• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Analysis: "All of the Above" on Defense

Council on Foreign Relations

October 26, 2007
Prepared by: Greg Bruno

U.S. defense spending, which briefly surfaced earlier this year as a source of political debate in Congress, is drawing new fire following the unveiling of President Bush’s latest supplemental funding request for overseas military operations. Also known as an “emergency proposal,” which means it involves funds above and beyond the $150.5 billion already approved this fiscal year, Bush called for an additional $45.9 billion (PDF) in funding for Iraq and Afghanistan.

If passed, the plan would bring the Pentagon’s war price tag since 9/11 to $806 billion, “more than any single U.S. conflict since World War II” (WashPost). Total costs could exceed $1.7 trillion by 2017 (PDF). Democrats responded coldly to the president’s request, with some vowing to derail the measure unless the money was linked to troop withdrawals. Such vows in the past, however, have proven politically difficult for Democrats to make good on.

Yet, line items and timelines aren’t the only questions surfacing in the budget proposal’s wake. A more fundamental concern, some say, is whether the United States is spending wisely. The answer depends on perspective. Nestled within the president’s request is $7.3 billion to fund overseas combat operations, which military analysts say, is urgently needed. There’s $1 billion to expand the Iraqi security forces; $8.8 billion to replace worn-out equipment; and $3.1 billion for armor against roadside bombs. President Bush urged Congress to consider the funding request without delay.

But other expenditures in the supplemental give experts pause. Defense analysts say the Bush administration is increasingly reliant on these “emergency” funding measures to achieve long-term weapons modernization goals, blurring what is truly related to the war on terror and what should be fully debated (Defense News) by Congress as part of the annual federal-budget process.

Read the rest of this article on the cfr.org website.

Copyright 2007 by the Council on Foreign Relations. This material is republished on GlobalSecurity.org with specific permission from the cfr.org. Reprint and republication queries for this article should be directed to cfr.org.