iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Obama War Funding: Wants $83.4 Billion For Iraq, Afghan Wars

ANDREW TAYLOR   04/10/09 12:36 AM ET   AP

Iraq

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama asked Congress on Thursday for $83.4 billion for U.S. military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, pressing for special troop funding that he opposed two years ago when he was senator and George W. Bush was president.

Obama's request, including money to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan, would push the costs of the two wars to almost $1 trillion since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, according to the Congressional Research Service. The additional money would cover operations into the fall.

Obama is also requesting $350 million in new Pentagon funding to deal with Mexican drug cartels and conduct other security activities along the U.S.-Mexico border, along with another $400 million to help Pakistan in counterinsurgency efforts along the border with Afghanistan.

While the Iraq war by far gets the most money, the request reflects a shift in focus from Iraq to Afghanistan, where severe challenges remain and where the former Soviet Union learned firsthand the difficulties of battling Islamic extremists.

"Nearly 95 percent of these funds will be used to support our men and women in uniform as they help the people of Iraq to take responsibility for their own future _ and work to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan," Obama wrote in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, acknowledged that Obama has been critical of Bush's use of similar special legislation to pay for the wars. He said it was needed this time because the money will be required by summer, before Congress is likely to complete its normal appropriations process.

"This will be the last supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan," Gibbs said.

In a statement, Pelosi said Congress would carefully review Obama's request and "engage in a dialogue with the administration on appropriate benchmarks to measure the success of our investments."

Last June, Congress approved $66 billion in advance 2009 funding for military operations. All told, the Pentagon would receive $142 billion in war funding for the budget year ending on Sept. 30.

The request is likely to win easy approval from the Democratic-controlled Congress, despite frustration among some liberals over the pace of troop withdrawals and Obama's plans for a large residual force of up to 50,000 troops _ about one-third of the force now there _ who will train Iraqis, protect U.S. assets and personnel and conduct anti-terror operations.

The request would fund an average force level in Iraq of 140,000 U.S. troops. It would also finance Obama's initiative to boost troop levels in Afghanistan to more than 60,000 from the current 39,000. And it would provide $2.2 billion to accelerate the Pentagon's plans to increase the overall size of the U.S. military, including a 547,400-person active-duty Army.

Some Democrats were not pleased.

"This funding will do two things _ it will prolong our occupation of Iraq through at least the end of 2011, and it will deepen and expand our military presence in Afghanistan indefinitely," said anti-war Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif.

But House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio predicted that Republicans would overwhelmingly support the request, provided congressional Democrats don't seek to "micromanage" the war by adding a timeline or other restrictions on the ability of military officials to carry on the fight.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a holdover from the Bush administration, said, "The reality is the alternative to the supplemental is a sudden and precipitous withdrawal of the United States from both places, and I don't know anybody who thinks that's a good idea."

Obama was a harsh critic of the Iraq war as a presidential candidate, a stance that attracted support from the Democratic Party's liberal base and helped him secure his party's nomination. He opposed an infusion of war funding in 2007 after Bush used a veto to force Congress to remove a withdrawal timeline from the $99 billion measure.

But he supported a war funding bill last year that also included about $25 billion for domestic programs. Obama also voted for war funding in 2006, before he announced his candidacy for president.

The request includes $75.8 billion for the military and more than $7 billion in foreign aid. Pakistan, a key ally in the fight against al-Qaida, will receive $400 million in aid to combat insurgents.

The upcoming debate in Congress is likely to provide an early test of Obama's efforts to remake the Pentagon and its much-criticized weapons procurement system. He is requesting four F-22 fighter jets costing about $600 million as part of the war funding package but wants to shut the F-22 program down after that.

Included in the request is $400 million for the first installment of a new program to train and equip Pakistan's military. The Associated Press reported last week that the program would total as much as $3 billion over the next five years and would include money for helicopters, night-vision goggles and communications equipment.

Distribution of the funding will be controlled by the military and will be tightly focused on improving the ability of Pakistan's military, including its Frontier Corps, to better fight insurgents hiding in safe havens along the border. It also will allow commanders to provide humanitarian relief to people affected by military operations.

The funding measure would include $3.6 billion for the Afghanistan National Army.

Obama is also seeking $30 million in Justice Department funding to implement the shut down of the facility in Guantanamo Bay holding enemy combatants. There's also $250 million to combat western wildfires.

Poor countries would receive $448 million to help them deal with the global financial crisis.

The White House wants the bill for the president's signature by Memorial Day, said a House Democratic aide.

Obama warned lawmakers not to succumb to the temptation to use the must-pass war funding bill as a vehicle for other spending.

"I want the Congress to send me a focused bill, and to do so quickly," he wrote.

Obama announced plans in February to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq on a 19-month timetable.

His new request would push the war and diplomatic money approved for 2009 to about $150 billion. The totals were $171 billion for 2007 and $188 billion for 2008, the year Bush increased the tempo of military operations in a generally successful effort to quell the Iraq insurgency.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama asked Congress on Thursday for $83.4 billion for U.S. military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, pressing for special troop funding that he o...
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama asked Congress on Thursday for $83.4 billion for U.S. military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, pressing for special troop funding that he o...
Filed by Katharine Zaleski  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 261
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (7 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Billar
Fighting The Lies From The Right
12:24 PM on 04/10/2009
I know who I'm not voting for!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
fcsakes
11:52 AM on 04/10/2009
No. Let me repeat, NO. Same old crap we've been told for the last eight damn years. Suck this country dry for war, suck this country dry for banks, suck this country dry for everything BUT the citizens who are paying for it.

I am sick to death of politicians and I am sorry I committed time, money, and effort to CHANGE. There is no change - it is more and MORE of the same. Only worse.
11:27 AM on 04/10/2009
I didn't like what Obama said about Afghanistan during the election, both he and Biden clearly indicated they would bog us down in this terrible place. Still, they were head and shoulders above the McCain-Palin ticket. Now that he is President, we still must try to make him abandon this terrible road in Afghanistan, which will only end in a Soviet style debacle with many lives, many years, and many zillions of taxpayer dollars wasted. Afghanistan is the way it is for many reasons, which will never go away. It didn't happen yesterday. I am an American, and I only care about America. al Qaeda does not need a nation to plot against us, that can be done in a hotel room anywhere in the world. America needs to stop doing things that earn the hatred of the world. European nations have finally learned this. Every "terrorist" we kill has brothers, sons, uncles, cousins - not to mention sisters, aunts, mothers. They all hate us when we kill their warriors, yes, our "terrorists" are their warriors, whether we like it or not. They will stop hating us when there is no reason to hate us. We are in THEIR world, trying to remake it to our liking. That will NEVER happen.
08:58 AM on 04/10/2009
Congratulations on having your own Vietnam Mr. Obama.

In looking back I should have realized that all that change you talked about is what's going to left in my pocket by the time you suck out all of the money.

From Country Joe & the Fish:

Come on all of you big strong men
Uncle Sam needs your help again
he's got himself in a terrible jam
way down yonder in Afghanistan so
put down your books and pick up a gun we're
gonna have a whole lotta fun
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
carnelld
08:40 AM on 04/10/2009
Obama is doing the same thing Bush did. No matter how you look at the situation, it is the same
thing the last administration did.

Obama, on the Iraq war issue is a major disappointment. As a matter of fact , Obama is worse than Bush. Atleast Bush had a vision and the courage to carry out his plan(although I feel his plan was defective).

Obama is a coward and does not really have a plan. He is following Bush's plan. All the talk about change, and this is what he does?.

I supported Obama during the election,
08:23 AM on 04/10/2009
Hey, I just thought of a great way to save 83.4 Billion dollars......guess what it is.
photo
Norge
Rolf K. Artist, worker of metal, writer of poems
04:57 AM on 04/10/2009
In that area, Bush was the cholera and Obama appears to becoming the pest. Just repacking and rebranding murder and theft.
photo
PerfectSense
Think - before Progressives outlaw thinking.
04:51 AM on 04/10/2009
Obama is making Nixon's mistake. When Nixon was elected, the Vietnam war was Johnson's war. Nixon did not withdraw quickly enough and in fact Nixon order the war to be expanded into Laos and Cambodia. Consequently, the Vietnam war is now more associated with Nixon and Republicans than Johnson and the Democrats even though Johnson and Democrats started major Vietnam combat operations.
06:56 AM on 04/10/2009
Actually it was Kennedy who started combat operations in Vietnam.
07:35 AM on 04/10/2009
correct
09:20 AM on 04/10/2009
Historical accuracy counts for extra points:

The first American was killed in Vietnam in 1945.

Truman sent the first advisors to Vietnam in 1950. He also sent $10M in military equipment in 1950. Truman authorized another $150M in 1951

Eisenhower sent CIA pilots in 1954. Eisenhower increased the number of advisors to 800 before elaving office

JFK increased the number of advisors / trainers to 16,000

The first US combat troops arrived in Vietnam in March of 1965, over a year after JFK's tragic murder.
02:47 AM on 04/10/2009
OBL's strategy is to defeat the US by bankrupting the US.

Bush and now Obama have been making that strategy succeed by increasing the number of troops occupying Islamic countries.

Obama=Bush
12:55 AM on 04/10/2009
TOP US GENERAL: WE MAY HAVE TO IGNORE IRAQ DEADLINE

Barack Obama, a one-term president.
02:43 AM on 04/10/2009
Obama is going for the GOP vote for his reelection. Triangualtion lives.

Obama=Bush
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:33 AM on 04/10/2009
Despite the usual name-calling and personal attacks by those who were frustrated because they found my arguments irrefutable, II enjoyed reading the commenyts on this thread. There is a broad variety of opinions expressed, and some quite interesting.

Thank you to all that I interacted with. It was fun.

Good Night.
.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:51 AM on 04/10/2009
You are the last person to be complaining about name calling and personal attacks.
11:57 PM on 04/09/2009
Obama is nothing but a politician who says one thing and does another. The US war on Afghanistan and Iraq was not Bush's war only, but part of a greater agenda that every president (i.e. puppet) has to adhere to.

The elites in Wall Street, in the Defense, and the giant Oil Corporations are the ones who need to be questioned.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:05 AM on 04/10/2009
It is true that Obama is a politician. If you took him to be a plumber or a medical doctor, that was a misunderstanding on your part.

Regarding Afghanistan, this is what Obama said before election:
--------------

"I will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan and use this commitment to seek greater contributions--with fewer restrictions--from NATO allies. I will focus on training Afghan security forces and supporting an Afghan judiciary. I will once and for all dismantle al-Qaeda and the Tal-iban. The solution in Afghanistan is not just military--it is political and economic. That is why I would also increase our nonmilitary aid by $1 billion. These resources should fund projects at the local level to impact ordinary Afghans, including the development of alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers. And we must demand better performance from the Afghan government through tough anticorruption safeguards on aid."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1823945,00.html
----------------------

In what way is that different than what he is doing?

Regarding Iraq, he had promised a 16 month withdrawal during campaign. It turns out that he now has a 17 month plan. So, OK, if you want to call that lying, sure, he misled you.
.
02:44 AM on 04/10/2009
It is not different. It is failure.
07:00 AM on 04/10/2009
When 17 turns to 27 that turns to 38 that turns to... then what Hume. The top general on the ground in Iraq says the deadline may have to be ignored. Obama said this week that we have to be careful getting out of Iraq. Meaning? The withdrawal date is dictated by the situation on the ground. Like it or not, that is EXACTLY what Bush said.
11:50 PM on 04/09/2009
The war in Afghanistan is being justified, in effect, as a "preventive war" , but the contingency it is supposed to prevent -- an al Qaeda base in Afghanistan -- is one that that isn't going to occur, regardless of the U.S. war in Afghanistan. In that regard, the rationale for this war is very much like the rationale for the invasion of Iraq, which was that the United States had to prevent the acquisition by Saddam Hussein of a nuclear weapon.

Although the war in Afghanistan cannot solve the al Qaeda problem in Pakistan, it can accelerate the destabilization of Pakistan and strengthening the jihadi movement there. Even air attacks by drone aircraft in Pakistan, which is now settled U.S. policy, create a powerful political backlash in favor of the militants in Pakistan.

The administration's rationale for escalating war in Afghanistan does not stand up to careful examination. Not only is Afghanistan not a war of necessity, as it is being portrayed by the administration; it is a war that is very likely to make the terrible mess in Pakistan substantially worse and increase the likelihood of spreading chaos in that country.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/41208

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/05/7493

Afghanistan: "graveyard of empires"--you cannot win against querilla-style cowards in their own terrain and land.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:00 AM on 04/10/2009
I dispute your basic premise that al Qaeda base in Afghanistan cannot be destroyed, especially because you provide no basis for your premise.

It is true that one can fight terr0rists by military force, but that won’t end terr0rism.

And this President seems to understand that.

Destroying terr0rist capabilities can only be a part of a strategy to minimize terr0rism.

This action against terr0rists who attacked us should have happened in ’02 and '03, with overwhelming force to destroy al Qaeda bases, followed by a political/economic aid approach aimed at denying refuge to terr0rists in Afghanistan. We must give Afghans a reason to be on our side, rather than giving refuge to al Qaeda. That means helping them create businesses, jobs, rebuilding their schools, hospitals, roads, etc. Following destruction of al Qaeda, that has to happen to prevent their resurgence.

Attacking targets in Pakistan is fair game, but using methods that minimize civilian casualties. No more indiscriminate b0mbing. Forcing Afghans to our kind of democracy is a l0ser, and we shouldn’t be fighting Karzai's Afghan enemies. We should be fighting our enemies: al Qaeda.

President Obama has outlined the mission of his military action and a plan. And it is a reasonable plan, which all our allies also find reasonable. However, I think that he needs to further define an exit strategy and a timeline.

He has told us his overall strategy, but has not specified an exit strategy, a timeline and benchmarks.

The Congress should demand that.
.
12:11 AM on 04/10/2009
PS no--attacking targets in another sovereign nation without their permission is not fair game, is a violation of international law, and constitutes an act of war..pakistan has nukes. see if mexico's targeting of drug lords in California is considered 'fair game'. you are full of BS or just ignorant.
12:06 AM on 04/10/2009
The Tali's may be many things but cowards is not one them. They know they will quite likely be killed every time they go against us but keep on coming anyway. Among our troops the enemies courage is in not in doubt and as fellow warriors respected. Takes a lot more guts to do what they do than drop bombs from 20,000ft.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:33 PM on 04/09/2009
There are several posts complaining about the President's plan in Afghanistan, many saying that he has broken his promise.

This is what Obama said before election:

"I will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan and use this commitment to seek greater contributions--with fewer restrictions--from NATO allies. I will focus on training Afghan security forces and supporting an Afghan judiciary. I will once and for all dismantle al-Qaeda and the Tal-iban. The solution in Afghanistan is not just military--it is political and economic. That is why I would also increase our nonmilitary aid by $1 billion. These resources should fund projects at the local level to impact ordinary Afghans, including the development of alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers. And we must demand better performance from the Afghan government through tough anticorruption safeguards on aid."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1823945,00.html
----------------------
In what way is that different than what he is doing. And, to me, that plan makes perfect sense. I hope that this is close to what he would do. As to sending more troops, that shouldn't be a surprise. That was his campaign pledge.
11:52 PM on 04/09/2009
so that justifies it? nice.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:08 AM on 04/10/2009
That just says that he is doing what he promised. As for justification, yes, I think destroying al Qaeda is perfectly justified, especially with an accompanying economic aid plan for Afghanistan to prevent resurgence of al Qaeda.
.
12:15 AM on 04/10/2009
well here's one for ya my Loyal Bama friend, you are right that he said he would send two more brigades, problem is that he is sending two more DIVISIONS and he said buggar all about that.

http://www.militarydial.com/army-force-structure.htm
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:25 AM on 04/10/2009
A Brigade is between 3000 and 6000 strong. So, OK, you are right. He was off in his numbers. You have a point.

As to that "Loyal Bama friend" thing, that is just silly. I am presenting arguments based on what I know, and I hope you would do the same, instead of getting silly. In case you called me your friend, I must decline that offer. I tend to be a bit more selective when I choose froiends. But, thanks.
11:28 PM on 04/09/2009
Ok gang, the geniuses at the Pentagon have a plan to WIN where Genghis, Alexander, the Brits and the Russians failed; dejabu all over again, Nam Redux.
Someone I used to know used to say that there was no educational value in a second kick from a mule. We keep getting kicked every 15 to 20 years or so.