Just What We Need: More Pentagon Spending
The Associated Press ran a January 12 article leaking some details about a new spending supplemental for the Defense Department in 2010. DOD will get another $33 billion to pay for President Obama’s surge of additional Soldiers and Marines to attempt to rescue the war effort in Afghanistan.
There are a number of things you should know about this additional money request.
We won’t see the details for weeks, maybe months. The budget request will not be officially submitted until we see the new 2011 budget and any other supplementals for 2010 that Obama wants. That will be in the first week of February. And, we may not see the details for this additional war money even then: DOD is notoriously slow at putting together its "justification materials." Having just been decided upon, there will almost certainly be additional weeks before the bureaucracy can churn out the details of what they really want to money for. But don’t worry about the delay in the paperwork; almost no one in Congress reads those things; certainly not the Members who will give patriotic speeches on the money and then vote for it.
Also, expect the $33 billion supplemental request to be both too small and too large.
It will very probably not include whatever billions Obama wants to spend in Yemen. He will want additional money for more strikes from unmanned drones against targets declared to be al Qaeda leaders (but also including civilians) and for billions in foreign aid to a government that rivals the one in Afghanistan for its corruption, incompetence, and domestic unpopularity. We may see another supplemental, later on.
(There will not be a request to pay for actual US ground forces in Yemen; that will come in the following fiscal years, after the increased drone attacks and the contemptible government we are backing have further infuriated the civilian population and after the foreign aid fails to salve the civilian population — if any of it reaches them rather than Swiss banks.)
Nevertheless, the supplemental will be bloated. The parts of it for Afghanistan will be inflated with various goodies. In virtually every supplemental in the past, DOD has stuffed in additional spending for new aircraft and other hardware and programs that it wants for general uses not really for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Obama people in the Pentagon said they would end all that. I seriously doubt it; the $33 billion total is far more than they need to support the additional 30,000 troops Obama wants in Afghanistan as soon as he gets them there. Even crediting the cost of the new troops at the outlandishly high cost of $1 million per troop per year, you can’t get to $33 billion: those troops will only begin to arrive in the next few months, well after the fiscal year started last October. (30,000 troops for 6 months would be $15 billion; for 9 months would be about $23 billion, not $33, even assuming the looney $1 million per troop estimate.)
Then, of course, expect Congress to add some junk: still more superfluous C-17 cargo aircraft ($250 million each), some smaller but cost-bloated C-130 cargo aircraft (they used to cost about $20 million, but now they are up to $70 million), some F-18 fighter/bombers (the Navy and Boeing are just nuts for more) and whatever else those paragons of virtue and thrift Congressman John Murtha (D-PA) and Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) at the House and Senate Appropriations Committees can dream up to keep the rest of the pork-crazed Congress happy with their "leadership."
And don’t forget the big picture. The additional $33 billion will bring the total DOD budget for the current fiscal year up to $708 billion.
That amount is more than we spent on the Pentagon in any year since 1946 — in dollars adjusted for inflation.
It is an amount just under what the entire rest of the world spends for defense.
It is about three times the combined defense budgets of China, Russia, Cuba, North Korea, and Iran.
The Defense Department spends in a few hours more than al Qaeda spends in an entire year.
For this post-World War II high in spending, we get the smallest Army, Navy, and Air Force we have had since 1946.
And, our tanks, ships, and aircraft are, on average, older than they have ever been before.
And, major elements of our forces are getting less training than they did even during the so-called "hollow" years of the Jimmy Carter Pentagon.
Those levels of Pentagon spending do not include what we pay for foreign aid, arms sales and arms control, Veterans, Homeland Security, the Pentagon’s share of interest on the national debt, and more. To tally up our entire national security budget, we can get very cozy with $1 Trillion.
Feeling secure? I’m not.
Feeling President Obama has a handle on things? I don’t.
The only thing more depressing is what the Republicans want to do; they want to make it all worse at even higher cost — including lives.
Read more by Winslow T. Wheeler
- Will Obama Veto Pork, or Enable It? – September 15th, 2009
- Of Pork and Baloney – May 6th, 2009
- What Does an F-22 Cost? – March 27th, 2009





Robert Fisher
January 16th, 2010 at 6:52 am
this is why Americans dont deserve health care. with those wasted dollars there could have been free health care for every American out there. that will never happen if your Senators are sleeping with the Enemy, Private Insurance. your senators are nothing but corporate prostitutes.
Wulfgar
January 16th, 2010 at 7:00 am
The Great Experiment in American Democracy has failed. This is the thematic we should be reading more articles and opeds about. The sooner we realize that Ike's warnings have indeed come to be our current reality, the better-equipped (at least part of concerned citizenry) we'll be in drawing the logical conclusions as THE HARD DECISIONS WE NEED TO TAKE.
Hacklheber
January 16th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
But why is 10⁶ USD per trooper per year looney? Would 500'000 be a better guesstimate?
At http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175179/tomgram:_j… we read:
"According to August Cole of the Wall Street Journal, in fuel terms alone, to support a single soldier in Afghanistan costs between $200,000 and $350,000 a year. "
So we are already halfway to the $500'000. War _is_ a lustful luxury.
Eric Siverson
January 16th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Amy Goodman telling the story of new Afganhistan protesters killed while protesting the last Time The US special forces murdereed the 10 school childran . Is a story the US mainstream media neglected to report . I consider Amy a far out left wing communist and I dont believe the story is even true . This 1st killing sounds more like a staged crime that AlQaida might have done and blamed on US special forces .
Hacklheber
January 16th, 2010 at 6:39 pm
Confused mind you are my son? This is about Pentagon spending.
Also, Welcome To My Lai.
Steve Hogan
January 16th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
Robert, there is no free lunch. "Free" is a euphemism for "some other sucker is paying for my stuff." I'm that other sucker. I'm tired of paying for your grandma's "free" pills, the Pentagon's fighter planes, and an endless list of other useless items.
Time to face facts: we're broke. Lenders will wise up, the Fed will print dollars to make up the difference, and our money will be good for wiping one's ass.
Andy
January 16th, 2010 at 11:41 pm
They don't call it the military-industrial complex for nothing!
John
January 17th, 2010 at 1:59 am
The American rulers don't believe that the Islamic wars that they are fighting have any real potential of bankrupting America and they seem to believe that short of a meltdown on Wall Street,nothing can bankrupt America.That is why they are willing to give a trillion or two to the Wall St.bankers and pretty much let those bankers do as they please,regardless of the Public outcry.To the Public they give sop from Obama."Obscene bonuses",but they still get the bonuses.I don't think that America's rulers believe that the People can do anything other than complain,I mean who are the people going to vote for.There is only one political party in America,half of it is Republican and the other half is Democrat.Which half do you want in office?It don't matter,nothing will change except the style.Obama's style is different than Bush's,but his policies aren't.Was there really much difference between Bush Sr. and Clinton.Just style.And you know what…I think that America's political leaders (rulers) are right.They have all of the power and all of the control and the People have the vote.Which half are you going to vote for?
MoT
January 17th, 2010 at 9:32 am
"Free" health care? That's like saying the war is free. On a similar note why don't we build refineries with all that money and thus take all the pressure off of us by reducing fuel prices which in turn reduces food cost, distribution costs, and just about everything else we touch. Plus it keeps the boys and their toys back home. This is something people never talk about and is slyly avoided. But still, I would no more trust our government to "spend" anything wisely because all you have to do is look around and see how the F*** up everything else.
Eric Siverson
January 17th, 2010 at 9:48 am
We are fighting Powerfull AlQaida , Surely the strongest military force in the world . AlQaida is reported to have fewer than 100 skilled troops in Afganhistan . NATO is reported to be losing the war in afganhistan against AlQuida unless we send another 40 thousand soldiers , and of course more contractors . We could end up with 150,000 total forces , Remember we are not fighting Islam ,but are trying to win the hearts of the afgan people by destroying the evil Al Qaida . How much does Al Qaida pay their troops in Afganhistan . What if Amy goodman does have her facts right about the american troops involved in murdering school kids . I have found Amy more credible than the mainstream media , inspite of her left leaning slant on evreything . Money is no problem for the United States government , never has been . But it could be a problem for us ,or at least it always has been .
DavidSpero
January 17th, 2010 at 11:00 pm
Amy Goodman usually gets her facts right. Eric's line about "al-Qaeda staged the killing" (of their own people) to "discredit America" was the same line we heard about other bombings of civilians by the CIA or military. Sometimes the Pentagon puts out that line themselves. It's a pretty desperate lie.