Global Policy Forum

Today, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates will testify before the Senate Appropriations Committee to request an additional $50 billion from Congress to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan next year, on top of $141.7 billion that has already been appropriated. The announcement comes just two weeks after Gen. David Petraeus testified before Congress and argued for the continuation of the "surge" well into 2008. "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." If the Defense Authorization Bill is approved with President Bush's budget request, "2008 will be the most expensive year of the Iraq war." "After nearly five years of this war, more than 3,800 deaths, over 27,000 casualties, and no end in sight, we must change course. This war, this draining, desultory, dreadful occupation of Iraq must end," stated Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd (D-WV) on Monday.

PAYING FOR MORE BLOOD: In February, President Bush requested $141.7 billion "to sustain combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan into next year" for the fiscal year beginning Oct 1. That request, however, "did not allow financing for a surge in troops [in Iraq] that would last through mid-summer 2008." Today, Gates will request an additional $50 billion, bringing "the amount the administration is seeking to finance the war effort through 2008 to almost $200 billion." "Most of the additional funding in a revised supplemental bill would pay for the current counteroffensive in Iraq, which has expanded the U.S. force there by about 28,000 troops." Nearly a quarter of the new money "would go to build additional mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles, or MRAPs." The administration's request this year dwarfs that of previous years. "In 2004, the two conflicts [in Iraq and Afghanistan] together cost $94 billion; in 2005, they cost $108 billion; in 2006, $122 billion." "Everybody predicts declines, but they haven't occurred, and 2008 will be higher than 2007," states analyst Winslow T. Wheeler. "[T]hus far it has continued to get bloodier and more expensive." Even if the Bush administration reduces the size of the force in Iraq in 2008, "analysts expect the 2009 budget to remain between $170 billion and $200 billion."

FUNDING AN 'OPEN-ENDED COMMITMENT': Last weekend, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) said she would support cutting off funding to force a change in war policy, announcing her opposition to the President's $50 billion request. "I will vote against funding again in the absence of any change in policy," she said. "I don't believe we should continue to vote for funding that has an open-ended commitment." Byrd "said that he plans to attach 'strings' to the supplemental war funding bill in an effort to bring troops home more quickly." "In the House, antiwar lawmakers have gathered 80 signatures on a letter they plan to send to Bush expressing their opposition to 'appropriating any additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq other than a time-bound, safe redeployment.'" "If one is unhappy with our progress in Iraq after four years of war, voting to de-fund the war makes sense," said Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).

THE 'DANGEROUS' IRAN AMENDMENT: Today, the Senate will debate an amendment to the appropriations bill introduced by Sens. Jo Lieberman (I-CT) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ), which seeks to escalate the possibility of armed conflict with Iran. The amendment states that the U.S. should support "the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq," including "military instruments" against alleged Iranian agents in Iraq. Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) called the amendment "Dick Cheney's fondest pipe dream," as "it could be read as a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action, without one hearing and without serious debate." "Iran is a threat...but it needs to be dealt with strategically and diplomatically," said Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE). Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) called the amendment's language "dangerous" and called it an "effort to put us on the record for the use of military force in Iran."

THE PARTITION AMENDMENT: The Senate will also consider an amendment proposed by Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) calling for the partitioning of Iraq into at least three sectarian enclaves. "You make federalism work for the Iraqis," Biden claimed. But 98 percent of Iraqis oppose the partitioning of their country on sectarian lines. The plan "would alienate huge sections of the Iraqi population. It would be a gross provocation to most of Iraq's neighbors," who view a divided Iraq as a "brittle state structure," notes Iraq expert Reidar Visser. Biden's proposal echoes Brookings analyst Michael O'Hanlon's "soft-partition" plan, which envisions a long-term occupation of Iraq. Analyst Anthony Cordesman said of the partition plan, "[It is] brutal. It is repressive. It kills people. It injures them. It drives them out of their homes, and it drives them out of their country. To talk about this as if it was something that is gentle or nonviolent is simply dishonest."