Posted on 01/21/2004 2:12:20 PM PST by KantianBurke
WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) may seek an additional $40 billion or more for military operations in Iraq (news - web sites) and Afghanistan (news - web sites) next year -- on top of the $400-billion military budget he will send to Congress next month, congressional sources and budget analysts said on Wednesday.
But Bush is unlikely to send the request to Congress until after the November presidential election to minimize any political damage, the sources said.
Bush's Democratic challengers have criticized the high cost of the war in Iraq and its chaotic aftermath. They say Iraq has cost $120 billion so far despite initial administration assurances that it would be "an affordable endeavor."
White House budget officials said it is premature to speculate about an emergency war supplemental for the 2005 fiscal year starting Oct. 1.
But congressional sources said preliminary planning is underway and a request would be send to Congress in late 2004 or early 2005.
"Every presidential contender is going to be subject to political demands. But no matter who wins (the election), we're going to see a request," one congressional aide said.
Its size could vary widely depending on the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, budget analysts and congressional aides said.
If the administration can reduce the number of troops there from more than 100,000 to 75,000, about another $25 billion would be needed in fiscal 2005 to supplement the military's regular budget, said Steven Kosiak, a defense analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
Operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere could add another $15 billion. Kosiak said the emergency request could total $40 billion to $50 billion.
Other analysts and congressional aides said it could be closer to $75 billion or $100 billion. U.S. military plans hinge on a smooth hand-over of political power by June 30 and rebuilding the Iraqi Army.
"They're playing it week by week because they don't know ... Things could go worse than expected or they could go better than expected," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a defense policy research group.
A senior congressional aide attributed the push for additional funds to concerns that Bush's "new budget contains little or no money for Iraq's shadow rulers after June 30."
TOPPING OFF
Bush won approval from Congress last year for two war supplementals -- one for $79 billion and another for $87.5 billion for Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
"It's a little early to be speculating about the deployment (in Iraq) for October and beyond," an administration official said on Wednesday.
Bush has been under pressure from his conservative Republican base to rein in record budget deficits, expected to hit $500 billion this fiscal year alone.
In his $2.3 trillion budget for fiscal 2005, to be sent to Congress on Feb. 2, Bush wants to limit growth in discretionary spending to less than 4 percent. The Defense Department is expected to receive more than $400 billion, a modest increase.
That would cover normal Pentagon (news - web sites) activities -- not peacekeeping or combat operations, which would be funded through an emergency request.
"It is uncertain what level of resources will be required and it's uncertain when they will need it. But they will need to have to come to ask for additional money at some point in fiscal 2005," said Kosiak.
Others said the administration would need up to $100 billion on top of the Pentagon's normal budget, and the only issue was timing.
"From a budget standpoint, I don't think they have to put in another (supplemental) this year," Pike said.
Proposing it before the election would only "give the Democrats an opportunity to stage another food fight on the president's Iraq policy," Pike added.
Have you noticed how dramatically the number of attacks against US troops has fallen off? They will continue to fall off.
I think you're in the "wishful thinking" camp, Ohioan. Besides, Bush is going to start pulling troops out this summer.
You dopes are chomping at the bit to have a Democrat make you feel better.
What in Heaven's name are you trying to say? We conquered the country in three weeks or less. We won! There is absolutely no sense in a protracted occupation, unless we want to be a target. That is insane.
Occupying Iraq will not do anything at all towards defeating the will of the whisps that are our actual enemies in the war with Terrorists. This is part of the nutty idea of foisting our cultural norms on others--the very thing which will trigger more, not less terrorism. It has nothing to do with the actual War that started on September 11, 2001; although it might lead to a whole new one.
William Flax
Iraq is just the first step.
We conquered the country in three weeks or less.
Actually it took us almost thirteen years. The war did not begin in March 2003.
I am a member of Bush's conservative base.
Bush is not running record budget deficits as a share of GDP.
He is winning the war on terror and making the dumbocrats look silly. I will cut him major amounts of slack on one or two issues about which I disagree.
I was not always a Bush supporter, and I frankly don't like his public speaking style.
But he doesn't need a permission slip from me either. He won the party.
No threat. But a big purge took place here in 2000, and the Bush supporters weren't the ones who were purged.
No! And the liberated people are now attacking us in the U.N.. Wait until Bush turns up the heat with the promised assault on local cultures--discussed in the State Of The Union--and see how peaceful things get.
If we were obtaining some gain by staying there, it would be one thing. But we are staying there on a pipe dream--better put, a night mare. Bush has vowed to revive the failed policy which Dean Rusk applied in Africa during the 1960s, and you seem unaware of it. It is not a Conservative policy, I can tell you that.
See Democracy In The Third World.
Some of you folks that accept the leftward moving Karl Rove strategy ought to study the Dewey campaign (the famous "Me Too" campaign) from 1948 to see where his political tactics will end up. I am not happy about it; and hardly want to see a Leftwing Democratic version of the same policy. But I am a realist, and if we are going to have a Left of Center policy, they know how to sell it a lot better than Rove, who will be tarred with the label of catering to special business interests.
William Flax
I should just let that statement stand there. If you do not see how self-defeating that is, I cannot help you. You would buy a century of terror with that policy. What do you want, War for the joy of War?
I am in favor of the next foreign war, where there is something to be gained--balancing all considerations. But what you propose, sure is not that. For a rational approach to the War on Terror, see War 2001.
William Flax
Oh? And YOU are aware of it?
William, stop flattering yourself. There ARE other people who might just know a bit more than you.
Would you rather we put Hussein back in charge?
The Administration does not respond to unnamed sources, gossip or innuendo. But, you know that.
Armchair diplomats. They don't know any more than we do, but think they do.
And they're oh-so-much more perceptive politically than you and me, doncha know?
Well, I don't need your help.
I have my own answers. Yours are not valid for me. Your world view is not necessarily valid for me. It's not a sickness. It doesn't require a cure. You're free to believe you have it all worked out. I am free to disagree- and I do.
What do you want, War for the joy of War?
When I say conquer, do not make the mistake of believing this can only mean war. We have conquered Libya without a shot fired. Of course, a little motivation was required for Libya to do that and ending our decade long war with Saddam decisively in a manner that was not positive for Saddam was a key factor as it will be for other nations like Syria and Iran.
Iran will be conquered without war. I'm not so sure about Syria but hopefully this can be achieved without war as well.
But make no mistake, as long as their are regimes out there that continue to preach 'Death to the Great Satan' and refuse to join the 21st Century the threat of a devestating attack on the US is a reality. We will not be able to live on the same planet in peace with nations that do this.
I believe my approach is rational. War is not a desirable thing. But the the very real threat of war must be there if we are to tame these nations that are hostile to civilization.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.