The 5th Marine Regiment trains for deployment to Iraq at Camp Pendleton, California. The Bush administration will seek $195 billion for war next year. EPA photo.
by Julian E. Barnes
After smothering efforts by war critics in Congress to drastically cut U.S. troop levels in Iraq, President Bush plans to ask lawmakers next week to approve another massive spending measure -- totaling nearly $200 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through 2008, Pentagon officials said.
If Bush's spending request is approved, 2008 will be the most expensive year of the Iraq war.
U.S. war costs have continued to grow because of the additional combat forces sent to Iraq in 2007 and because of efforts to quickly ramp up production of new technology, such as mine-resistant trucks designed to protect troops from roadside bombs. The new trucks can cost three to six times as much as an armored Humvee.
The Bush administration said earlier this year that it probably would need $147.5 billion for 2008, but Pentagon officials now say that and $47 billion more will be required. Secretary of State Robert Gates and other officials will formally present the full request at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing Wednesday.
See the rest of the story from the Los Angeles Times, also appearing in the Tribune today:
The funding request means that war costs are projected to grow even as the number of deployed combat troops begins a gradual decline starting in December. Spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will rise from $173 billion this year to about $195 billion in fiscal 2008, beginning Oct. 1.
When costs of CIA operations and embassy expenses are added, the war in Iraq currently costs taxpayers about $12 billion a month, said Winslow Wheeler, a former Republican congressional budget aide who is now a senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information in Washington.
"Everybody predicts declines, but they haven't occurred, and 2008 will be higher than 2007," Wheeler said. "It all depends on what happens in Iraq, but thus far it has continued to get bloodier and more expensive. Everyone says we are going to turn the corner here, but the corner has not been turned."
In 2004, the two conflicts together cost $94 billion; in 2005, they cost $108 billion; in 2006, $122 billion.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan both are financed through a single administration request to Congress, and their costs are combined in the legislation. But the new spending request is likely to push the cumulative cost of the war in Iraq alone through 2008 past the $600 billion mark, more than the Korean War and nearly as much as the Vietnam War, based on estimates by government budget officials.
After the defeat this week of Democratic proposals to force faster troop withdrawals from Iraq, the new funding request presents a potential target for war critics on Capitol Hill.
"Now that we have a Democratic Congress and the war is less popular and we are not talking about $100 billion a year, but $200 billion a year -- some of which is not directly war related -- the question is whether the Congress will slim it down," said Steven Kosiak, vice president at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
Military budget analysts said that just a small fraction of the additional $47 billion will go to support the additional forces in the troop surge. The bulk of the money will be spent on better armor, weapons systems and repairing the materiel ground down by the punishing environment of Iraq. Kosiak estimates only about $15 billion of the new request will be used to cover the surge forces. "They don't want to just replace what was worn out and destroyed, they want to get better stuff, and get more stuff in some cases," he said.
In developments Friday in Iraq, two aides to Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the country's leading Shiite cleric, were assassinated in the south. It was the latest in a series of attacks on followers of Sistani, suggesting turbulence amid the principal Shiite groups in the south.
And the U.S. military reported the deaths of two American soldiers Thursday -- one in a roadside bombing in volatile Diyala province and another in a non-combat incident in the northern Tamim province, home to the disputed city of Kirkuk. The latest deaths raised the total for September to 52 deaths, icasualties.org reports.
At least 3,793 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the war, according to an Associated Press count.
Julian Barnes reports for the Los Angeles Times, a Tribune Co. newspaper.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
If the bulk of this spending is really for better equipment and conditions - it should be approved.
Posted by: Doug Zook | September 22, 2007 11:46 AM
But he can't come up with 35 billion a year for children's health care...
Posted by: Scott in the South Loop | September 22, 2007 12:02 PM
$200 Billion MORE? On top of 1/2 trillion?
May the congress approve just enough to pull the troops out. And let W stew in his own mess.
Posted by: athena | September 22, 2007 12:08 PM
Is this continued occupation worth bankrupting the country?
Probably not unless you have ties to the military-industrial complex.
Posted by: John A | September 22, 2007 12:08 PM
Interesting that this story should appear on the same page as Bush's threatened veto of funding for KidsCare. Message to my members of Congress: if you approve this you have no chance whatsoever of getting my vote.
Posted by: LES | September 22, 2007 12:28 PM
Wait until the public hears about this. I am betting that there will be public outrage, especially when you consider that 70 percent of Americans do not support the war, and especially considering that Bush is trying to cut SCHIP (kids' health care).
It's outrageous, and God knows how long it's going to take for the U.S. to "unwind" Bush's many policy and economic mistakes.
Posted by: Mica | September 22, 2007 12:37 PM
Enough already! Another $200 BILLION for a war that cannot be won with ground forces occuping foreign lands while he refuses to pass legislation to fund health care for kids in America?! This administration cares nothing for the American people and it is time for them to realize how much damage he has done to this country. Stop Bush now before it is too late!
Posted by: Paul | September 22, 2007 12:49 PM
And I guess the Dems will just give it to 'em, again.
Can someone explain to me how on Earth the Webb proposal failed? And I would really like to know how Republicans can argue that voting AGAINST a bill that would LITERALLY support the troops by allowing them adequate recovery time between tours is somehow "supporting the troops."
I'm not a political genius or anything, but how do Republicans intend to turn any of this into a victory when they are aggressively obstructing the will of 70% of the population? Or is 29% support all you need these days to win Congress and the White House?
And for those of you dead-enders who have dissed John Warner as a "RINO," I hope you thank him for derailing his OWN effort to bring sanity to the Iraq policy.
He cravenly gave in (maybe he really IS a Democrat), and should make all Republicans oh-so-proud that he has made it possible to continue this idiotic war exactly as it is now: with an extremely narrow base of soldiers going on tour after tour after tour, while the rest of America goes shopping.
Posted by: Distrust and Verify | September 22, 2007 12:56 PM
Yes, Paul, this cannot be won. Let's let the Islamic terrorists win. Let them control the Middle East and spread their hate and murder even more and control more of the region. Then when that is done (and of course bin laden this week declared war on Musharraf, France and Spain and vows to keep the genocide continuing in Darfur), will you bitch and moan because half the world is under the control of Islamic terrorists and the world is even more messed up than it is now?
Why is the Left so eager for us to lose? Why is the Left so eager to let the terrorists win? Why is the Left so clueless as to what the situation is and what winning and losing means?
Posted by: John D | September 22, 2007 1:14 PM
200 billion dollars for new equipments and a continued war? How about 200 billion tax rebate to be use at the gas pump? That would be better for you and me! hahaha. . .
Posted by: Lou | September 22, 2007 1:54 PM
yeah, Bush's Iraq plan is tragic on several fronts. The huge expenditure and wasted resources. the iraq war on the whole is a major foriegn policy blunder.
Posted by: mitch | September 22, 2007 2:12 PM
Doug Zook,
The majority of the $200,000,000,000.00 will vanish into the large pockets
of a few American and Iraqi corporations and individuals.
You should know better.
Posted by: johnf | September 22, 2007 3:21 PM
johnf,
When if/in doubt American troops get funded.
Non-negotiable, no pawns, case closed, next.
Posted by: Doug Zook | September 22, 2007 4:04 PM
And the percentage that will go to hired mercenaries from Blackwater as opposed to our military...
John D and his ilk will run the country into bankruptcy because of their fear...all the while creating the very thing they fear.
Posted by: DD | September 22, 2007 4:22 PM
LA Times-Julian Barnes echo the Defense Dept's GWOT 'fight them over there' meme.
Why lump Afghanistan and Iraq together because that is how Bush words his request?
"$200B for more wars"
They are different.
Make a note of it.
Posted by: commander in thief | September 22, 2007 4:24 PM
Now aren't you proud that you voted to re-elect Bush
although he is bankrupting
this country. And that the
oil-rich Sheiks are using
their profits to buy into
this county's financial
markets. Wow, America can
be proud of it's president
and the leaders of this once great, once independent country.
Posted by: Marion Mims | September 22, 2007 4:51 PM
how worth is one people s life?
Posted by: flavio azzolini | September 22, 2007 5:28 PM
My take: This war is not being won- with ALL the regular troops in Iraq, and even with ALL the contracted troops-Blackwater and extra highly paid contractors for troop support. Nor with all the American taxpayers' 1/2 trillion dollars and counting. Nor with the thousands of American soldier's deaths, or with the tens of thousands of soldier amputees and brain injured Mothers, Fathers and Children. This appeares to be very bad, chargeable leadership. Who deserves to "win" (what ever winnig means this week?) with that kind of leadership? Cut our losses now please. Bush would rather bankrupt this nation than to let go of his ego. Ego. "Me have to win. Me have to win". Who IS the enemy in a "war on terror"? Who is there to negotiate with? Bush would never know how to be a president in peacetime- he'd have to follow the rules. He would have to think of domestic policy and Americans. Is that why the famous and false 16 words in the SOTUA? My support and vote will go to anyone but an incumbent dem or republican. All have blood on their hands. All have our dollar even with the Canadian dollar on their hands, and the 1.40 Euro. The swaggering Bush administration has done more to destabilize America than any other administration in the history of our nation. But let Bush keep congress in line- with their tails between their legs- with all the fear, and more war-mongering. "What will voters think of you if you do not pass my war spending requests?" I already know what I think of all sitting congressmen/women. No heart. No brain. No courage. No care for the stability of America. No real care for the soldiers- otherwise they'd have voted to give them as much time off as they fight in rotations. I'd really like you deadwoods in congress and the WH all out. The way out is for us to vote for an all new congress and WH. Bush' grandchildren will be saddened when they read of grandpappy's pitiful legacy in the school books. We American citizens and troops are all hostages for now, and I will remember these squandered, wasteful, bankrupting, lied to, ruining, killing and injuring eight years for the rest of my life.
Posted by: Vivian | September 22, 2007 5:42 PM
My incredulity knows no bounds: how could you write this article and make no mention of Bush's assailing of Dems for wanting additional spending for programs (S-CHIP and elsewhere) and then come around and do this.
Lazy and irresponsible.
Posted by: noknowno | September 22, 2007 6:01 PM
I say give him the money, its a mad war with a mad congress, and let's not forget, remember the Alamo!!!
Posted by: frank carter | September 22, 2007 6:02 PM
During my stay in the AF, my job was as a purchasing agent. Want to take a bet on how much of this $200 BILLION will go to things that actually HELP the troops?
In addition to NOT doing their job when it comes to cutting off the funds, except for withdrawal, how much is Congress watching where this money is going? Not much.
My guess is that at least 1/4 to 1/3 simply disappears.
Posted by: dogjudge | September 22, 2007 6:11 PM
So why is the US occupying Iraq? If it were any other country or party (other than the Repubs) everyone would be demanding that the illegal occupation of Iraq come to an end.
It is so sad that Bush and the repubs are doing nothing to go after the true terrorist responsible for 911. They are only trying to buy time until Bush is out of office so they can blame the failure in Iraq on someone else.
Posted by: bushgottago | September 22, 2007 7:34 PM
India and China invest in the betterment of themselves and their economies, and we spend untold sums that line the pockets of carpetbaggers before any significant benefit to the troops is granted....the price of all this? the steadfast decline of American civilization
Posted by: am | September 22, 2007 7:35 PM
There are only two options left in Iraq. 1.) a complete withdrawl. 2.) Start the draft and go in full force. It's not right to keep recycling the same soldiers over and over.
Posted by: Boomer | September 22, 2007 7:49 PM
Why does this thing cost so much? It seems the troops are just policemen now over there in the middle of civil war. Why don't they pay for their own war with their oil revenues. Also where is the accountability of previous money spent. Maybe we ought to call this place "pork" chop Hill.
Posted by: richards | September 22, 2007 8:16 PM
The impeachment process should have begun already,\
But the chicken hawks will not bend/
Indications are that they all are against us/
And we the people must make decisions soon when the year 2008 comes unless elections are fixed like 2000 2004 2006 etc...
Posted by: makesenseofit | September 22, 2007 8:18 PM
So much for checks and balances in Govt. It's all checks and no balances.
Posted by: richard | September 22, 2007 8:50 PM
Is there no end to this a-hole?? I'm told my Social Security that I've put into the system
since I was 16 might not be there when I want to retire but he can give billions to a bunch another country. Take note Repubican Party. I've never voted in a election before
in my 53 years but I'm going to this time no matter who the Democrat
canidate is just to get
a Democrat in the White House who is not acting like a Hitler.
Posted by: Tim | September 22, 2007 10:05 PM
Distrust and Verify:
You make very good points. And that is coming from me, a registered Republican.
I do have to say though, that this new funding bill presents a golden opportunity for the Democratic members of Congress to end the war. All they have to do is vote against it. They don't even have to propose any legislation. They just have to say no. Then there will be no issue of veto or veto override.
But what concerns me is whether they will do it. They have had the power to stop funding this war twice since they acquired a majority in both houses, and both times they caved in.
Will they ever show the American people that they are truly against this war aside from just talking like they are?
Posted by: John W. | September 23, 2007 2:14 AM
* * * * *
My guess is that at least 1/4 to 1/3 simply disappears.
Posted by: dogjudge | September 22, 2007 6:11 PM
Hmm. That sounds about right. 1/4 is about par for the rest of the federal government.
This goes to prove two things: 1) the greater the complexity, the greater the likelihood of breakage; and 2) government still is that fiction by which everyone attempts to live at the expense of everyone else.
Posted by: John W. | September 23, 2007 2:18 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7008703.stm
Blackwater board meeting;
'Oh goody! More crumbs for us!!'
The alarm bells are fading America. Looks like we ignored them. Enjoy the mall and Disney World,,,while you still can.
Posted by: C.Morris | September 23, 2007 1:45 PM
John W,
I think it would be a political trap to actually cut off funding, or not vote as you prefer. Politically, it ain't gonna fly and could set the Democratic Party back another generation (they're still blamed for "cutting and running" from 'Nam despite the fact that President Nixon made it happen). Politics matter, in that sometimes doing the right thing in one instance will set a cause back farther- two steps forward one step back.
This can be called making excuses or rationalizing and frankly I don't care. We're not going to be leaving Iraq any time soon, and its going to be a slow-bleed disaster for at least the next generation. George Bush is making sure that he leaves office with a force large enough that it will tie the hands of his (likely) Democratic successor.
What I really want to understand, and this question would best be answered by our resident NeoConservative dead-enders Bruce and John D, how do the Republicans expect to turn their Iraq obstructionismo into something favorable to their cause and party?
Your guys just voted down extending breaks between tours. Sounds like you guys aren't exactly "supporting the troops." But of course you've never supported the troops, you support THE WAR, which is a lot easier to do camped out in front of your keyboard than it is camped out inside Baghdad.
So, Bruce and Dyslin, how is not supporting the troops going to lead the Republicans back to the highest offices? Are people (70% of whom want out in an orderly fashion) going to say: well those incompetent Republicans got us into this debacle and insist that we can never leave, and the Democrats can't seem to end it, so let's just vote for Republicans who will keep us there forever instead of Democrats who will at least try to get us out?
Just trying to get inside the mind of a NeoCon, please help.
Posted by: Distrust and Verify | September 24, 2007 11:29 AM
Why is it that no one is denying that billions of war funds previously delivered to Iraq were misplaced and/or stolen, yet the culprits are not being tracked down and brought to justice?
Elected officials who are aware of this theft should explain why they don't feel the need to perform oversight duties. They need to explain how they can blindly vote for more funding that may again come up missing.
If you know someone is stealing large portions of money sent to be used for the protection of your son or daughter serving in Iraq, would you trust that same someone to deliver more money?
Pentagon auditors say they cannot account for more than $2.3 trillion in transactions.
Franklin Spinney, a DoD analyst says "The books are cooked routinely."
According to an audit, the U.S. failed to keep track of nearly $9 billion in transactions, "much of which appears to have been embezzled."
The Government Accountability Office has said no more money should be sent until it's clear that it will further U.S. efforts in Iraq.
When do we the people get tired of being cheated?
Posted by: Paul C | October 23, 2007 11:32 AM