Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Defense Secretary Declines to Estimate '09 War Costs
WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates says a realistic estimate of next year's war costs is almost impossible to discern, in part because he doesn't know how many troops will be in Iraq this fall.The assertion, to be made on Capitol Hill today, will no doubt raise the ire of congressional Democrats, who contend the Bush administration is trying to keep these costs from the American public.
"While I would like to be in a position to give you a realistic estimate of what the department will need for [fiscal year] 2009 supplemental funds, I simply cannot at this point," according to Gates's prepared remarks for a budget hearing.
"There are too many significant variables in play," he added.
Gates is scheduled to testify before the House and Senate armed services committees. Also testifying will be Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Associated Press obtained their written testimony in advance.
Mullen will tell the panels that the violence in Iraq has "substantially decreased."
"The surge of US forces to Iraq, a well executed counterinsurgency strategy, and an Iraqi population increasingly weary of violence and willing to do something about it, have all combined to improve security conditions throughout much of the country," Mullen states in his testimony.
At the same time, Afghanistan is facing "a growing insurgency, increasing violence and a burgeoning drug trade fueled by widespread poppy cultivation," he states. Mullen adds that the military cannot sustain its current pace of operations. Army soldiers should be limited to yearlong combat tours, instead of 15-month deployments, and eventually be given two years at home between deployments, instead of just one, he said. Marines should move to 14 months at home following seven-month deployments, he said.
In their testimony, Gates and Mullen will be asking Congress to support a $588.3 billion request for defense spending in 2009. Of that amount, only $70 billion would cover war costs - an amount the Defense Department says would probably last only until the next president is sworn in.
If the current rate of war spending is a guide, the additional request for 2009 is likely to exceed $100 billion. Democrats said in advance of the hearing that they are disappointed the Pentagon didn't include those war costs in next year's budget.
"Without full transparency after more than six years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is impossible for the American people to make a full accounting of our financial commitment there," said Senator Jim Webb, a Virginia Democrat and Senate Armed Services Committee member.
In his testimony, Gates says there are two primary questions that must be answered before the military can calculate next year's war costs: Will ground commanders this year recommend keeping more or fewer troops in Iraq? And will Congress approve the balance of the military's 2008 war spending request?
President Bush requested about $189 billion to cover the military's 2008 war costs. Congress has approved $86.7 billion, leaving it about $102.5 billion short. Democrats say they think the military has enough money to operate through April. They plan to wait on the remainder of the war bill until after General David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, testifies early that month.
"Delay is degrading our ability to operate and sustain the force at home and in theater, and is making it difficult to manage this department in a way that is fiscally sound," Gates states.
© 2008 Associated Press



9 Comments so far
Show All"There are too many significant variables in play," he added.
/greed/incompetence/stupidity/fear/nspd 51
Whatever happened to wild guesses? That was good enough for the last 7 years.
Gates sold-out long ago. It gets increasingly easier to sell-out as time goes on. Despite Gates attempt to appear legitimate and dignified, a sell-out cannot be disguised. Gates dances to the tune of the Corporate fiddler. Find the dignity in that if you can...
How can they figure the cost? We're broke and the neo-cons don't know when our "Sugar Daddy" China will stop lending us money, which we use to kill Iraqis.
"The assertion, to be made on Capitol Hill today, will no doubt raise the ire of congressional Democrats, who contend the Bush administration is trying to keep these costs from the American public."
BS: the dems support the occupation of the ME as much as the pugs, to keep that bubble up.
The Dems could make this very easy. The number for 2009's combined total should be $0.
If the Dems would insist that they would only approve money for withdrawing the troops, they could do this. They could force this by forming a 41 vote filibuster that would block any funding that wasn't limited only to withdrawal. Then forecasting next year's number becomes very simple. Its $0.
The Dems won't do this because they support the war. Neither Obama nor Clinton will support this simple course nor join such a filibuster because both WANT troops in Iraq in 2009. The only claim the Dems really make is that they can be better managers of the Evil Empire than the Republicans.
Vote Green!
The bigger story is the overall $588 billion dollar request for Pentagon funding. That's obscene. Its way more than the combined total of any potential enemy we might face.
And both Obama and Clinton say they'll raise this number. Neither talks about cutting this obscene number. And both talk about increasing the size of the military, and that would raise this number.
There's no movement at all within the Democrats to cut this number. And the Dems have almost all lined up to support and rubber stamp every bloated Pentagon budget in this decade.
Vote Green!
COMarc February 6th, 2008 9:05 pm
The Dems could make this very easy. The number for 2009's combined total should be $0.
Ha! You are too funny. Made me laugh. Whatever it is it's way too much. It should be $0.00 I agree, vote Green or 3rd party!
VILNIUS, Feb 7 (Reuters) - A NATO rift over Afghanistan deepened on Thursday after U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates raised concerns that some allies were not prepared to "fight and die" in the battle against Taliban insurgents.
It seems that the rest of the sane world is unwilling to squander it's blood and treasure on the American government's phony failed war. Why are we?