WASHINGTON, May 18 — Casualties among private contractors in Iraq have soared to record levels this year, setting a pace that seems certain to turn 2007 into the bloodiest year
yet for the civilians who work alongside the American military in the war zone, according to new government numbers.
At least 146 contract workers were killed in Iraq in the first three months of the year, by far the highest
number for any quarter since the war began in March 2003, according to the Labor Department, which processes death and injury
claims for those working as United States government contractors in Iraq.
That brings the total number of contractors killed in Iraq to at least 917, along with more than 12,000 wounded
in battle or injured on the job, according to government figures and dozens of interviews.
The numbers, which have not been previously reported, disclose the extent to which contractors — Americans,
Iraqis and workers from more than three dozen other countries — are largely hidden casualties of the war, and now are
facing increased risks alongside American soldiers and marines as President Bush’s plan to increase troop levels in
Baghdad takes hold.
As troops patrol more aggressively in and around the capital, both soldiers and the contractors who support
them, often at small outposts, are at greater peril. The contractor deaths earlier this year, for example, came closer to
the number of American military deaths during the same period — 244 — than during any other quarter since the
war began, according to official figures.
“The insurgents are going after the softest targets, and the contractors are softer targets than the
military,” said Lawrence J. Korb, a former assistant secretary of defense for manpower during the Reagan administration.
“The U.S. is being more aggressive over there, and these contractor deaths go right along with it.”
Truck drivers and translators account for a significant share of the casualties, but the recent death toll
includes others who make up what amounts to a private army.
Among them were four American security guards who died in a helicopter crash in January, 28 Turkish construction
workers whose plane crashed north of Baghdad the same month, a Massachusetts man who was blown up as he dismantled munitions
for an American company in March and a Georgia woman killed in a missile attack in March while working as a coordinator for
KBR, the contracting company.
Donald E. Tolfree Jr., a trucker from Michigan, was fatally shot in the cab of his vehicle while returning
to Camp Anaconda, north of Baghdad, in early February. His daughter, Kristen Martin, 23, said Army officials told her he was
shot by an American military guard confused about her father’s assignment. The Army confirms the death is under investigation
as a possible friendly-fire episode.
Ms. Martin said she waited three weeks for her father’s body to be returned home, and expressed resentment
that dead contractors were treated differently from soldiers who fall in battle.
“If anything happens to the military people, you hear about it right away,” she said in a telephone
interview. “Flags get lowered, they get their respect. You don’t hear anything about the contractors.”
Military officials in Washington and Baghdad said that no Pentagon office tracked contractor casualties and
that they had no way to confirm or explain the sharp rise in deaths this year.
Army Lt. Col. Joseph M. Yoswa, a spokesman for the military in Iraq, said in an e-mail statement, “the
responsibilities for tracking deaths, injuries, locations and any other essential requirements lie with the contractor. Unless
there is something specifically stated in the contract about accounting for personnel, there is no requirement for the U.S.
government to track these numbers.”
Companies that have lost workers in Iraq were generally unresponsive to questions about the numbers of deaths
and the circumstances that led to casualties. None acknowledged that they had seen an increase this year.
But a spokesman for American International Group, the insurance company that covers about 80 percent of the
contractor work force in Iraq, said it had seen a sharp increase in death and injury claims in recent months. The Labor Department
records show that in addition to the 146 dead in the first three months this year, another 3,430 contractors filed claims
for wounds or injuries suffered in Iraq, also a quarterly record. The number of casualties, though, may be much higher because
the government’s statistical database is not complete.
The Labor numbers were provided in response to a Freedom of Information Act request from The New York Times.
Other figures came from a variety of government agencies, private contractors and insurers handling casualty claims.
American military casualties in Iraq have mounted to almost 3,400 dead. The new contractor statistics suggest
that for every four American soldiers or marines who die in Iraq, a contractor is killed.
Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican who pushed for the buildup of military forces in Iraq, said the contractor casualties
were a symptom of a larger failure to send enough troops earlier to provide security throughout Iraq.
“We’re now putting these people in danger that I never thought they’d be under because we
cannot secure the country,” he said.
Other lawmakers also expressed concern about the numbers. Representative John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who is chairman of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee,
said that he was shocked at the extent of casualties among contractors and that he planned to hold hearings this fall on the
use of private workers in Iraq.
Representative Jan Schakowsky, an Illinois Democrat, has introduced legislation to force the government to
release detailed records on the use of contractors in Iraq and the names and job descriptions of all those killed and injured,
information that is virtually impossible to get right now. The military releases names and biographical information about
its wartime casualties, but businesses are not required to provide such information, and the Labor Department refuses to do
so, citing privacy laws.
“By keeping the knowledge of this force hidden, it changes one’s perception and one’s evaluation
of the war,” Ms. Schakowsky said. “There are almost a thousand dead and a large number of injuries. I think it
masks the fact that we are privatizing the military in this country.”
Contract workers say that as the tempo of military operations has increased in recent months, so have the
attacks on contractors. Convoys of trucks operated by companies are often not as well armored or protected as military units,
they say.
A top security industry official said he was told recently by American military and contracting officials
that 50 to 60 percent of all truck convoys in Iraq were coming under attack. Previously, he said, only about 10 percent had
been hit.
“There is a definite spike in convoy attacks,” said the official, who would speak only on condition
of anonymity because the information was confidential. Gordon Dreher, 48, who drove a fuel truck supplying American troops
in Iraq, said he and other drivers faced almost constant attacks from insurgents.
“I’ve been shot at, had my truck blown out from under me, had an I.E.D. hit about six feet away
from me, and lost part of my hearing,” he said, referring to an improvised explosive device. “I’m used to
getting shot at now, having tracer rounds hit off my truck. I got ambushed twice on one convoy run.”
Mr. Dreher broke his back in January from driving fast on rough roads, and is back home in Brick, N.J., awaiting
surgery. “When they do a surge, they need more fuel for choppers and tanks,” he said. “My buddies who are
still there tell me that they have been getting spanked pretty good lately.”
Mark Griffin, a 53-year-old truck driver from Georgia who left Iraq last November, said even then attacks
were accelerating. “It got progressively worse pretty much every month I was there.”
He worked for KBR driving trucks in Anbar Province to supply Marine bases with ammunition, water and other
essentials. He said that by late 2006 truck drivers and their Marine convoy escorts were finding 20 to 30 roadside bombs on
each convoy trip through Anbar, the restive Sunni heartland. “The number of I.E.D.’s got worse, and the size and
damage got worse, progressively, over time,” he said.
Labor Department statistics show that deaths and injuries among contractors have risen during times of heightened
American military activity. For example, the number of contractors killed from January through March tops the previous quarterly
record of 112 killed at the end of 2004, during the American military offensive in Falluja and related operations nearby.
The worsening casualty trends appear to be continuing into the second quarter of this year, as insurgents
launch a wave of mortar and rocket attacks on Baghdad’s Green Zone, the heavily fortified government center. Earlier
this month, for example, two Indians, a Filipino and a Nepalese working for the American Embassy in Baghdad were killed by
rocket fire in the Green Zone.
Nearly 300 companies from the United States and around the world supply workers who are a shadow force in
Iraq almost as large as the uniformed military. About 126,000 men and women working for contractors serve alongside about
150,000 American troops, the Pentagon has reported. Never before has the United States gone to war with so many civilians
on the battlefield doing jobs — armed guards, military trainers, translators, interrogators, cooks and maintenance workers
— once done only by those in uniform.
In the Persian Gulf war of 1991, for example, only 9,200 contractors — mostly operating advanced weapons
systems — served alongside 540,000 military personnel. But at the end of the cold war, Congress and the Pentagon were
eager to seize on the so-called peace dividend and drastically scale back the standing Army. The Bush administration expanded
the outsourcing strategy to unprecedented levels after the invasion of Iraq.
Many contractors in the battle zone say they lack the basic security measures afforded uniformed troops and
receive benefits that not only differ from those provided to troops, but also vary by employer. Weekly pay ranges from $60
for Iraqi translators and laborers to $1,800 for truck drivers to as much as $6,000 for private security guards employed by
companies like Blackwater. Medical and insurance benefits also vary widely, from excellent to minimal.
Conditions in Iraq are harsh, and many civilians who arrive there, drawn by patriotism, a sense of adventure
or the lure of money, are overwhelmed by the environment. If they raise questions about the 12-hour workdays, the lack of
armor plating on trucks or the periodic shelling of bases, supervisors often tell them to pack up and go home.
Cynthia I. Morgan, a Tennessee trucker who spent more than a year in Iraq as a convoy commander, said that
the common answer from her bosses to such complaints was, “Aisle or window, chicken or pasta” — meaning
“Get on the next plane out of here.”
Ripping off Taxpayers is the Name of the Game
By: John W. Whitehead
5/16/2007, The Rutherford Institute
In 1941, Senator Harry S. Truman declared, “I have never yet found a contractor who,
if not watched, would not leave the government holding the bag.”
Truman was right. Over the years, American
taxpayers have been swindled out of billions of dollars. In fact, if there is any absolute maxim by which the federal government
seems to operate, it is that the American taxpayer always gets ripped off.
For example, it was recently discovered
that in January 2005, $8.8 billion of American tax dollars sent to Iraq for reconstruction were unaccounted for. It’s
no small wonder that such a large amount of money is nowhere to be found. According to congressional testimony by Paul Bremer,
who was once in charge of reconstruction of Iraq, the U.S. government had sent record payouts to the tune of $4 billion of
taxpayer money in cold, hard cash to Baghdad on giant pallets aboard military planes. Rep. Henry Waxman zeroed in on the absurdity
of the government’s actions when he asked, “Who in their right mind would send 363 tons of cash into a war zone?”
The pallets of cash were just a drop in the bucket. The U.S. government sends billions of taxpayer
dollars each year to so-called government contractors, much of which is never accounted for, with the remainder often spent
on obscure pet projects.
Indeed, federal spending on government contracts has been on the rise for decades, soaring
from $207 billion in 2000 to about $400 billion last year. This unprecedented level of government issuance of contracts to
private companies is not only fueled by the war in Iraq, domestic security and Hurricane Katrina, but also by a philosophy
that encourages outsourcing almost everything the government does.
Many government officials claim that using private
enterprise instills efficiency and savings for the U.S. government and the U.S. taxpayer. However, the truth is that the government’s
dependence on corporate America breeds corruption and undermines basic notions of our representative democracy. Much of this
is due to a lack of congressional oversight. As Rep. Waxman noted, “There has been no cop on the beat. And when there
is no cop on the beat, criminals are more willing to engage in crimes.”
Take Iraq, for example.
According to the Boston Globe, “American contractors swindled hundreds of millions of dollars in Iraqi funds,
but so far there is no way for Iraq’s government to recoup the money.” Millions of dollars of U.S. rebuilding
funds have also been wasted. For example, a $43 million government contract to build a residential camp for Iraqi police trainers
resulted in a camp that includes an Olympic-size swimming pool, which has never been used. $36.4 million was supposedly spent
by U.S. officials on armored vehicles, body armor and communications equipment, but it can’t be accounted for. And approximately
80% of the $21 billion earmarked by the U.S. government for Iraqi reconstruction has already been spent, but very little can
be found to show for it.
Equally disturbing is the way many of these government contracts are issued. Rather than
requiring private companies to compete for government projects through the traditional bidding process, many are awarded no-bid
contracts, the end result of aggressive lobbying campaigns. As the New York Times reports, “The most successful contractors
are not necessarily those doing the best work, but those who have mastered the special skill of selling to Uncle Sam. The
top 20 service contractors have spent nearly $300 million since 2000 on lobbying and have donated $23 million to political
campaigns.” In fact, the biggest federal contractor in the nation, Lockheed Martin, receives more federal money than
the Departments of Justice or Energy.
In the end, these contractors never have to compete with other companies over
who can do the best job for the best price, and they still get paid with taxpayer funds. It’s a win-win situation for
them and a complete loss for the taxpayer.
As usual, we’re not putting America first, and
it’s the taxpayer who is feeling the pinch.
Halliburton bails out of Iraq, KBR and now America
12 March 2007
WASHINGTON, March 12 (HalliburtonWatch.org) -- “With various ongoing investigations, Halliburton's sale of KBR and
the move to UAE are tantamount to fleeing the scene of a crime,” said Jim Donahue, co-director of Halliburton Watch,
in response to the company’s announcement today that it will move its headquarters to Dubai, UAE.
Although Halliburton will still be incorporated inside the United States, moving its corporate
headquarters to UAE will make it easier to avoid accountability from federal investigators. The company has proven adept at
using offshore subsidiaries to circumvent restrictions on doing business in Iran and to elude responsibility for paying benefits to former employees.
Halliburton has also
used its operational structure for contracts in Iraq and post-Katrina -- especially multiple layers of subcontractors -- to
elude oversight and accountability to taxpayers.
Moving to UAE may also hinder ongoing government investigations into
Halliburton's alleged bribes paid to the government of Nigeria. CEO David Lesar, a former accountant who is presumably very
adept at structural finance, supervised former KBR chairman Albert "Jack" Stanley during the time when KBR is alleged to have
bribed Nigerian government officials. Stanley was subsequently fired after allegedly receiving $5 million in "improper" payments
related the bribery scheme. Lesar, who was president and chief operating officer at the time, reported directly to then CEO
Dick Cheney. According to the Dallas Morning News, "Mr. Cheney ran Halliburton when one of four suspicious payments occurred."
(Dallas Morning News, Sept. 8, 2004.) (Dallas Morning News, Sept. 8, 2004.)
”Given the multiple ongoing investigations into Halliburton's alleged wrongdoing, policymakers
should closely scrutinize Halliburton's latest move, and whether it will allow the company to further elude accountability,”
said Charlie Cray, co-director of Halliburton Watch and director of the Center for Corporate Policy. “Moreover, this underscores the need for Congress to bar companies that have broken the law, or avoided paying taxes,
from receiving federal contracts.”
Sarah Anderson of the Institute for Policy Studies notes that most Fortune
500 companies have global operations, so that moving an entire headquarters to another country is not necessary. "With today's
technologies, there's no real reason to have to physically relocate," she said. "Those that have are trying to evade U.S.
oversight and tax authorities. And Dubai is a tax-free haven – no corporate or employee taxes. Halliburton claims this
is not a big deal, but I can’t imagine Lesar will be working over there alone in a little cubicle. This will be a much-expanded
operation in Dubai."
"Despite the billions in US government contracts Halliburton has received, it has no loyalty
or sense of obligation to US troops or taxpayers," she said, adding, "I find it ironic that Lesar is going to the same place
as one of the only other individuals who's received even more bad publicity in recent years -- Michael Jackson."
Martin
Sullivan, contributing editor at the nonpartisan Tax Notes magazine, said relocating to the no-tax jurisdiction of Dubai would change Halliburton's tax situation "significantly" even though the company
would still be registered in the US. By re-locating its CEO and other top executives to Dubai, Halliburton can argue that
a portion of its profits should be attributed to the no-tax jurisdiction, he said.
Halliburton earned a record $2.3
billion in profit last year. That's almost equal to the $2.7 billion the Pentagon found in the company's overcharges in Iraq.
Members of Congress have called for an investigation. Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) said, "I want to know, is Halliburton
trying to run away from bad publicity on their contracts? Are they trying to run away from the obligation to pay US taxes?
Or are they trying to set up a corporate presence in Dubai so that they can avoid the restrictions that currently exist on
doing business with prohibited countries like Iran?"
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said, "This is an insult to the US
soldiers and taxpayers who paid the tab for their no-bid contracts and endured their overcharges for all these years."
Rep.
Henry Waxman, chairman of the powerful House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, has promised hearings into the
matter. "I want to understand the ramifications for U.S. taxpayers and national security," he said.
Army Restricts Spending While Waiting for Congressional Approval
By Carmen L. Gleason American
Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, April 18, 2007 – Due to budget shortfalls, the Army announced April 16 that spending restrictions will
be enforced while waiting for Congress to pass an emergency supplemental for funding requirements associated with the global
war on terror.
Army budget officials said the delay is related more to the policy issues surrounding the supplemental, rather than the
amount of money being requested.
Funds for operations and maintenance have run low, requiring restrictions in other
areas to ensure funds are available for the Army to execute its mission of defending the nation and prosecuting the war on
terror while continuing to support military families, officials said.
Although the restrictions are unusual, they
are not unprecedented, William Campbell, deputy director for the Army budget, said. He said the Army plans to slow down spending
to stretch out available funds in the interim.
I am confident that (the supplemental) will get passed, Campbell said.
In talking with staffers and congressmen, they are eager to get the money to the Army that it needs.
Campbell said
the guidance is in a phased plan that will begin with simple restrictions over the next six weeks before becoming more stringent.
Beginning in mid-April, the Army will slow the purchase of non-critical repair parts and supplies, he said. Non-essential
travel and supply transactions using a government purchase card and shipment of equipment will also be restricted unless needed
immediately for war efforts.
In the interim, Army officials have worked with the Defense Department comptroller to
submit a proposal to Congress to borrow $1.6 billion from the Navy and Air Force that would ease the Army's shortfall through
June.
If budget issues aren't soon resolved, Campbell said that another reprogramming would be submitted in three
or four weeks to carry the Army through the end of July.
This is the second year in a row that the Army has had to
restrict spending while waiting for additional money from Congress. However, DoD has taken steps toward the stabilizing of
funding for the next fiscal year.
Current policies have military branches getting a down payment of funds at the beginning
of each fiscal year and receiving the remainder in April, May or June, said Campbell.
DoD has submitted, for (fiscal
year 2008), a base program budget and (global war on terror) allowance for the entire year as part of the budget, Campbell
said. This would allow the Army to receive all needed money at the beginning of the fiscal year, he said.
Campbell
said that commanders have been given a lot of latitude and flexibility to make exceptions in restrictions for the war on terror,
family programs and national intelligence programs.
In the worst case scenario, contracts may be deferred and civilian
hiring will be restricted, but not frozen, he said.
At this point there is no reason to be concerned about employment,
he said. Last year we did release some temporary employees, but this year we're going to monitor it more carefully.
Campbell
said that soldiers shouldn't be too concerned because it will not affect their pay or deployment readiness. We should be able
to manage money so that it's transparent to soldiers and their families in the field, he said.
This is really mostly
a budget drill, he said. But it's gotten a lot of media coverage because of the policy issues surrounding it.
Senators scold DOD over KBR's inflated costs and award fees
April 19, 2007. In a hearing by the Senate Committee on Armed Services, Senators quized DOD officials on KBR's
overpricing of labor, material and subcontracting costs in a $75 million proposal and overstating subcontract costs by as
much as $100 million. Despite a record of questioned and unsupportred costs and overcharges cited in numerous audit
reports, the Army still awarded KBR an average of 88 percent of the maximum award fee. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman
of the committee, asked the officials "How in the heck could they be given these ratings?" But Claude Bolton, assistant
secretary of the Army for acquisition, told the committee that reviews of KBR from the field were universally glowing for
"technical performance."
But senators were able to get to the point of how a contractor benefits from inflating proposals and invoicing by describing
overpriced proposals and questionable invoicings are a way to inflate costs in order to boost the base amount on which the
award fee would be calculated. It comes down to establishing an inflated historical base and then feeding off of that.
Senate Committee on Armed Services holds hearing on LOGCAP
April 19, 2007: The Senate Committee on Armed Services held a hearing today to receive testimony
on the management of costs under the LOGCAP contract in Iraq. Witnesses included Senator Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND), Claude
M. Bolton, Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, William H. Reed, Director, DCAA,
Keith D. Ernst, Acting Director, DCMA, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, The Auditor General of the Army, and Major General Jerome
Johnson, USA, Commanding General, U.S. Army Sustainment Command. Their prepared statements are below.
Oversight Committee to Hold Hearing on Tillman, Lynch Incidents
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will hold a hearing on Tuesday, April 24, 2007,
entitled “Misleading Information from the Battlefield,” in Room 2154 of the Rayburn House Office Building at 10
a.m.
The hearing will focus on the death of Army Ranger Specialist Patrick Tillman in Afghanistan and the capture and rescue
of Army Private Jessica Lynch in Iraq. The Committee will examine why inaccurate accounts of these two incidents were disseminated,
the sources and motivations for the accounts, and whether the appropriate Administration officials have been held accountable.
Specialist Tillman was killed near Manah, Afghanistan on April 22, 2004. Although the Defense Department reported that
he had been killed by enemy combatants, it was later disclosed that Tillman’s death was the result of friendly fire.
Private Lynch was captured when her convoy became lost in An Nasariyah, Iraq, on March 23, 2003. Following her release,
the Defense Department disseminated an account of her capture and rescue that turned out to be inaccurate and misleading.
Private Lynch and family members of Specialist Tillman are scheduled to testify, as well as Defense Department officials.
Here are the witnesses for the first House Government Reform Committee hearings on Iraq contracting under the new chairman,
Rep. Henry Waxman. Wednesday, February 7, 2007: Iraqi Reconstruction: Reliance on Private Military Contractors
Family
members of four Blackwater employees killed in Fallujah will testify about what they view as profiteering by Blackwater USA,
including the company’s alleged failure to provide armored vehicles and other critical safety equipment. The Committee
will also examine in detail Blackwater’s security operations in Iraq under multiple layers of contracts and subcontracts
that compound costs to the taxpayer.
Witnesses * Panel I: Blackwater Families Kristal Batalona Daughter of Wesley
Batalona * Kathryn Helvenston-Wettengel Mother of Stephen Helvenston * Rhonda Teague Wife of Michael Teague *
Donna Zovko Mother of Jerry Zovko * Panel II: Contractors and Pentagon The Honorable Tina Ballard Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Policy and Procurement, U.S. Army * Andrew G. Howell General Counsel, Blackwater USA * R. Timothy Tapp Managing
Director, Business Operations, Regency Hotel & Hospital Co. * W. Steve Murray Jr. Director of Contracting, ESS Support
Services Worldwide * George Seagle Director of Security, Government and Infrastructure Division, KBR * Tom Flores Senior
Director, Corporate Security, Fluor Corporation
From Time Magazine
Sunday, Mar. 05, 2006 Where's All the War Dough? By SALLY B. DONNELLY
The hefty -- and growing --bill for the war efforts may be getting some new auditors. Over the past three years, Congress
has approved $320 billion for military spending over and above the regular Department of Defense budget, which itself has
risen about 40% since 2001. But "oversight was lax," contends Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, who sits on the
Armed Services Committee. As Pentagon officials head to Capitol Hill next week to start defending this year's $70 billion
request for Iraq and Afghanistan, there's new scrutiny of where all the cash is going.
The Department of Defense's
inspector general, which some analysts charge has been slow to investigate war spending, will open its first office in the
Middle East next week. And a new watchdog project called Follow the Money will begin monitoring from the outside. It's sponsored
by the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and led by Dina Rasor, an investigator who helped uncover the Pentagon procurement
scandals of the 1980s. "Normal oversight systems have not been in place," Rasor says. "Troops are getting what they don't
need but not getting what they do need. One soldier told us that although his unit could not get enough armor, it got a 60-in.,
$15,000 plasma TV to watch the daily brief, but the dust ruined it--just like it did the nine others they got to replace the
first one."
According to Senator Reed, Pentagon officials should also expect questions on the Hill about what is not
being spent. Case in point: the Marine Corps, traditionally the most frugal of the services, has borne the brunt of the burden
of fighting in Iraq, yet has seen billions pared from its funding. The Marines' new special-ops unit--a pet project of Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's--wanted $65 million for such equipment as sophisticated nightscopes and computer-mapping systems,
but the Administration refused the request. The Marines are still flying around Iraq in Vietnam-era helicopters--yet $1 billion
was cut from the program for the choppers' only replacement aircraft, the V-22 Osprey. The Marines were able to establish
the long-awaited first squadron last week but say they need more funding to replace aging aircraft. "It is unconscionable,"
says a military officer, "that the one new aircraft that could clearly help them in Iraq is getting cut."
From
the Wall Street Journal
Pentagon's Blank Check May Be Withdrawn Congressional Unease Mounts Amid
Off-Budget War Spending And Ballooning Deficits By JACKIE CALMES March 10, 2006; Page A6
WASHINGTON --
For nearly five years, defense spending has been on the rise, with little protest in the wake of the 2001 terrorist attacks
and amid the war on terrorism. Now, signs suggest the Pentagon's days of open checkbooks are numbered.
Deficit pressures,
scandals involving defense contracts, congressional unease with administration bookkeeping for war costs, and the increased
unpopularity of the president and his antiterrorism policies are combining to end defense spending's status as the budget's
sacred cow. Expenses for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will remain favored. But the rest of a defense budget now exceeding
a half-trillion dollars a year is in for a squeeze.
"We are at a critical juncture," Senate Budget Committee Chairman
Judd Gregg told Pentagon officials at a hearing last week. "Just as we strongly support the war on terrorism, we must also
recognize that there is no such thing as an unlimited budget. Difficult choices must be made."
The New Hampshire Republican's
warning recalls ones more than two decades ago from a former Senate budget chairman, New Mexico Republican Sen. Pete Domenici.
Mr. Domenici's fiscal caution then marked the beginning of the end for President Reagan's Cold War defense buildup during
the early 1980s: After 1985, the politics of deficit reduction sent military budgets on a downward slide until the final years
of the Clinton administration.
Now, federal deficits again are emerging as a brake to slow defense spending's increase
-- if not to eventually reverse it. Once more, Sens. Gregg and Domenici are at the center of a guns-and-butter struggle.
This
week, they and others in Congress's Republican majority privately fenced over defense and domestic spending priorities, as
the House and Senate Budget committees separately began to cobble a budget blueprint for fiscal 2007, which begins Oct. 1.
Chairman Gregg agreed to shift $5 billion from Mr. Bush's request for defense and foreign-affairs funds to health, education
and border security. While the shift would be small relative to overall military funding, it comes on top of a first nick
Congress made late last year in the 2006 defense budget, and signals more ahead.
"I think we will continue to give
them virtually every penny they ask for, for the war," predicted a senior Republican congressional aide. But the base defense
budget is in for "significant reductions." Potential targets include missile defense, the Navy DD/X destroyer, 18 weapons
programs comprising the Army's Future Combat System, and the V-22 tilt-rotor helicopter.
Democrats mostly have stayed
quiet, given their party's vulnerability on issues of national security. "We support the troops, and that includes adequate
numbers of troops," says Rep. John Spratt, a senior member of the House Budget and Armed Services committees who is in a re-election
battle in South Carolina.
But cracks are surfacing. On Wednesday, the Congressional Progressive Caucus of 62 liberal
House Democrats, along with outside supporters including former Reagan defense official Lawrence Korb, proposed to shift $60
billion from Cold War-era Pentagon programs to domestic needs and deficit reduction.
In the early 1980s, Pentagon
procurement scandals eroded public support for the Reagan buildup. Now a government watchdog credited with exposing some of
them, Dina Rasor, is heading a new "Follow the Money Project" for the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, a group critical
of the administration's prosecution of the war. Federal investigators are reviewing defense contracts that were at issue in
the bribery case against former Republican Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham of California, who pleaded guilty and was sentenced
to eight years and four months in prison.
Washington's think tanks are picking up on the political pressures. John
Hamre, head of the moderately conservative Center for Strategic and International Studies and deputy defense secretary under
President Clinton, yesterday gave a speech titled "Defense Spending and Budget Constraints." In an interview, he said "the
big increases are coming to an end."
If President Bush has his way, military spending will remain off the budget-cutting
table. "So long as we've got our men and women in uniform in harm's way, this government will support them with all the resources
that are necessary to win that war," he said this year. "That means we've got to show extra discipline in other areas of the
federal budget." [Spending Graphic]
For a second year, Mr. Bush has asked Congress to cut annual appropriations
for domestic programs below the current level, without adjusting for inflation. But such programs, while just one-sixth of
the $2.7 trillion federal budget, range from air-traffic control and education to parks and basic research, and lawmakers
are finding the trade-offs painful. Meanwhile, election-minded Republican leaders have rebuffed Mr. Bush's calls to rein in
Medicare and Medicaid costs, both increasing at more than twice the rate of inflation.
That leaves the fifth of the
budget that funds defense. This year's $560 billion, which includes Mr. Bush's latest emergency war-spending request for $67.6
billion, is up nearly 70% from the $334.8 billion for defense when he took office. Last month he requested $513 billion for
2007. But that doesn't fully reflect the likely war costs that Mr. Bush for three years has sought through "emergency" supplemental
appropriations.
The sums are rattling lawmakers. So is the administration's practice of keeping separate books for
the regular defense budget and for war expenses, which increasingly are including new planes and helicopters to replace ones
lost in the Mideast. That troubles some members of Congress -- Mr. Gregg this week called them "shadow budgets" -- because
supplemental war requests get less scrutiny, given the relative speed with which emergency appropriations are passed and the
deference that lawmakers accord the commander in chief.
Administration officials say the dual bookkeeping will make
it easier to reduce defense funding to prewar levels when the war is over. Republicans as well as senior Democrats have accepted
that rationale to date. But with the administration now talking of a "long war" against terrorism, and using the so-called
emergency requests to buy major hardware that takes years to build, support is waning.
For now, support for troops
at war will drive the bottom line. "As long as American soldiers are getting killed somewhere, I don't see a downturn" in
defense spending, says Winslow Wheeler, an analyst at the Center for Defense Information. "I think it's going to take our
exit from Iraq to turn it around."
From UPI
Watchdog to audit U.S. war spending
WASHINGTON,
March 5, 2006(UPI) -- As Congress takes up a debate over defense spending, a new report shows Iraq and Afghanistan funds bought
plasma TVs but not enough troop equipment.
Time magazine reports Follow the Money, a watchdog project of Iraq and
Afghanistan Veterans of America, will be doing an unofficial audit of war books.
Meanwhile, the Department of Defense's
inspector general will establish its first Middle East office this week.
Congress has allocated $320 billion for the
two wars in the past three years, alongside a Defense Department budget that has grown by 40 percent since 2001.
Dina
Rasor -- founder of the Washington, D.C.-based Project on Government Oversight and lead investigator of the Follow the Money
project -- said a soldier told her he needed armor protection while the unit got a $15,000 plasma TV.
Sen. Jack Reed,
D-R.I., a member of the Armed Services Committee, said administration officials should be ready to answer tough questions
as budget hearings begin.
