Det danske Fredsakademi
Kronologi over fredssagen og international politik 24. november 2004 / Timeline November 24, 2004
Version 3.523. November 2004, 25. November 2004
11/24/2004
Rising War Costs : Monthly war spending passes $5.8 billion,
chiefs tell Congress
By: James W. Crawley, Media General
As casualties mount in Iraq, so has the monetary cost of the war.
The military is now spending more than $5.8 billion each month, top
officials told Congress this week.
The service chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps
told the House Armed Service Committee that the price of war has
jumped as fighting continues and reconstruction efforts are stymied
by security concerns. And, in a few months, more money will be
needed.
The Army, with about 110,000 soldiers on the ground in Iraq, has a
monthly "burn rate" of $4.7 billion.
The Air Force is spending about $800 million monthly.
The Marines, which are spearheading the fighting in Fallujah, had
an average monthly war cost of $300 million.
The Navy, which was silent about its spending during the committee
hearing Wednesday, did not provide its war spending totals
yesterday.
War spending, known euphemistically as the "burn rate," includes
the cost of fighting, feeding and fueling the forces in the area,
according to the military.
Besides such consumables as bullets, bombs, food and gas, the money
is used to bolster the body and vehicle armor protecting troops;
buy weapons, uniforms, tents and other gear for soldiers; and
replace vehicles lost in attacks, roadside bombs and accidents.
It doesn't include soldiers' regular pay and other routine costs
unchanged by the war.
On a yearly basis, the war tab is about $70 billion.
"That's larger than the gross domestic product of most nations,"
said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, a research group in
Arlington, Va.
The price of war is escalating
Initial cost estimates pegged the monthly burn rate at $2.2 billion
in early 2003. By July 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said
that costs were running about $3.9 billion a month. In June, the
Pentagon comptroller said that the monthly bill was nearly $5
billion.
In August, the Pentagon got a $25 billion boost for the war through
a supplemental appropriation, but military officials said this week
that the money likely will run out in a few months unless another
temporary spending bill is approved.
The money that the Marine Corps' set aside will "take us through
the spring," said Gen. Michael Hagee, the Marine commandant.
Hagee testified alongside Army Gen. Peter Schoomaker, Air Force
Gen. John Jumper and Navy Adm. Vern Clark.
Defense analyst John Pike said that the burn rate is likely to
increase.
"I think the burn rate is going to get worse because the
counter-insurgency effort will continue to be on our shoulders,"
said Pike, who is the director of GlobalSecurity.org, an
independent research group.
The fighting in Fallujah and other cities has been rising as
January elections in Iraq near. The increasing costs could have a
lasting effect on the military's future, military analysts say.
"If the current rate of expenditures is sustained, this will cut
into Rumsfeld's plan to transform the military" into a more capable
and flexible force, Thompson said.
The result, he suggested, could be cutting new weapons systems or
stretching out the purchase of fighters, warships and other
weapons. To help understand how much money $5.8 billion is, think
of it in $1 bills. That would be 5,800,000,000 bills, weighing
nearly 12.8 million pounds. Stacked, the bills would reach more
than 393 miles into space.
That's for one month.
11/24/2004
Operation Truth - Is A Draft Coming?
http://www.optruth.org/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=draft&lnav=1
Although both the presidential candidates would prefer to avoid
it, the draft has remained an important issue this election year.
Several recent news reports have raised the issue, this Oct. 11
Time magazine story among them. Plus: Watch a video piecing
highlighting TV coverage of the issue, featuring OpTruth's Paul
Rieckhoff.
On October 5th, 2004, with no debate and on only hours notice, the
House of Representatives voted on a bill that would have reinstated
the draft. The proposal was overwhelmingly rejected. Why was it
voted on at all? This vote was a political maneuver, intended to
put this controversial question to rest before the election.
But the draft is still an issue. Everyone from Senator McCain to
Ambassador Bremer have admitted that there is a troop shortage in
Iraq. Troop retention and recruitment are down, and the proposals
made by both presidential candidates do not adequately address
these issues. The next logical contingency is the draft.
Since 1973, America has relied on an all-volunteer military. But in
1980, President Jimmy Carter reinstated "Selective Service
registration," the list maintained by the government of men ages 18
to 25 who are eligible for a draft. Young men, citizens or
otherwise, must register with the Selective Service before their
18th birthday. If a draft is ever reinstated, these men will be
eligible for mandatory military service.
Here are only some of the top officials, military experts, and
government leaders who have referred to the strain placed on the
military by current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan:
General Richard A. Cody: General Cody, a top Pentagon official,
told the House Armed Services Committee: “Are we stretched
thin with our active and reserve component forces right now?
Absolutely.” (ABC News)
Ambassador J. Paul Bremer: Ambassador Bremer, who governed Iraq
after the U.S. invasion, has admitted: "We never had enough troops
on the ground." (Washington Post)
Senator John McCain (R-AZ):“We invaded Iraq with enough
troops to topple the regime, but not enough to prevent looting,
stabilize the country, or maintain security.”
(www.mccain.senate.gov)
There’s a lot of evidence that the military is having a hard
time meeting the troop levels they need.
The military is relying on troops from non-traditional sources: the
National Guard, the Reserves, the Individual Ready Reserves, forces
from the National Training Center, troops from the Army’s
Delayed Entry program, and troops currently deployed in other
theatres.
Currently over 40% of the troops being rotated into Iraq are
National Guard members and Reservists. This reliance on Reservists
hasn’t been seen since World War II; of the 2 million people
who served in Vietnam, only 9,000 were National Guardsmen.
(PBS)
In addition to calling on the National Guard and Reserves, the U.S.
military is pulling thousands of U.S. troops out of Korea in order
to supplement US troop strength in Iraq. (The Washington Post:
“U.S. Troops Moving From S. Korea to Iraq”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34653-2004May17.html)
Forces from the National Training Center are also being sent to
Iraq. (Associated Press) The decision to send key trainers into
combat debilitates the long-term strength of the army.
The activation of the Individual Ready Reserveis another Band-Aid
solution that is already reaching its limit. (military.com) In
September, 2004, the Army Times reported that only 1 in 3 of the
civilians called back to service through the IRR have actually
shown up.
Issues with Recruitment and Retention As early as 2003, the long
and risky deployments in Iraq had begun to have an effect on the
National Guard and Reserves. (The Christian Science Monitor) This
year, for the first time in ten years, the National Guard has
fallen short of recruitment goals. (Associated Press)
The Army has had to increase their efforts in order to reach
enlistment goals, including greatly increasing cash bonuses for
enlistees and hiring hundreds more recruiters. (USA Today) The Army
has recently gone so far as to lower the standards for enlistees
(The New York Times) and is even considering shortening the long
combat tours that many believe are lowering interest in enlistment.
(Reuters)
The United States has been working hard to train Iraqi security
forces, but with limited results. See the Army Times article.
Training Iraqi police and military recruits may become increasingly
difficult, as recruits have been targeted by the insurgents. (The
Washington Post)
Titled the “Universal National Service Act of 2003,”
this proposal was set forth by Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY)
and would require that “all American men and women, as well
legal permanent residents, aged 18 to 26, would be subject to
compulsory military service or alternative civilian service.”
A similar bill was introduced in the Senate on January 9th, 2003 by
Senator Ernest Hollings (D-SC).
Changes in the Selective Service would make a draft today more
equitable than previous drafts. The Selective Service Performance
Plan for 2004 states that “if a draft were held today there
would be fewer reasons to excuse a man for service. Before Congress
reformed the draft in 1971, a man could qualify for a student
deferment…under the new draft law, a college student could
have his induction postponed only until the end of the current
semester.”
Opponents of the draft believe that a volunteer army is more
motivated and better trained than a drafted force. The concept of a
female draft is equally controversial. A draft today would likely
be more politically divisive and harmful to the militarythan ever
before. "In a sharp reversal from historical support for military
service, the first comprehensive national survey on the draft
reveals that our country could face a crisis in military capacity
with an unprecedented number of draft eligible adults stating they
will actively seek deferment or refuse to serve if a draft is
reinstated." (Alliance for Security)
While the draft has become an issue of importance for the general
public, it has already become a reality for many off-duty
servicemen. Programs like Stop Loss, known as “the back-door
draft,” have been put into effect in order to salvage
athinly-stretched army.
 |
 |