This past Wednesday, Admiral Mullen (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff) announced that the Pentagon will seek additional war funds for
the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in 2010. While he did not give a firm
dollar amount, the New York Times reported that defense budget analysts
are kicking around the number of $50 billion. The Times also reported
that Jack Murtha, Chair of the Defense Subcommittee of the House
Appropriations Committee, indicated on October 30 that he expects the
supplemental spending bill for 2010 to be in the range of $40 billion.
The final dollar amount won't be known until the White House submits its
"emergency" supplemental spending request to Congress, most likely
around February 2.
In the immortal words of Coach Vince Lombardi: "What the hell is going
on out there?"
We should be so lucky if it were a simple matter of the Green Bay
Packers screwing up the power sweep.
Instead, it's a matter of the Obama Administration now leading us down
the path of the most expensive year in war funding since President Bush
began the so-called "Global War on Terror" (now morphed into the
"Overseas Contingency Operations" under President Obama).
You read that correctly. War spending in 2010 will exceed $190 billion
if indeed the Pentagon seeks-and Congress approves--$50 billion in
"emergency" funding. That's more than the $179 billion spent under
President Bush in 2008, the previous high water mark for war spending.
War spending in 2010 will also far exceed spending in 2009 (which is
about $145 billion).
While Admiral Mullen did not announce a new war strategy for
Afghanistan, it is difficult to conceive for what this additional $40 to
$50 billion will be used if not used to expand the war in Afghanistan
(and to perhaps continue the occupation of Iraq at near current troop
levels without the substantive reductions promised
earlier this year).
Let's compare the numbers from 2009 to 2010 for three key areas of
spending: Personnel costs; Operation and Maintenance costs; and
Procurement costs.
Funding levels in 2009 were: Personnel - $19.9 billion; Operation and
Maintenance - $80.4 billion; and Procurement - $31.9 billion.
Current funding levels in 2010 are: Personnel - $14.1 billion; Operation
and Maintenance - $80.3 billion; and Procurement - $22.2 billion. (With
all the talk about building Afghanistan's army and police forces, it is
worth noting that spending on the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund
increases from $5.6 billion in 2009 to $6.6 billion in 2010, so it's not
likely that the "emergency" supplemental
will include significantly more funds for this category).
Total funding levels in these three main areas are approximately $15.6
billion less in 2010 than in 2009. While Procurement funding declines in
2010 compared to 2009, this decline is most likely the result of
returning to a more normative definition of what constitutes "emergency"
war spending than the very expansive definition that was implemented
under President Bush and that resulted in the explosion of Procurement
spending to approximately $45 billion in both 2007 and
2008 (Procurement spending in 2005 was $18 billion and in 2006 it was
$22.9 billion before this expansion).
The Congressional Research Service notes in a September 2009 report that
the President's budget for 2010 includes both the increase in troop
levels in Afghanistan to 69,000 ordered by President Obama earlier this
year and the anticipated reduction in U.S. troop levels in Iraq through
August 2010.
Which leads one to ask the question:
In announcing that the Pentagon intends to seek additional war funding
for 2010, did Admiral Mullen tip the hat that President Obama intends to
dramatically increase the level of U.S. troop levels in
Afghanistan--edging towards that 40,000 additional troops that General
McChrystal seems to be requesting?
Or that the U.S. intends to otherwise dramatically increase the level of
combat operations in Afghanistan and into Pakistan, which would carry
the potential for significant increased costs in Operations and
Maintenance as well as in Procurement funds?
Or that the U.S. intends to maintain troop levels in Iraq near current
levels for the remainder of 2010?
Mullen's statement comes within the context of Obama's speech to service
members in which he said that the U.S. would not send members of the
military into harm's way without adequate resources. It comes within the
context of Obama assuming personal responsibility for his decisions as
commander-in-chief when he became the first U.S. President in decades to
personally participate in the ceremonies at
Dover upon the return of U.S. service members who died in war. The
sequencing of events seems to be preparing the way for President Obama
to issue the order to dramatically increase U.S. troop levels and combat
operations in Afghanistan.
Somehow we must reinvigorate the antiwar movement that seems to have
largely gone missing over these past several months.
One campaign under way to rise to the challenge is the Peaceable
Assembly Campaign
http://www.peaceableassemblycampaign.org
From January 19 through February 2, the PAC will maintain a two week
vigil at the White House and engage in regular acts of nonviolent civil
disobedience, starting on the day President Obama enters his second year
in office, continuing through his anticipated State of the Union address
to Congress, and concluding on the day he is to submit his budget for
2011 to Congress.
Then after February 2, the Peaceable Assembly Campaign will focus its
work upon Congress. Similar to the Occupation Project effort of 2007,
the PAC will organize lobbying--both legal and extralegal (i.e., civil
disobedience)--in the home offices of Representatives and Senators who
do not commit themselves publicly to oppose additional funding for the
wars and occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the occupation
of the Palestinian territories.
You can become involved with the Peaceable Assembly Campaign at
http://www.peaceableassemblycampaign.org
Now is not the time to equivocate in our opposition to the continuing
and expanding wars. The die is being cast by the Obama Administration.
It is our choice on how we respond. And rather than being directed at
the Administration, perhaps we should direct Coach Lombardi's challenge
to ourselves. After all…
What the hell IS going on out here?
---
Jeff Leys is Co-Coordinator of Voices for Creative Nonviolence
http://www.vcnv.org He can be reached via email:
jeffleys@vcnv.org
