Photo: Steve Rhodes
Jul 16, 2014
A proposal for supplemental war funding was under scrutiny Wednesday at a Congressional hearing, where Defense Department officials hinted that there is no end in sight to the need for this counterterrorism "war chest."
At issue is nearly $60 billion proposed last month by the White House for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funds for the 2015 budget. The pot for OCO, which until 2009 was called Global War on Terrorism, is on top of the base budget for the Defense Department, which for the 2015 proposal is nearly $500 billion.
Mattea Kramer of the National Priorities Project has pointed out that the OCO budget "isn't subject to caps or cuts or any restrictions at all." This has led some, like Stephen Miles, coalition coordinator for Win Without War, to refer to it as "a massive slush fund to avoid fiscal discipline."
The House Armed Services Committee (HASC) held a hearing on the OCO funding proposal on Wednesday.
HASC Chairman "Buck" McKeon toldPolitico's Morning Defense that the need for the OCO funds extends beyond Afghanistan:
"I think there's going to be an ongoing need for OCO," he told [Morning D], saying the fund will be necessary as long as the military is carrying out counterterrorism operations around the world.
Adm. Sandy Winnefeld, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made similar comments at the hearing Wednesday. Stars and Stripes reported:
Winnefeld said the supplemental funding pot... could be expanding even further and used for anything the military "would not normally be doing in a peaceful world." [...]
[T]he OCO war chest could be tapped whenever the U.S. needs to launch operations to fight threats or stamp out violence around the globe, Winnefeld said.
And, according to a statement released by the Defense Department, Winnefeld said that "readiness, unanticipated contingency operations and indirect support missions continue globally."
Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work also said at the hearing that in addition to funding ongoing operations in Afghanistan, the funds would support new, multinational counterterrorism operations.
The House Committee on Appropriations also held a closed hearing on OCO funds Tuesday, while the House Budge Committee will hold its hearing on the funding Thursday.
_________________________
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
A proposal for supplemental war funding was under scrutiny Wednesday at a Congressional hearing, where Defense Department officials hinted that there is no end in sight to the need for this counterterrorism "war chest."
At issue is nearly $60 billion proposed last month by the White House for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funds for the 2015 budget. The pot for OCO, which until 2009 was called Global War on Terrorism, is on top of the base budget for the Defense Department, which for the 2015 proposal is nearly $500 billion.
Mattea Kramer of the National Priorities Project has pointed out that the OCO budget "isn't subject to caps or cuts or any restrictions at all." This has led some, like Stephen Miles, coalition coordinator for Win Without War, to refer to it as "a massive slush fund to avoid fiscal discipline."
The House Armed Services Committee (HASC) held a hearing on the OCO funding proposal on Wednesday.
HASC Chairman "Buck" McKeon toldPolitico's Morning Defense that the need for the OCO funds extends beyond Afghanistan:
"I think there's going to be an ongoing need for OCO," he told [Morning D], saying the fund will be necessary as long as the military is carrying out counterterrorism operations around the world.
Adm. Sandy Winnefeld, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made similar comments at the hearing Wednesday. Stars and Stripes reported:
Winnefeld said the supplemental funding pot... could be expanding even further and used for anything the military "would not normally be doing in a peaceful world." [...]
[T]he OCO war chest could be tapped whenever the U.S. needs to launch operations to fight threats or stamp out violence around the globe, Winnefeld said.
And, according to a statement released by the Defense Department, Winnefeld said that "readiness, unanticipated contingency operations and indirect support missions continue globally."
Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work also said at the hearing that in addition to funding ongoing operations in Afghanistan, the funds would support new, multinational counterterrorism operations.
The House Committee on Appropriations also held a closed hearing on OCO funds Tuesday, while the House Budge Committee will hold its hearing on the funding Thursday.
_________________________
A proposal for supplemental war funding was under scrutiny Wednesday at a Congressional hearing, where Defense Department officials hinted that there is no end in sight to the need for this counterterrorism "war chest."
At issue is nearly $60 billion proposed last month by the White House for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funds for the 2015 budget. The pot for OCO, which until 2009 was called Global War on Terrorism, is on top of the base budget for the Defense Department, which for the 2015 proposal is nearly $500 billion.
Mattea Kramer of the National Priorities Project has pointed out that the OCO budget "isn't subject to caps or cuts or any restrictions at all." This has led some, like Stephen Miles, coalition coordinator for Win Without War, to refer to it as "a massive slush fund to avoid fiscal discipline."
The House Armed Services Committee (HASC) held a hearing on the OCO funding proposal on Wednesday.
HASC Chairman "Buck" McKeon toldPolitico's Morning Defense that the need for the OCO funds extends beyond Afghanistan:
"I think there's going to be an ongoing need for OCO," he told [Morning D], saying the fund will be necessary as long as the military is carrying out counterterrorism operations around the world.
Adm. Sandy Winnefeld, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made similar comments at the hearing Wednesday. Stars and Stripes reported:
Winnefeld said the supplemental funding pot... could be expanding even further and used for anything the military "would not normally be doing in a peaceful world." [...]
[T]he OCO war chest could be tapped whenever the U.S. needs to launch operations to fight threats or stamp out violence around the globe, Winnefeld said.
And, according to a statement released by the Defense Department, Winnefeld said that "readiness, unanticipated contingency operations and indirect support missions continue globally."
Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work also said at the hearing that in addition to funding ongoing operations in Afghanistan, the funds would support new, multinational counterterrorism operations.
The House Committee on Appropriations also held a closed hearing on OCO funds Tuesday, while the House Budge Committee will hold its hearing on the funding Thursday.
_________________________
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.