Pentagon estimates $527 billion spent on war on terror since 2001

Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell held a press briefing today. Among issues being discussed was the Boeing/Airbus deal. Morrell stated that the Pentagon feels there is no indication that Boeing will protest Airbus’s victory over the contract. He further stated that he believed this to be a fair and transparent deal, and that the war fighters will be getting the best planes available.

Another topic briefly touched upon was the dirty water provided by KBR to US troops. Morrell commented that the bottled water provided had no issues in testing and that the other water may have been solely meant for washing. He also mentioned that there had been no widespread illness amongst the troops, and since 2006, all water has met health standards.

Morrell then proceeded to discuss the situation in Iraq. He stated that Secretary Gates has recommended pausing to determine the impact of the last four surge brigades to identify possible later courses of action. He stated that there has been a line of improvement in security conditions in Iraq.

In answering a question about estimates of the cost of the war, Morrell stated that since September 11, 2001, $527 billion has been spent on the war on terror: $406.2 billion on Operation Iraqi Freedom, 92.9 billion on Operation Enduring Freedom, and 27.8 billion on Noble Eagle, or homeland defense. When told that outside estimates of the cost of the war were $3 trillion, Morrell said that that seems to be way out there, and that the department has tried to be as transparent as possible.

Morrell reported that as we near the fifth anniversary of the beginning of the war in Iraq, 3,974 have regrettably been killed serving the US. In addition to this, there are 16,011 soldiers wounded-in-action whom have returned to duty, and 13,009 soldiers wounded-in-action whom have not returned to duty.

Testimony on the army budget reveals challenges and future of conflict

The House Armed Services Committee held a hearing on the 2009 Army Budget request. Present were Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO), ranking member Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and maybe 15 other members. Testifying were Secretary of the Army Pete Geren and Gen. George Casey Chief of Staff for the Army.

In his opening statement Geren said that Army is stretched, but not hollow. He emphasized that this was the most capable fighting force he had seen in his career. Casey and chairman Skelton said that they foresaw a future of prolonged and constant dynamic conflict worldwide.

The big emphasis from the witnesses was to defend the budget and highlight the four priorities of the Armyspending: sustain the troops in theater, prepare for future conflict, reset the balance of the force interms of troop deployment and equipment and transform the nature of the force to meet future challenges.

To prepare and transform the army needs to train for both counterinsurgency and what Casey called "full spectrum" operations. But current deployment rotations do not allow for this kind of training as troops are 15 months out and only 12 months home. Both witnesses said that these need to be evened out to a one to one ratio. They want to increase home time not only for rest and families but also for this strategic training.

Both witnesses repeated that the Army is stressed and that it is unbalanced. Geren said that he was hopeful that the 09 budget would help grow the army because as he said, "we are too small to meet the commitments we have."

The Senate Budget Committee seeks answers on the timeline and total of 2009 war funding

The Senate Budget Committee held a hearing on the 2009 defense budget and war costs. Witnesses were Assistant Secretary of Defense Gordon England, Defense Controller Tina Jonas, and General James Cartwright, vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff.

Ranking member Judd Gregg (R-NH) was not present. After chairman Kent Conrad's opening statement, Wayne Allard (R-CO) made a statement for the Republicans. Both senators mentioned the $70 billion in supplemental war funding as obviously incomplete and vaguely justified.

In his opening statement Conrad made a reference to an interview in the early days of the war where former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld where the former Defense secretary  said that the war was estimated at $50 billion.

The focus remained on the discrepancies between the base budget and the war funding which is separate. Both Conrad and Allard asked questions seeking a more realistic, long term projected figure. Secretary Robert Gates had made a statement with the number of $170 billion. But while England agreed with the secretary's estimate he said that both a final war funding figure and a date on which a funding figure for '09 would be known depended on what Gen. Petraeus says this spring and the appropriation of $102 billion from the 2008 war supplemental budget request.

Additionally changes in the labor market, such as a decline in manufacturing and the unpredictability of the market and government budgeting, came up as a concern. General Cartwright said that these things are "challenging" and he discussed the idea of budgeting for two years.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) asked outright whether parts of the procurement section the Defense Department budget was being aimed at a future conflict with China or Russia. Secretary England said that Russian and Chinese defense systems are considered in future Defense spending but as to specific threats being considered England said that he would have to speak in a more classified setting.

Conrad said that they hoped to bring the budget to the floor by the first or second week of March.

House Armed Services Committee hearing to review the budget request of the Department of Defense for Fiscal Year 2009

At the House Armed Services Committee, Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) said that he strongly supports the decision to have a real increase in defense spending. He said that many in the committee had a deep concern about the risk facing the nation in two key areas. First, he said, is the concern about the "current readiness posture." Second, was the rapid deterioration of security and stability in Afghanistan.

Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates said that challenges made more dangerous by modern technology included terrorism, extremism, violent jihadism, sectarian conflict, and proliferation of dangerous weapons and materials. He then said that the investment in defense spending was a 7.5 percent increase over last year's enacted level. He said that increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps would relieve stress on the force and enable the nation to meet its commitments at home and abroad.

Admiral Michael G. Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that we must provide our service members with leadership, resource, and support. He said he has set three strategic priorities for the military, which are to increase stability in the Middle East, reconstitute and revitalize the Armed Forces, and to re- balance our strategic risk.

Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA), Ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said that he was disappointed that the Administration did not request funding to cover the full costs of the war in Fiscal Year 2009.

Senate Committee on Finance Questions Secretary of Treasury Henry Paulson About President's 2009 Budget Proposal

In this morning's Senate Committee on Finance hearing chaired by Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson was questioned about President Bush's fiscal year 2009 budget proposal. The Committee's questions were concerned primarily with Paulson and Bush's stimulus proposal and their plans for avoiding economic recession in both the immediate and long term future.

Baucus emphasized that the President's hope for a projected surplus by 2012 was "unrealistic." The Senator went on to caution that the budget's calls for Medicare and Medicaid spending cuts would be "devastating" to many dependent on the programs, including seniors, people with disabilities, and children. Baucus spoke out against the budget plans to further cut taxes.

Secretary Paulson's defense was that he believed our economy could not handle anything that would further increase taxes. He reminded the Committee that the Bush Administration was succeeding with programs such as the HOPE NOW alliance. Paulson added he had "great confidence" in the ability of our market to recover from this difficult time.

Paulson and the Bush Administration want to see a plan implemented that is "robust, temporary, and broad-based." While arguing philosophically about the best way to move our economy in the right direction, all present at the hearing were in agreement that what our government is doing now to help America is not working efficiently enough.