The game of budget chicken continues. Guess who is in the middle? Dangit - As a defense contractor, *I* could be in the middle. But that's the least important aspect of it.
In Case You Missed It:Sec. Gates: War Funding Uncertainty "Will Have Many Real Consequences"
Defense Secretary Robert Gates Urges Congress To Pass War Funding Bill, Says Failure To Do So "Will Have Many Real Consequences For … Our Men And Women In Uniform"
"I … strongly urged the Congress to pass a global war on terror funding bill that the President would sign. With the passage of the Defense Appropriations Act, there is a misperception that this department can continue funding our troops in the field for an indefinite period of time through accounting maneuvers, that we can shuffle money around the department. This is a serious misconception. … I make these comments solely as the person charged by the President and the Congress with administering the Department of Defense. The high degree of [uncertainty] on funding for the war is immensely complicating this task and will have many real consequences for this department and for our men and women in uniform."
– Defense Secretary Robert Gates, 11/15/07
Defense Secretary Robert Gates: "The fact is, the department has significantly less funding flexibility than it had last spring." "In the fall of 2006, Congress provided us with a bridge fund of $70 billion until passage of the full war supplemental. The full supplemental did not pass Congress until late May. This fall, the department has been operating under a continuing resolution. Now that the regular appropriations bill has been enacted, we are left with no bridge fund and only our base budget to support normal war operations. Further, Congress has provided very limited flexibility to deal with this funding shortage." (Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Press Briefing, The Pentagon, 11/15/07)
· "We can only move a total of $3.7 billion under general transfer authority, which only amounts to a little over one week's worth of war expenses."
· "All this leaves the department only with undesirable options to continue operations in the absence of a bridge fund." "The path we believe is least undesirable fiscally and militarily would involve the following:"
"The military would cease operations at all Army bases by mid-February next year." "This would result in the furloughing of about 100,000 government employees and a like number of contractor employees at Army bases. These layoffs would have a cascading effect on depots and procurements."
"Similar actions would follow for the Marine Corps about a month later."
"By law, we're required to notify certain union employees 60 days in advance, so appropriate notices would have to go out starting in mid-December."
· "If the Congress does not provide bridge funding this week on a bill that the President will sign, and given the uncertainty of future action in December, by the end of this week, as a prudent manager, I will be obliged to take a series of anticipatory steps." "First, submit an urgent reprogramming request to the Congress. And second, direct the Army and Marine Corps to develop a plan to furlough employees, terminate contracts and prepare bases for reduced operations."Sec. Gates: "It seems to me that there ought to be some deference to those who are running the war, the generals, in terms of the … pace at which this drawdown should take place, and based on the conditions on the ground." "[I]nitially the President was asked to announce that drawdowns would begin in our troops. Then he was asked to set a date for when the drawdowns would begin. Then he was asked to give a timetable for the drawdowns, and then he was asked to change the mission of the troops. The President has moved in all four of these areas. … So the issue now really is about pacing, how fast do you change the mission, how fast do you draw down the troops. And what I told members of Congress yesterday is, for those who allege that the views of the generals were not sufficiently taken into account at the front end of the war, now you have a recommendation from the commander in the field, from the commander of CENTCOM and from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, unanimous, on what makes sense in terms of pacing, so that we don't put at risk the gains we've already made…"
· However one feels about how we got to this point, the reality is, we have had some significant success due to the efforts of our men and women in uniform… We don't want to sacrifice that success." "[A]nd so how do we get the next phase of this conflict right, because the consequences of getting it wrong are potentially very high."
Of course, the response from the antis is pretty simple. Start withdrawing now, completely, surrender to our will, and we'll leave you alone.
Heh. Pretty much what Osama sez, too, if the motivations are significantly different, many of the practical results could well be the same.
Of course, if BG Boozer is correct, we can actually start withdrawing anyway, and hopefully for the right reasons. The only question remains... is it permanent, or is it the pause that some think it is, while the jihadis refit and rearm, and wait for us to leave, relying on the Congress to do the work of getting the Americans out of the way so they can get back to their murderous ways.
Heh.
Update: Below the fold is the "Statement of Administration Policy" that the OMB just sent out. I'll let you read it for yourself.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
November 16, 2007
(Senate)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
H.R. 4156 – Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for the Department of Defense for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes
(Rep. Obey (D) Wisconsin)
H.R. 4156 unwisely abandons the cause of freedom and stability in the Middle East, fails to recognize the importance of collecting intelligence to protect the American people, contravenes the Constitution, and fails to recognize and respect the achievements and sacrifices of the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces. If H.R. 4156 were presented to the President, he would veto the bill.
Instead of sending to the President, for purposes of political posturing, a bill they know will be vetoed, Congress should instead send him a clean troop funding bill. As Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England recently wrote to Congress, these funds are needed as soon as possible, and delaying them could have “a profoundly negative impact on the defense civilian workforce, depot maintenance, base operations, and training activities.”
The Administration strongly opposes any provision that sets an arbitrary date to begin withdrawing American troops without regard to conditions on the ground or the recommendations of commanders in the field. Precipitous withdrawal from Iraq is not a plan to bring peace to the region or to make our people safer here at home. Such a withdrawal could embolden our enemies and confirm their belief that America will not stand behind its commitments. In addition to infringing upon the President’s constitutional authority as Commander in Chief, the bill would mandate a precipitous withdrawal of troops that could increase the probability that American troops would have to one day return to Iraq – to confront an even more dangerous enemy.
On September 13, the President described in his address to the Nation plans for Iraq that focus on the principle of “return on success.” The Petraeus-Crocker Plan is working. U.S. Commanders report a consistent and steady trend of increased security over the last 4 months. Violence trends are down in virtually every category including: civilian casualties, coalition casualties, IED events, suicide attacks, and ethno-sectarian violence. As violence diminishes, we are seeing the Iraqis step up; Concerned Local Citizen (CLC) committees are growing in many provinces, including Al Anbar, Diyala, Babil, Wait, Baghdad, and many other locations; the Al Anbar Awakening has become a movement that is being replicated in other provinces; and economic progress follows the security gains – from electricity generation to new registered businesses to the cell phone industry. Based on progress on the ground, the past five months (June – November) we have begun to bring some U.S. troops out of Iraq without replacing them. This process will continue as we move from 20 combat brigades to 19 and then to 15 by July. H.R. 4156 would undermine the success of our military at a critically important time, when irrefutable progress in the area of security is beginning to translate into progress in the area of civil society and reconciliation.
The Administration strongly opposes section 104 of H.R. 4156, which would restrict the President’s ability to deploy troops unless he has certified in writing at least 15 days in advance that the unit is “fully mission capable.” The Administration strongly opposes any provision that would dramatically limit the nation’s ability to respond to other national security needs while remaining engaged in Iraq or Afghanistan. It is neither practical nor desirable for the President to have to rely on waivers to manage the global demands of the U.S. military forces, as this provision would require. Moreover, this provision would serve to advance the dangerous perception by regional adversaries that the U.S. is tied down and overextended.
The Administration strongly opposes section 102 of H.R. 4156, which would require the CIA to use only those interrogation techniques authorized by the United States Army Field Manual on Interrogations. This bill would jeopardize the safety of the American people by undermining the CIA’s enhanced interrogation program, which has helped the United States capture senior al Qaeda leaders and disrupt multiple attacks against the homeland, thus saving American lives. Section 102 has no place in an emergency wartime appropriations bill that should be focused on ensuring that the men and women of our Armed Forces have the funding they need to complete their mission.
As the President has repeatedly explained, the CIA program has been a vital part of our Nation’s success in preventing catastrophic terrorist attacks, such as those inflicted on our country on September 11, 2001. Over the past six years, the CIA program has garnered critical intelligence that has enabled us to stop planned al Qaeda attacks. Terrorists held in CIA custody have provided information that helped stop a planned strike on U.S. Marines at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti. The program helped stop a planned attack on the U.S. consulate in Karachi using car bombs and motorcycle bombs, and helped stop a plot to hijack passenger planes and fly them into Heathrow or the Canary Wharf in London. Without the intelligence collected by CIA professionals, any one of these planned attacks may have resulted in the loss of many innocent lives.
The CIA has gathered this intelligence through the use of an alternative set of interrogation procedures from those authorized by the United States Army Field Manual on Interrogations. These methods are designed to be safe and have been determined to be lawful. In the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Congress prescribed detailed standards, including criminal penalties, to ensure strict compliance with Common Article 3. The President since has issued Executive Order 13440, which subjects the CIA program to additional constraints to ensure full compliance with Common Article 3. No further legislation is needed to ensure that the United States complies with its treaty obligations or to provide for the protection of captured terrorists.
Section 102 makes a fundamental error by seeking to extend the protections of the Army Field Manual to captured terrorists in CIA custody. The Army Field Manual is designed primarily for traditional armed conflicts where enemy prisoners enjoy the heightened protections that the Geneva Conventions provide to prisoners of war. Indeed, all but one of the techniques authorized by the Army Field Manual is consistent with the privileges enjoyed by prisoners of war, including their right not to divulge anything other than “name, rank, and serial number.” The Geneva Conventions are founded on the principle of reciprocity, and the privileges to which American soldiers are entitled by virtue of their compliance with the law of war should not set the treatment standard for captured terrorists who openly flout that law. Nor would such privileges be consistent with the President’s obligation to take all lawful measures to protect the citizens of the United States from future attacks.
8 Comments