“War president” George Bush has required the Army and Marines to take a $1.6 billion hit in their – already inadequate – budget request for repair and replacement of worn out equipment in the emergency supplemental now being slowly cogitated over by Congress. Unwilling to find new money or to tap lower priority programs – in which the DOD budget abounds – the White House is seeking the money for more politically current border security. UPI correspondent Pam Hess explains with much useful detail.
Border mission drains war 'reset' fund
By Pamela Hess
UPI Pentagon Correspondent
WASHINGTON, June 6 (UPI) -- When the Senate took $1.9 billion out of the
war supplemental to fund border security last month, $1.6 billion came
out of funds to replace equipment destroyed or worn out from four years
of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The money was diverted at the behest of the White House in a
last-minute bid to address growing political unrest about illegal
immigration. The Office of Management and Budget championed the change
without input from the Army or the Marine Corps whose budgets were
sliced, a Pentagon budget official told United Press International last
week.
"It was done in a 24-hour period, and presented as a fait accompli,"
the official said.
The Senate accepted the offer "without recognizing they were shorting
the very people fighting the war," the official said.
"You can't tell me that illegal aliens coming across the border pose
the same kind of threat to national security as insurgents in Anbar do
against Marines," the official said.
The amendment, sponsored by Republican Sens. Bill Frist (Tenn.) and
Judd Gregg (N.H.), transferred $1.9 billion from the fiscal year 2006
emergency war supplemental to the Department of Homeland Security. As
part of the plan, the National Guard is to provide some 6,000 soldiers
for border duty for at least a year.
Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul McHale said in May the Defense
Department will be completely reimbursed for the costs of the border
deployment, about $756 million.
It will be reimbursed, but with money taken directly out of the Marine
Corps' and Army's pocket -- $500 million and $1.1 billion respectively
-- that was intended to replace trucks, jammers and radios.
A source in Frist's office said the amendment "did not specify what
accounts money was to be taken out of the defense request. It was
written in such a way as to provide (flexibility) to the Pentagon."
But the decision has already been made in OMB, and attempts to get the
administration to restore the funding have fallen on deaf ears,
according to the Pentagon official.
"We tried the normal mechanisms inside the building and it was 'talk
to the hand,'" the official said, on condition of anonymity because of
the political sensitivity of the matter. "There is no appeal mechanism.
It was done very quickly, by directive."
There are many categories of spending in the supplemental, including
the direct cost of war; Iraq reconstruction; equipping and training
Iraqi security forces; and resetting the force.
The direct cost includes ammunition, combat pay, food, and
transportation. For the Marine Corps, the total in Iraq is about $5
billion a year. That money can't be touched without an immediate
negative impact on U.S. troops.
But the Marine Corps faces a larger and more worrisome bill for which
it has received little help. It will cost at least $11.7 billion for the
Marine Corps to "reset" -- that is, restore all the equipment worn out
or lost to combat in the last four years. Even if it received all the
money now, it would take about two years to rebuild to its pre-Sept. 11
capabilities.
The Marine Corps has seen nearly 3,500 pieces of ground equipment
destroyed so far, and it has lost at least 27 aircraft in the Middle
East. Every day in Iraq, trucks and Humvees age four to nine times
faster than they do in peacetime because of the heat, road conditions,
weight of the armor, and constant use, to say nothing of roadside bombs.
For the last three years, the Marine Corps has been cannibalizing its
vehicles and weapons used in training, and draining its war reserves to
keep deployed troops fully outfitted.
When a helicopter is shot down, for instance, another one is scrounged
up and brought forward -- there are no "hot" helicopter production
lines. But that means a Marine unit somewhere else has given up its
equipment, degrading its training and affecting its safety when it does
deploy.
"It is directly related to the war effort, because it has to do with
the training these guys on what they do there," a senior Marine official
told UPI. "You can't just give these guys a machine gun for their last
30 days of training in the Mojave desert. You want them laying behind
their machine guns so when they get to Iraq they are experts, not making
beginner mistakes."
In some cases, the first time a Marine will see a particular radio or
radar will be in his Humvee in Anbar province.
It is a considerable sum to the Marine Corps, which in the regular
fiscal year 2007 budget is slated for less than $2 billion for its
entire procurement budget -- less than a tenth of what the Navy and Air
Force each get.
The Marine Corps has received only $1.6 billion in reset funding so
far, included in the 2006 "bridge" supplemental provided by Congress
last fall.
"Just as in every previous war in the 20th Century, the real impact of
the conflict is not realized by the public until years after the Marines
and soldiers have returned home to a less capable, less ready force,"
the Pentagon official said. "We are trying to mitigate that ... while
the (Bush) administration is offering up more of our requested reset
funds to address other societal needs."
Despite the nearly $300 billion cost of the Iraq war so far, the
military needs still more: According to internal Pentagon budget
documents, the services asked the Pentagon for more than $68 billion in
the fiscal year 2006 supplemental.
The Pentagon knocked nearly $2 billion off that request before
submitting it to the White House. With the Senate's cut, the military
now has $4 billion less than it needs for the war in 2006.
This shortfall, even within the staggering war budget, suggests a
serious debate about defense spending is needed.
"It's a valid criticism," a senior Marine official told UPI. "It shows
that the money is going for things that may be iconic but may not be
needed right now, when the enemy is saying 'we're not going to fight you
symmetrically.'"
The Marine Corps cannot wait for a wholesale revision of the budget,
the officials said. It needs to replace more than 3,000 trucks, 5,000
new high-powered jammers, 3,500 radio sets and 1,000 armor kits.
"The last two-term Republican president took us from a hollow force to
winning the Cold War," said the official. "The current two-term
Republican president may have as his legacy a return to that hollow
force."
Full Version: Border Mission drains War 'Reset' Fund
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > U.S. Military Issues > U.S. Military Issues Archive
QUOTE(Snuffysmith @ Jun 8 2006, 12:08 PM)
“War president” George Bush has required the Army and Marines to take a $1.6 billion hit in their – already inadequate – budget request for repair and replacement of worn out equipment in the emergency supplemental now being slowly cogitated over by Congress. Unwilling to find new money or to tap lower priority programs – in which the DOD budget abounds – the White House is seeking the money for more politically current border security. UPI correspondent Pam Hess explains with much useful detail.
Border mission drains war 'reset' fund
By Pamela Hess
UPI Pentagon Correspondent
WASHINGTON, June 6 (UPI) -- When the Senate took $1.9 billion out of the
war supplemental to fund border security last month, $1.6 billion came
out of funds to replace equipment destroyed or worn out from four years
of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The money was diverted at the behest of the White House in a
last-minute bid to address growing political unrest about illegal
immigration. The Office of Management and Budget championed the change
without input from the Army or the Marine Corps whose budgets were
sliced, a Pentagon budget official told United Press International last
week.
"It was done in a 24-hour period, and presented as a fait accompli,"
the official said.
The Senate accepted the offer "without recognizing they were shorting
the very people fighting the war," the official said.
"You can't tell me that illegal aliens coming across the border pose
the same kind of threat to national security as insurgents in Anbar do
against Marines," the official said.
The amendment, sponsored by Republican Sens. Bill Frist (Tenn.) and
Judd Gregg (N.H.), transferred $1.9 billion from the fiscal year 2006
emergency war supplemental to the Department of Homeland Security. As
part of the plan, the National Guard is to provide some 6,000 soldiers
for border duty for at least a year.
Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul McHale said in May the Defense
Department will be completely reimbursed for the costs of the border
deployment, about $756 million.
It will be reimbursed, but with money taken directly out of the Marine
Corps' and Army's pocket -- $500 million and $1.1 billion respectively
-- that was intended to replace trucks, jammers and radios.
A source in Frist's office said the amendment "did not specify what
accounts money was to be taken out of the defense request. It was
written in such a way as to provide (flexibility) to the Pentagon."
But the decision has already been made in OMB, and attempts to get the
administration to restore the funding have fallen on deaf ears,
according to the Pentagon official.
"We tried the normal mechanisms inside the building and it was 'talk
to the hand,'" the official said, on condition of anonymity because of
the political sensitivity of the matter. "There is no appeal mechanism.
It was done very quickly, by directive."
There are many categories of spending in the supplemental, including
the direct cost of war; Iraq reconstruction; equipping and training
Iraqi security forces; and resetting the force.
The direct cost includes ammunition, combat pay, food, and
transportation. For the Marine Corps, the total in Iraq is about $5
billion a year. That money can't be touched without an immediate
negative impact on U.S. troops.
But the Marine Corps faces a larger and more worrisome bill for which
it has received little help. It will cost at least $11.7 billion for the
Marine Corps to "reset" -- that is, restore all the equipment worn out
or lost to combat in the last four years. Even if it received all the
money now, it would take about two years to rebuild to its pre-Sept. 11
capabilities.
The Marine Corps has seen nearly 3,500 pieces of ground equipment
destroyed so far, and it has lost at least 27 aircraft in the Middle
East. Every day in Iraq, trucks and Humvees age four to nine times
faster than they do in peacetime because of the heat, road conditions,
weight of the armor, and constant use, to say nothing of roadside bombs.
For the last three years, the Marine Corps has been cannibalizing its
vehicles and weapons used in training, and draining its war reserves to
keep deployed troops fully outfitted.
When a helicopter is shot down, for instance, another one is scrounged
up and brought forward -- there are no "hot" helicopter production
lines. But that means a Marine unit somewhere else has given up its
equipment, degrading its training and affecting its safety when it does
deploy.
"It is directly related to the war effort, because it has to do with
the training these guys on what they do there," a senior Marine official
told UPI. "You can't just give these guys a machine gun for their last
30 days of training in the Mojave desert. You want them laying behind
their machine guns so when they get to Iraq they are experts, not making
beginner mistakes."
In some cases, the first time a Marine will see a particular radio or
radar will be in his Humvee in Anbar province.
It is a considerable sum to the Marine Corps, which in the regular
fiscal year 2007 budget is slated for less than $2 billion for its
entire procurement budget -- less than a tenth of what the Navy and Air
Force each get.
The Marine Corps has received only $1.6 billion in reset funding so
far, included in the 2006 "bridge" supplemental provided by Congress
last fall.
"Just as in every previous war in the 20th Century, the real impact of
the conflict is not realized by the public until years after the Marines
and soldiers have returned home to a less capable, less ready force,"
the Pentagon official said. "We are trying to mitigate that ... while
the (Bush) administration is offering up more of our requested reset
funds to address other societal needs."
Despite the nearly $300 billion cost of the Iraq war so far, the
military needs still more: According to internal Pentagon budget
documents, the services asked the Pentagon for more than $68 billion in
the fiscal year 2006 supplemental.
The Pentagon knocked nearly $2 billion off that request before
submitting it to the White House. With the Senate's cut, the military
now has $4 billion less than it needs for the war in 2006.
This shortfall, even within the staggering war budget, suggests a
serious debate about defense spending is needed.
"It's a valid criticism," a senior Marine official told UPI. "It shows
that the money is going for things that may be iconic but may not be
needed right now, when the enemy is saying 'we're not going to fight you
symmetrically.'"
The Marine Corps cannot wait for a wholesale revision of the budget,
the officials said. It needs to replace more than 3,000 trucks, 5,000
new high-powered jammers, 3,500 radio sets and 1,000 armor kits.
"The last two-term Republican president took us from a hollow force to
winning the Cold War," said the official. "The current two-term
Republican president may have as his legacy a return to that hollow
force."
Border mission drains war 'reset' fund
By Pamela Hess
UPI Pentagon Correspondent
WASHINGTON, June 6 (UPI) -- When the Senate took $1.9 billion out of the
war supplemental to fund border security last month, $1.6 billion came
out of funds to replace equipment destroyed or worn out from four years
of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The money was diverted at the behest of the White House in a
last-minute bid to address growing political unrest about illegal
immigration. The Office of Management and Budget championed the change
without input from the Army or the Marine Corps whose budgets were
sliced, a Pentagon budget official told United Press International last
week.
"It was done in a 24-hour period, and presented as a fait accompli,"
the official said.
The Senate accepted the offer "without recognizing they were shorting
the very people fighting the war," the official said.
"You can't tell me that illegal aliens coming across the border pose
the same kind of threat to national security as insurgents in Anbar do
against Marines," the official said.
The amendment, sponsored by Republican Sens. Bill Frist (Tenn.) and
Judd Gregg (N.H.), transferred $1.9 billion from the fiscal year 2006
emergency war supplemental to the Department of Homeland Security. As
part of the plan, the National Guard is to provide some 6,000 soldiers
for border duty for at least a year.
Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul McHale said in May the Defense
Department will be completely reimbursed for the costs of the border
deployment, about $756 million.
It will be reimbursed, but with money taken directly out of the Marine
Corps' and Army's pocket -- $500 million and $1.1 billion respectively
-- that was intended to replace trucks, jammers and radios.
A source in Frist's office said the amendment "did not specify what
accounts money was to be taken out of the defense request. It was
written in such a way as to provide (flexibility) to the Pentagon."
But the decision has already been made in OMB, and attempts to get the
administration to restore the funding have fallen on deaf ears,
according to the Pentagon official.
"We tried the normal mechanisms inside the building and it was 'talk
to the hand,'" the official said, on condition of anonymity because of
the political sensitivity of the matter. "There is no appeal mechanism.
It was done very quickly, by directive."
There are many categories of spending in the supplemental, including
the direct cost of war; Iraq reconstruction; equipping and training
Iraqi security forces; and resetting the force.
The direct cost includes ammunition, combat pay, food, and
transportation. For the Marine Corps, the total in Iraq is about $5
billion a year. That money can't be touched without an immediate
negative impact on U.S. troops.
But the Marine Corps faces a larger and more worrisome bill for which
it has received little help. It will cost at least $11.7 billion for the
Marine Corps to "reset" -- that is, restore all the equipment worn out
or lost to combat in the last four years. Even if it received all the
money now, it would take about two years to rebuild to its pre-Sept. 11
capabilities.
The Marine Corps has seen nearly 3,500 pieces of ground equipment
destroyed so far, and it has lost at least 27 aircraft in the Middle
East. Every day in Iraq, trucks and Humvees age four to nine times
faster than they do in peacetime because of the heat, road conditions,
weight of the armor, and constant use, to say nothing of roadside bombs.
For the last three years, the Marine Corps has been cannibalizing its
vehicles and weapons used in training, and draining its war reserves to
keep deployed troops fully outfitted.
When a helicopter is shot down, for instance, another one is scrounged
up and brought forward -- there are no "hot" helicopter production
lines. But that means a Marine unit somewhere else has given up its
equipment, degrading its training and affecting its safety when it does
deploy.
"It is directly related to the war effort, because it has to do with
the training these guys on what they do there," a senior Marine official
told UPI. "You can't just give these guys a machine gun for their last
30 days of training in the Mojave desert. You want them laying behind
their machine guns so when they get to Iraq they are experts, not making
beginner mistakes."
In some cases, the first time a Marine will see a particular radio or
radar will be in his Humvee in Anbar province.
It is a considerable sum to the Marine Corps, which in the regular
fiscal year 2007 budget is slated for less than $2 billion for its
entire procurement budget -- less than a tenth of what the Navy and Air
Force each get.
The Marine Corps has received only $1.6 billion in reset funding so
far, included in the 2006 "bridge" supplemental provided by Congress
last fall.
"Just as in every previous war in the 20th Century, the real impact of
the conflict is not realized by the public until years after the Marines
and soldiers have returned home to a less capable, less ready force,"
the Pentagon official said. "We are trying to mitigate that ... while
the (Bush) administration is offering up more of our requested reset
funds to address other societal needs."
Despite the nearly $300 billion cost of the Iraq war so far, the
military needs still more: According to internal Pentagon budget
documents, the services asked the Pentagon for more than $68 billion in
the fiscal year 2006 supplemental.
The Pentagon knocked nearly $2 billion off that request before
submitting it to the White House. With the Senate's cut, the military
now has $4 billion less than it needs for the war in 2006.
This shortfall, even within the staggering war budget, suggests a
serious debate about defense spending is needed.
"It's a valid criticism," a senior Marine official told UPI. "It shows
that the money is going for things that may be iconic but may not be
needed right now, when the enemy is saying 'we're not going to fight you
symmetrically.'"
The Marine Corps cannot wait for a wholesale revision of the budget,
the officials said. It needs to replace more than 3,000 trucks, 5,000
new high-powered jammers, 3,500 radio sets and 1,000 armor kits.
"The last two-term Republican president took us from a hollow force to
winning the Cold War," said the official. "The current two-term
Republican president may have as his legacy a return to that hollow
force."
Worn out and old equipment is nothing new to the Marines. I often wondered what I'd do if I was issued a radio the Army or Air Force had not worn out before I got it.
We've been doing it with less for years. Do we like it? Not really but it keeps you sharp and respectful of what you do get.
When I got hurt in 1994 I also destroyed the radio I had strapped to my back. I almost cried because it was the best radio in the company, to hell with the fact I broke five ribs and my elbow when I smashed it flat.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.