More Expensive to Withdraw Troops Than Keep Them in Iraq?
Supposedly-- at least in the short term. Or is this just more excuse making for why it's bad to withdraw troops?
But this is even more disturbing-- it is pure insanity that the Defense Dept is asking for this much EXTRA money:
But this is even more disturbing-- it is pure insanity that the Defense Dept is asking for this much EXTRA money:
Pentagon Wants $450 Billion Increase Over Next Five Years
By Josh Rogin
Pentagon officials have prepared a new estimate for defense spending that is $450 billion more over the next five years than previously announced figures.
The new estimate, which the Pentagon plans to release shortly before President Bush leaves office, would serve as a marker for the new president and is meant to place pressure on him to either drastically increase the size of the defense budget or defend any reluctance to do so, according to several former senior budget officials who are close to the discussions.
Experts note that releasing such documents in the twilight of an administration is a well-worn tactic, and that incoming presidents often disregard such guidance in order to pursue their own priorities.
And with the nation's economy caught up in a global financial meltdown, it remains unclear whether either Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., or a Democratic Congress would support such large increases for defense next year.
"This is a political document," said one former senior budget official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "It sets up the new administration immediately to have to make a decision of how to deal with the perception that they are either cutting defense or adding to it."
Dov Zakheim, the Pentagon's top budget official from 2001 to 2004, who is not involved in the current discussions, agreed.
"The thinking behind it is pretty straightforward," Zakheim said. "They are setting a baseline for a new administration that then will have to defend cutting it."
The fiscal 2010 portion of the estimate includes a $57 billion increase, out of which $30 billion would go for a vaguely defined contingency fund and $14 billion would go for replacing or fixing existing equipment, called reset, and modernization, the former officials said.
(snip)
The new estimate, which has not been publicly released, would raise the fiscal 2010 budget number announced by the administration this year from $527 billion to $584 billion, not counting operations costs for the ongoing wars.
Money to prosecute the ongoing wars is not included in the new estimate, meaning the military would still need significant supplemental appropriations in addition to the increased budget request.
(snip)
Exactly how the Pentagon's new spending estimate will be communicated to Congress or the incoming administration remains unclear.
2 Comments:
Pentagon officials have prepared a new estimate for defense spending that is $450 billion more over the next five years than previously announced figures.
unfortunately they only seem to use their money for attacking, not defense.
"the pentagon cannot account for some 2.3 TRILLION dollars"
....donald rumsfeld, 09/10/01
BOMBING HEARTS AND MINDS
The US chose last week to offer India access to nuclear technology, despite the fact that India is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Whereas the US threatens Iran with air strikes, when Iran, a signatory to the Treaty exercises it's lawful rights to build a civilian nuclear power industry. Hypocrisy without end, corrupted logic knows no bounds.
In reviewing history there is little or no history of Islamic terrorism before the US, UK and Israelis undertook the task of arming and training the likes of the Mujaheddin and Hamas. So if we don’t like terrorists, maybe it it time for us to stop arming and training them. But then what would we do the Global War on Terror? How could we fatten Vice President Cheney's Halliburton stock options without it?
Post a Comment
<< Home