The Pentagon’s Budget Arrives With a $79 Billion Mystery

The Defense Department still doesn’t know how much to request from Congress for spending on wars.

Image has been reviewed by U.S. Military prior to transmission.) In this handout provided by the U.S. Air Force, a HH-60G Pave Hawk hovers over pararescuemen and Brig. Gen. Jack L. Briggs, the 455th Air Expeditionary Wing commander, during a training mission at Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan, Sept. 24, 2010. The training mission provided a glimpse of what the 33rd Expeditionary Rescue Squadron brings to the fight and the capabilities it provides to combat commanders.
National Journal
Sara Sorcher Jordain Carney
March 4, 2014, 8:18 a.m.

The Pentagon’s $496 bil­lion budget re­quest re­leased Tues­day con­tains a laun­dry list of weapons sys­tems and troops’ be­ne­fits the mil­it­ary wants for next year. What the massive re­quest does not in­clude, however, are any de­tails about how it plans to spend money on its most im­port­ant func­tion: fight­ing wars.

In­stead, the De­fense De­part­ment is toss­ing out $79 bil­lion as a “place­hold­er” re­quest to Con­gress for spend­ing on wars, known as the “over­seas con­tin­gency op­er­a­tions” ac­count.

That is the ex­act amount the mil­it­ary asked for last year. But, giv­en that the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion is in the pro­cess of wind­ing down the war in Afgh­anistan, of­fi­cials are in­sist­ing their place­hold­er should not be taken ser­i­ously. “It’s not a real num­ber,” Act­ing Deputy De­fense Sec­ret­ary Christine Fox said last week.

So why can’t the Pentagon tell Con­gress how much it needs to fight the na­tion’s wars?

For one, the pace and fu­ture of the Afghan draw­down re­mains in flux.

Afghan Pres­id­ent Ham­id Kar­zai is de­fy­ing ex­pect­a­tions by re­fus­ing to sign the U.S.-Afgh­anistan se­cur­ity pact, which could al­low the United States to keep 10,000 troops sta­tioned in the Cent­ral Asi­an coun­try. But if Kar­zai re­fuses to sign the agree­ment, and if his soon-to-be-elec­ted suc­cessor re­fuses as well, the White House has said it is mak­ing plans for a com­plete pul­lout of U.S. forces.

The even­tu­al num­ber of troops sta­tioned there ob­vi­ously will greatly af­fect how much mil­it­ary op­er­a­tions will cost in 2015, and so Con­gress may get a much clear­er pic­ture if the next Afghan pres­id­ent signs the se­cur­ity pact fol­low­ing the up­com­ing elec­tions.

And Con­gress may not, in fact, be in any hurry to find a ri­gid ceil­ing for the war-spend­ing ac­count. The fund is not sub­ject to Con­gress’s strict budget caps, and in the 2014 budget, the Pentagon and Con­gress ad­ded some $30 bil­lion for items not dir­ectly re­lated to war — in­clud­ing de­pot main­ten­ance for ma­jor weapons sys­tems, and pay and be­ne­fits for ser­vice mem­bers who may or may not be de­ployed.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
8 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
8 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
8 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
8 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
9 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×