Skip to main content

The $5 Billion the Pentagon Doesn’t Need

by WILLIAM D. HARTUNG


On Nov. 10 the White House forwarded a request to Congress for an additional $5.6 billion to fight the war against the Islamic State. This is pocket change by Pentagon standards. The president’s new war funding request equals only about 1 percent of the Pentagon’s $500 billion base budget, and just 10 percent of the $59.6 billion that is already in the administration’s proposal for war funding for 2015.

With all this money at its disposal, why does the Pentagon need more funds now for the war against Islamic State? The short answer is, it doesn’t.

It’s an open secret that the war budget – known in Washington-ese as the Overseas Contingency Operations account – has been used for years as the Pentagon’s personal piggy bank to pay for a whole array of projects that have nothing to do with any existing conflict.

In fiscal year 2014, which ended Oct. 1, independent estimates suggest that as much as $30 billion of the $80 billion-plus OCO request was used for items unrelated to winding down the war in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, this year’s $59 billion request includes billions more that should not be part of the war budget. The Pentagon tipped its hand just a few weeks ago when it asked to use war funding to pay for F-35 fighters – aircraft that aren’t even certified for combat yet. Thankfully, the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee blocked that move. But this budgetary maneuver made it clear that the Pentagon has extra money sloshing around looking for a place to be spent.

What’s really going on here? Basically the Pentagon is engaging in a budgetary sleight-of-hand to avoid abiding by the caps on its budget that exist in current law. Since the war budget is not subject to any caps, the Pentagon has just been putting items and activities that don’t fit in its regular budget into the war accounts. By and large, members of Congress have turned a blind eye to this practice or simply accepted it without question.

It’s time for Congress to do some real oversight of the war account. Members should demand a rigorous accounting of what the more than $80 billion for 2014 was actually spent on, as well as a more detailed breakdown of what the administration’s original, $59 billion request for 2015 is meant to buy. Only then should additional funding be considered.

The new $5.6 billion request for the war in Iraq and Syria should also be subjected to close scrutiny in its own right. A significant portion of the funds are meant to be allocated to the Iraq Train and Equip Fund, a $1.6 billion assistance program that has a number of troubling provisions.

First, funds provided under the ITEF program could be supplied to both government and non-government forces, including everything from the official Iraqi government security forces to Kurdish peshmerga forces. ITEF transfers would also make their way to Shiite militias, either directly or through the Iraqi government.

Shiite militias have engaged in vicious human rights abuses in recent months, from attacking a mosque to killing and torturing Sunni citizens to burning down entire Sunni villages. In some parts of Iraq the Shiite militias are viewed as being just as bad as the Islamic State. Arming these groups while they are engaging in these activities would be unconscionable. It would also alienate Sunni tribes whose help is essential in containing or defeating the Islamic State.

Unfortunately, not only does the new ITEF fund not have provisions prohibiting U.S. weapons from being used in human rights violations, it actually has language that would allow the Pentagon to waive any legal restrictions that might otherwise apply to this aid. This is an open invitation to abuse.

Congress must subject the president’s new $5.6 billion war funding request to careful scrutiny, and reject it if questions about the budgetary need and human rights impacts cannot be adequately answered.

William D. Hartung is the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why States Still Use Barrel Bombs

Smoke ascends after a Syrian military helicopter allegedly dropped a barrel bomb over the city of Daraya on Jan. 31.(FADI DIRANI/AFP/Getty Images)

Summary
Barrel bombs are not especially effective weapons. They are often poorly constructed; they fail to detonate more often than other devices constructed for a similar purpose; and their lack of precision means they can have a disproportionate effect on civilian populations.

However, combatants continue to use barrel bombs in conflicts, including in recent and ongoing conflicts in Africa and the Middle East, and they are ideally suited to the requirements of resource-poor states.

Analysis


Barrel bombs are improvised devices that contain explosive filling and shrapnel packed into a container, often in a cylindrical shape such as a barrel. The devices continue to be dropped on towns all over Syria. Indeed, there have been several documented cases of their use in Iraq over the past months, and residents of the city of Mosul, which was recently …

Russia Looks East for New Oil Markets

Click to Enlarge


In the final years of the Soviet Union, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev began orienting his foreign policy toward Asia in response to a rising Japan. Putin has also piloted a much-touted pivot to Asia, coinciding with renewed U.S. interest in the area. A good expression of intent was Russia's hosting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in 2012 in Vladivostok, near Russia's borders with China and North Korea. Although its efforts in Asia have been limited by more direct interests in Russia's periphery and in Europe, Moscow recently has been able to look more to the east.

Part of this renewed interest involves finding new export markets for Russian hydrocarbons. Russia's economy relies on energy exports, particularly crude oil and natural gas exported via pipeline to the West. However, Western Europe is diversifying its energy sources as new supplies come online out of a desire to reduce its dependence on Russian energy supplies.

This has forced…

In Yemen, a Rebel Advance Could Topple the Regime

Shia loyal to the al-Houthi movement ride past Yemeni soldiers near Yaz, Yemen, in May. (MOHAMMED HUWAIS/AFP/Getty Images)

Summary


The success of a rebel campaign in northern Yemen is threatening to destabilize the already weak and overwhelmed government in Sanaa. After capturing the city of Amran, a mere 50 kilometers (30 miles) from the capital, in early July, the rebels from the al-Houthi tribe are in their strongest position yet. The Yemeni government is developing plans to divide the country into six federal regions, and the rebels believe this is their chance to claim territory for the future bargaining.

The central government is nearly powerless to fend off the rebels; its forces are already stretched thin. Neighboring Saudi Arabia has intervened in Yemen before and still supports Sunni tribes in the north, but the risk of inciting a Shiite backlash or creating space for jihadists to move in could deter another intervention.

Analysis


Followers of Zaidi Islam, a branch of Shiism, rul…