footnote #12, page CRS-8]. Given this lag time, it cannot be plausibly argued that these funds must be allocated at this point in time in order to ensure that U.S. troops in the field have the weapons needed to fight the Iraq war in present real time. The only purpose this additional funding serves is to ensure that weapons are available to fight the war for years into the future.
As the cost of war-fighting escalates dramatically in Iraq-both in dollars and in human lives lost-the U.S. fails to provide any assistance for reconstruction. Indeed the new term of art is "Iraq Stabilization" rather than reconstruction. The supplemental spending bill provides $1.6 billion for Iraq Stabilization Assistance. Of these funds, $675 million would fund "provincial reconstruction teams"; $287 million would provide additional security at nodes in the oil and electrical grids; and $355 million would fund infrastructure sustainment (i.e., to ensure that the very limited number of completed reconstruction projects might be able to still function into the future-a key concern raised by the Special Inspector General on Iraq Reconstruction in his January 2006 audits).
As the U.S. backs away from any form of commitment to rebuild Iraq following 15 years of economic and military warfare, we are confronted with the stark reality that the currently pending supplemental spending bill continues to permit the U.S. to prosecute a never ending war against Iraq. The costs associated with Operation and Maintenance expenses continue to grow, while little funding (about $1.9 billion) is provided for such items as body armor-one of the items which our duck-and-cover Representatives and Senators use to justify continue to vote for the war funding (the argument goes that if they don't vote for body armor, they are not supporting U.S. troops).
Our duck-and-cover politicians say that they must vote for the supplemental to ensure U.S. troops have the weapons and ammunition they need to fight the war-and protect themselves, so the argument goes. Yet the procurement process takes from one to three years to be completed, as noted by the Congressional Research Service and the Department of Defense. For how long is the U.S. planning to prosecute this war?
Our duck-and-cover politicians say they must support U.S. troops by voting for continued pay for troops in the field and enhanced benefits. Yet would National Guard members, Reservists and their families not be better off in their home communities, being ready to assist when natural disasters strike, contributing directly to the economy of their local communities? And would all U.S. service members and their families not be better off at home rather than drawing imminent danger pay, greater life insurance and death benefits, and housing allowances?
And if our duck-and-cover politicians truly believe that this war in Iraq is necessary, prudent and in the national se
|
|
