GovernmentExecutive.com

Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged Tuesday that the military can manipulate its fiscal 2008 base budget to pay soldiers until late July, but warned that doing so would only provide temporary relief and could have significant consequences for the armed services.

Appearing before the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Gates said the Pentagon could dip into the Air Force and Navy's fourth-quarter military personnel accounts to cover troop costs through most of July.

"Doing so, however, is a shell game which will disrupt existing programs and push the services' [operations and maintenance] accounts to the edge of fiscal viability," Gates told the panel.

The heavily deployed Army already has been borrowing from its fourth-quarter accounts to cover war costs. By June 15, the Army would run out of funding to pay soldiers without either an enacted war funding bill or a significant loan from the Navy or Air Force.

Around July 5, the Army's operations and maintenance accounts would run dry, which would result in civilian furloughs and force the Pentagon to limit training and reduce family support activities, Gates said.

Aside from a delayed supplemental spending bill's impact on the services' accounts, the military would have to suspend the Commander's Emergency Response Program if it does not soon receive its requested war funds for this year, Gates said. The program provides commanders in the field with funds to pay for urgent local needs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress last year approved $500 million of the total fiscal 2008 $1.7 billion request for the program. The military, meanwhile, cannot reprogram funds to fill that account as they wait for enactment of the supplemental.

"Without the balance of $1.2 billion, this vital program will come to a standstill," Gates said.

Gates, who testified as the Senate was expected to begin floor consideration of the supplemental spending bill, acknowledged Congress may approve the war bill before departing for the weeklong Memorial Day recess. But Gates said he is obligated to devise contingency plans in the event of further delays. If the war spending bill does not make its way through Congress before the recess, the Defense Department will submit reprogramming requests to Congress next Tuesday "to prevent depletion of the Army military personnel account and the Army operations and maintenance account," according to Gates' written testimony. On June 9, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England will give the services guidance on furloughing civilian employees.

Gates urged Congress to pass an fiscal 2009 Defense spending bill this year and not resort to a continuing resolution to fund the department. House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha, D-Pa., already has expressed concerns that Congress will not take up the base defense bill before adjourning this year.

A continuing resolution, Gates said, would shortchange the military billions needed for new programs. Among funds that would be lost in a continuing resolution are $8.7 billion needed to enlarge the Army and Marine Corps, $1.8 billion to continue implementation of the 2005 base closures and $246 million needed to stand up the nascent U.S. Africa Command.

COMMENTS

• I find Skeeter’s use of the term “feather merchant” amusing considering his preference of contractors over our dedicated civil service employees. A little research shows many sources for the term and practically as many meanings; including one on marine trainees I disregard. While current use indicates a person short or of slight build (as in feather or light weight) or in a comfortable or easy assignment such as headquarters duty or some staff billet; and is often used for civilians working for the military. The term evolved “[d]uring the early days of the US Army, perhaps as early as the Revolutionary War, [when] it was used to describe unscrupulous merchants who would include rocks and other heavy objects to add weight to the feathers sold to the government that were used for soldiers' pillows, mattresses and such, so to increase the contractors profits.” Perhaps these were precursors of Halliburton? While I can attribute the civilian reference to ignorance in our role and duties; the actual origin strikes me as particularly appropriate considering the reports coming from the front. Regardless, the balance between fighting the lame duck and making a righteous stand to end this police action is a delicate action requiring thoughtful and measured steps. On one hand you have a conflict erroneously called a “War” and a virtuous fight for freedom; and on the other you have people tried of dying for “daddy’s war”. No one doubts that Saddam was a despicable despot, but who made him built him into such a power? History students recall the Party Pacaderm providing him with support in the 80’s. Rummy, as the special envoy for the President Reagan, negotiated with Hussein in ‘83 and ‘84; even after Saddam conducted a preemptive attack on Iran and used gas on the Iranians and the Kurds. ‘On 9 June 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC's Nightline, “It is becoming increasingly clear that George H.W. Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into" the power it became, and "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted — and frequently encouraged — the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq.”’ (Wikipedia) And we didn’t know what they had?! Tip off Posted June 3, 2008 10:46 AM
• "..there have been no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11." - excellent point! The money should be taken from DHS, which has only achieved long and demonstrably failure-prone airport security lines. Move the money where it pays off. B Reveab Posted May 29, 2008 4:42 PM
• Your statement that "we" didn't murder hundreds of thousands of Iraqis begs the question. Yes, they were murdered by insurgents / Jihadists / Mujahadeen (or whatever you want to call them) precisely BECAUSE we invaded. Saddam was a despot, but Iraq was at least stable under his control. Things are much worse now for most Iraqis than they ever were under Saddam. I would recommend you see a DVD entitled INSIDE IRAQ: THE UNTOLD STORIES. You can order it from Amazon.com. It will give you a true glimpse of the mess we've made. As for the statement that we need to stay in Iraq because there are terrorists there: I'm afraid that's a non-sequiter. Yes, there are terrorists in Iraq. There are many more in Pakistan (a place where they have found safe-haven). Most of the 9/11 hijakers were from Saudi Arabia. Most of the strife in Iraq today is between Shia & Sunni tensions, although that's a gross over-simplification. It has nothing to do w/terrorists planning attacks against the U.S. The whole premise for the U.S. invading Iraq has long been discredited (although the Bush administration has constantly tried to alter the impetus for the invasion to fit the facts). As Sun Tzu would say, gerrymandering does not count as a military strategy. As for the GDP argument, that's beside the point. We're borrowing billons from China (among other places) to fight this fiasco. It's like a person running up their credit card; eventually, the bill will come due. Our grandchildren's grandchildren will be paying it off. You can try to spin that any way you like, but the fact still remains the same. Also, implying that people who disagree w/you are not so well informed as you is nothing more than a cheap, ad-hominum argument. It's far easier to simply say you know mroe than other people about a topic & leave it at that, rather than engage the topic itself. DSR David Posted May 27, 2008 9:24 AM