Rising Cost Of Iraq War May Reignite Public Debate By YOCHI J. DREAZEN and JOHN D. MCKINNON Wall Street Journal February 4, 2008; Page A1
WASHINGTON -- The cost of U.S. military operations in Iraq is rising rapidly, and could reignite the national debate about the war, which has taken a back seat to the economy as an issue for most voters this election year. Today, the White House will propose a federal budget that for the first time tops $3 trillion. The plan is expected to include a record sum for the Pentagon and an additional $70 billion in funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while essentially freezing discretionary spending in areas other than national security, including most domestic programs. The sharp contrast between President Bush's defense and domestic-spending goals could give Democrats a potent political weapon as the economy continues to deteriorate. But with the Democratic-controlled Congress likely to scrap most of Mr. Bush's spending plans, his funding proposal for Iraq may be one of the budget's most enduring elements. Mr. Bush's budget calls for about $515 billion to be allocated to the Defense Department for the fiscal year that starts Oct. 1, according to people familiar with the matter. If passed by Congress, that would be the largest military budget -- adjusted for inflation -- since World War II. Pending Requests The budget also includes a separate request of $70 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan for the first quarter of fiscal 2009 alone. For this fiscal year, Congress has yet to approve additional spending of about $102 billion the White House has requested for the two conflicts. Boosted in part by rising fuel prices and the expense of repairing or replacing vehicles worn down by the long war, U.S. spending on Iraq has doubled in the past three years. Last year's buildup of U.S. troops -- known as the "surge" -- and the military's growing use of expensive heavy munitions to roust Iraqi insurgents also have contributed to the cost increase. According to a recent Congressional Research Service report, the average monthly cost of the conflict -- by CRS's measure -- hit $10.3 billion in the year ended Sept. 30, 2007, up from $4.4 billion in fiscal 2004. $1 Trillion Mark With Congress having already approved $691 billion in war spending since 2001, the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined could rise to just under $900 billion by next spring and could near the $1 trillion mark by the end of 2009. Pentagon officials acknowledge that war costs have risen sharply, but they say the added spending is justified not only by higher fuel and food prices but also by the need to provide better protective gear and other equipment to U.S. troops. They also note that the U.S. has begun spending tens of millions of dollars a year on salaries for what the Pentagon calls "Concerned Local Citizens," the mainly Sunni fighters who now function as neighborhood-watch organizations in many parts of Iraq. On the domestic front, the president's new budget is expected to keep a tight lid on costs that aren't security-related. One big target for savings would be Medicare, the health-care program for the elderly. But the budget for homeland security is expected to rise sharply again, with much of the money going to increasing immigration enforcement and border security. Today's announcement is also expected to project deficits in the range of $400 billion for both 2008 and 2009, thanks to a big economic-stimulus plan Congress is expected to approve. If war costs were fully included, the 2009 deficit would be even higher. Congress has been unable to limit war funding in the past. Last year, several measures aimed at changing administration policy failed to make it through both chambers, damping calls for change. The progress the U.S. troop surge has made in tamping down violence in parts of Iraq also has helped to dislodge the war from the top of the political agenda. But the issue of war costs is gaining traction. Democrats believe they have a stronger hand now amid fears of a recession. Polling and focus groups commissioned by several unions and activist groups last year suggested that Democrats should focus on the war's impact on domestic needs as they gird for a budget battle with Mr. Bush. According to a memo describing the results, the best way for the Democrats to frame their message would be to criticize Mr. Bush for vetoing "important priorities at home after spending half a trillion dollars in Iraq." A big test of this approach could come as soon as this spring, when Congress begins debating the additional Iraq war funding the Bush administration has requested for this year. Democrats' Message Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius sought to make those points last Monday in the Democrats' official response to President Bush's State of the Union address. She complained that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan "have cost us dearly -- in lives lost; in thousands of wounded warriors whose futures may never be the same; [and] in challenges not met here at home because our resources were committed elsewhere." On the campaign trail, Democrats have hit that message harder, arguing that urgent domestic needs -- from children's health care to expanded spending on highways and other infrastructure -- are going unmet because of the high costs of the two conflicts. "We are spending $9 billion to $10 billion every month," Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama said late last month during a debate in South Carolina. "That's money that could be going right here in South Carolina to lay broadband lines in rural communities, to put kids back to school." Several progressive groups and labor unions joined forces last fall to run TV ads targeting lawmakers for voting against a Democratic-led effort to expand health insurance for children. One ad sponsored by USAction said "health care for 1.7 million kids costs the same as just one week in Iraq. But Republicans in Congress" helped President Bush to block the program's expansion. White House officials believe they weathered Democrats' attacks over Mr. Bush's veto of the expansion. Many voters, the White House believes, agreed that the initiative represented an ill-advised, big-government-style response to the country's health-care problems. They plan to maintain that defense as Democrats broaden their arguments for more spending to include infrastructure and social spending. Senior military officials, meanwhile, want to see the Defense Department's budget grow beyond what Mr. Bush has requested so far. Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says that total defense spending -- for the Defense Department itself and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- should rise to 4% of gross domestic product a year. That's equivalent to about $700 billion a year. Replacing Equipment Senior Pentagon officials say they need the extra money to pay for the continuing costs of expanding the nation's active-duty military by tens of thousands of troops and repairing or replacing the planes, helicopters, tanks and armored vehicles consumed by the two wars. Speaking to reporters Friday, Gen. James Conway, the commandant of the Marine Corps, argued that a wartime defense budget of 4% of GDP would be small compared with the ratios in previous conflicts. "We're fighting a war on less than 4%," he said. "It was 9 during Korea, 13 for Vietnam, 35, 38 for World War II. We're making do with it, but...we do see some needs on the horizon." The 30,000 additional U.S. troops sent to Iraq last year as part of the surge are expected to return to the U.S. by the end of the summer, bringing the total U.S. troop presence back down to about 130,000. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has talked in the past about trying to withdraw an additional 30,000 troops by the end of the year to reduce the strains on the military. Mr. Bush said this week that he may hold off on any further troop reductions for fear of jeopardizing recent security gains in Iraq.
