|
Bush adds 80 billion to war costs in january 2005 { January 26 2005 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/01/26/MNGKQB0FSQ1.DTLhttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/01/26/MNGKQB0FSQ1.DTL
Bush adds $80 billion to wars' costs
Afghanistan, Iraq tally would pass $300 billion if OKd
- Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
Washington -- The White House said Tuesday that President Bush will ask Congress for another $80 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an appropriation that would bring the total spent for the two wars to more than $300 billion.
The Bush administration announcement fueled anew the growing debate over whether the United States should start withdrawing some of its 150,000 troops from Iraq, a suggestion the White House and its supporters reject because they say it would hand a victory to anti-American insurgents.
The request for more money for the wars came the same day the Congressional Budget Office estimated the federal budget deficit will hit $368 billion in the current fiscal year and $855 billion over the coming decade. But the CBO estimate, which is sharply lower than previous deficit estimates because of bookkeeping quirks, doesn't include the continuing costs of the wars.
The White House said additional war spending would push the federal deficit to a record $427 billion for fiscal 2005, according to administration budget forecasts unveiled Tuesday. Bush said the new infusion of money will pay for essential equipment and supplies.
"First, our troops will have whatever they need to protect themselves and complete their mission; and second, the United States will stand with the Iraqi people and against the terrorists trying desperately to block democracy and the advance of human rights,'' the president said in a statement.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, said that while she supports the troops the request for another $80 billion raises many questions.
"What are the goals in Iraq, and how much more money will it cost to achieve them? Why haven't the president and the Pentagon provided members of Congress a full accounting of previous expenditures? Why, after all the effort dedicated to training Iraqi troops, aren't more Iraqi troops trained, equipped and prepared to play a bigger security role?" she asked.
The administration said $75 billion of the $80 billion request, which won't be formally sent to Congress until after the president unveils his budget for fiscal 2006 on Feb. 7, would go for military operations.
Most of the money would pay for equipment and to train Iraqi security forces. About $1 billion would go for new defenses against the roadside bombs in Iraq that have killed hundreds of Americans.
Another focus is on creating and equipping 10 new combat brigades, part of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's program to make the Army more mobile and nimble.
Most of the remaining $5 billion would go to the State Department, in part to pay for a new embassy in Baghdad and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan. Funds also would help aid the new Palestinian government of President Mahmoud Abbas and for relief operations in Darfur, the region of Sudan where a civil war has raised allegations of genocide.
Passage in the Republican-controlled Congress seems certain. It would be the third special appropriation for Iraq, following $87 billion in September 2003 and $25 billion approved in May. It's estimated the United States is spending $4.6 billion a month in Iraq and $800 million in Afghanistan, where 20,000 soldiers are based.
Before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, estimates of the war's cost were $50 billion, with assurances from administration officials that Iraqi oil revenues would pay for much of the effort.
Asked Tuesday how the administration's estimates could be so far off, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, "you have to be prepared for the unexpected, and you have to be flexible enough to adapt to circumstances on the ground. And it's important that you give the commanders on the ground the flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances. And that's what we will always do. That's how you are able to succeed and complete the mission.''
Bush's proposal came one day after Army Lt. Gen James J. Lovelace Jr. said about 120,000 U.S. troops will stay in Iraq at least through 2006. That position, largely reflecting Bush's thinking, flies in the face of calls to set a timetable for withdrawing most U.S. forces.
Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass., proposed Tuesday that the United States and the new Iraqi government that will take office after Sunday's elections set a 12- to 18-month timetable for removing all but about 30,000 Americans.
Meehan's idea is similar to those put forward in recent weeks by such Republicans as former Secretary of State James Baker and former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, both of whom served under Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush.
"As long as the thrust of our policy continues on the same course, we will stay on a downward spiral,'' Meehan said in a speech at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. "The most compelling reason not to continue down the same path is that the occupation has grown counterproductive. ''
But Meehan's position was assailed by William Kristol of the Weekly Standard, one of the capital's leading neo-conservatives. "Focusing on an exit strategy rather than a victory strategy is a mistake,'' he said. "Announcing a date for withdrawal just tells the terrorists they have to hang on to a certain date.''
E-mail Edward Epstein at eepstein@sfchronicle.com.
Page A - 3
|
|
