Winehole23
02-26-2009, 02:42 PM
Pentagon Does Well with Obama Budget (http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/davidcorn/2009/02/pentagon-does-well-with-obama.html)
By David Corn (http://www.davidcorn.com/) | February 26, 2009 11:45 AM [/URL]
[URL="http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/davidcorn/2009/02/pentagon-does-well-with-obama.html#comments"]
(http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/davidcorn/2009/02/pentagon-does-well-with-obama.html#comments)
The Defense Department is a big winner in the Obama budget unveiled on Thursday morning. The Pentagon's base budget gets a hefty $533.7 billion, up 4 percent from 2009--not a bad raise these days. And this figure excludes money for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The budget includes an additional $75 billion for "overseas contingency operations"--meaning Iraq, Afghanistan and other missions--for 2009 and $130 billion for 2010. Some House liberals had been pushing (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/02/barney-frank-obama-cut-military-spending) for a cut in military spending to free up money for Obama's other priorities. He didn't hear them.
The budget overview (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/) released by the administration notes that the expanded Pentagon budget will allow Obama "to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps, to continue to improve the medical treatment of wounded servicemembers, and to reform the acquisition process." The report boasts that the Pentagon will be "doing more" to address post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury. Which is admirable. But the document says nothing about cutting any big-ticket weapons programs. Such cuts could still materialize as a result of the Defense Review underway--which is supposed to identify and prioritize Pentagon goals--but for now it seems as if the Pentagon dodged a bullet.
The Obama administration is also conducting a review of Afghanistan policy that is set to conclude at the end of March. Still, Obama has announced he will be sending 17,000 additional US troops there in the spring and the summer. I'm still wondering why the decision to deploy more troops preceded the review of what those troops should do.
That aside, I also wonder how the ongoing review will address a crucial matter: civilian casualties in Afghanistan, many of which result from the errant bombs of US and NATO forces. The continual occurrence of civilian casualties in Afghanistan has weakened popular support for the presence of US forces in the country and has undermined the weak central government of Hamid Karzai. And the situation is not getting any better. I just came across a report (http://www.unama-afg.org/docs/_UN-Docs/_human%20rights/2009/UNAMA_09february-Annual%20Report_PoC%202008_FINAL_11Feb09.pdf) released a few weeks ago by the United Nations Assistance Mission to Afghanistan's human rights unit that notes civilian casualties increased last year:
UNAMA Human Rights recorded a total of 2118 civilian casualties between 01 January and 31 December 2008. This figure represents an increase of almost 40% on the 1523 civilian deaths recorded in the year of 2007. The 2008 civilian death toll is thus the highest of any year since the end of major hostilities which resulted in the demise of the Taliban regime at the end of 2001. The report says that about 40 percent of these deaths was caused by pro-government forces and that this
amounts to a 31% increase over the deaths recorded in 2007. This increase occurred notwithstanding various measures introduced by the [US/NATO forces] to reduce the impact of the war on civilians. The review ought to take this into account.
By David Corn (http://www.davidcorn.com/) | February 26, 2009 11:45 AM [/URL]
[URL="http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/davidcorn/2009/02/pentagon-does-well-with-obama.html#comments"]
(http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/davidcorn/2009/02/pentagon-does-well-with-obama.html#comments)
The Defense Department is a big winner in the Obama budget unveiled on Thursday morning. The Pentagon's base budget gets a hefty $533.7 billion, up 4 percent from 2009--not a bad raise these days. And this figure excludes money for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The budget includes an additional $75 billion for "overseas contingency operations"--meaning Iraq, Afghanistan and other missions--for 2009 and $130 billion for 2010. Some House liberals had been pushing (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/02/barney-frank-obama-cut-military-spending) for a cut in military spending to free up money for Obama's other priorities. He didn't hear them.
The budget overview (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/) released by the administration notes that the expanded Pentagon budget will allow Obama "to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps, to continue to improve the medical treatment of wounded servicemembers, and to reform the acquisition process." The report boasts that the Pentagon will be "doing more" to address post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury. Which is admirable. But the document says nothing about cutting any big-ticket weapons programs. Such cuts could still materialize as a result of the Defense Review underway--which is supposed to identify and prioritize Pentagon goals--but for now it seems as if the Pentagon dodged a bullet.
The Obama administration is also conducting a review of Afghanistan policy that is set to conclude at the end of March. Still, Obama has announced he will be sending 17,000 additional US troops there in the spring and the summer. I'm still wondering why the decision to deploy more troops preceded the review of what those troops should do.
That aside, I also wonder how the ongoing review will address a crucial matter: civilian casualties in Afghanistan, many of which result from the errant bombs of US and NATO forces. The continual occurrence of civilian casualties in Afghanistan has weakened popular support for the presence of US forces in the country and has undermined the weak central government of Hamid Karzai. And the situation is not getting any better. I just came across a report (http://www.unama-afg.org/docs/_UN-Docs/_human%20rights/2009/UNAMA_09february-Annual%20Report_PoC%202008_FINAL_11Feb09.pdf) released a few weeks ago by the United Nations Assistance Mission to Afghanistan's human rights unit that notes civilian casualties increased last year:
UNAMA Human Rights recorded a total of 2118 civilian casualties between 01 January and 31 December 2008. This figure represents an increase of almost 40% on the 1523 civilian deaths recorded in the year of 2007. The 2008 civilian death toll is thus the highest of any year since the end of major hostilities which resulted in the demise of the Taliban regime at the end of 2001. The report says that about 40 percent of these deaths was caused by pro-government forces and that this
amounts to a 31% increase over the deaths recorded in 2007. This increase occurred notwithstanding various measures introduced by the [US/NATO forces] to reduce the impact of the war on civilians. The review ought to take this into account.