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 »
The indictment, filed in the District of Columbia, alleges that the interference began "in or around 2014," when the defendants began tracking and studying U.S. social media sites. They "created and controlled numerous Twitter accounts" and "purchased computer servers located inside the United States" to mask their identities, some of which were stolen. The interference was coordinated by election interference "specialists," and focused on the Black Lives Matter movement, immigration, and other divisive issues. "By early to mid-2016" the groups began supporting the campaign of "then-candidate Donald Trump," including by communicating with "unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign..."
"Former Trump campaign adviser Rick Gates is finalizing a plea deal with special counsel Robert Mueller's office, indicating he's poised to cooperate in the investigation, according to sources familiar with the case. Gates has already spoken to Mueller's team about his case and has been in plea negotiations for about a month. He's had what criminal lawyers call a 'Queen for a Day' interview, in which a defendant answers any questions from the prosecutors' team, including about his own case and other potential criminal activity he witnessed."
"The Senate on Thursday rejected immigration legislation crafted by centrists in both parties after President Trump threatened to veto the bill if it made it to his desk. In a 54-45 vote, the Senate failed to advance the legislation from eight Republican, seven Democratic and one Independent senators. It needed 60 votes to overcome a procedural hurdle. "
"The House Intelligence Committee has scheduled a Thursday meeting to hear testimony from Steve Bannon—but it's an open question whether President Donald Trump's former chief strategist will even show up. The White House sent a letter to Capitol Hill late Wednesday laying out its explanation for why Trump's transition period falls under its authority to assert executive privilege, a move intended to shield Bannon from answering questions about that time period." Both Republicans and Democrats on the committee dispute the White House's theory, and have floated charging Bannon with contempt should he refuse to appear.