|
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
"Emergency" Defense Bill Likely to be Anything But
More news coverage is out today on the enormous upcoming "emergency" appropriations request being developed by the Pentagon for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We previously posted (here, and here) about how the Pentagon is attempting to widen the scope of this funding request to include not only expenses related to the two wars, but anything that could be categorized under the "broader war on terror."
Along with many in Congress and numerous outside analysts, now the Congressional Research Service has complained (in a Sept. 1 report) that the distinction between "emergency" spending related to the ongoing wars and money to continue to transform and modernize the armed forced more broadly has almost disappeared. A few gems reported recently in the media help to underscore this conclusion.
From the Los Angeles Times:
[Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project and a former congressional budget aide] said the services were doing more than just replacing equipment destroyed in Iraq or Afghanistan. He was particularly critical of the Marine Corps' decision to use the emergency spending requests to replace old helicopters with the new V-22 Osprey, a controversial and expensive tilt rotor airplane that has yet to be deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan.
And this one from the Vermont Times Argus:
Both the Congress and Pentagon have been guilty of using the emergency spending device to bankroll non-emergency programs. For example, Congress directed the Air Force to use emergency money to buy additional C-17 jet transports, while the Pentagon is using emergency money to refurbish and replace weapons used up in Iraq — the manufacturing of which won't be completed for years — and for training new military units with expertise not required for service in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It's bad enough that the Pentagon and the Bush administration have not managed to include war costs in the regular budgeting process - that they are expanding the scope of "emergency" spending is downright shameful.
Posted by Adam Hughes
|