I'm Just Wondering
What's up with this request from the Pentagon?
We've been in Iraq for quite a while now, so we know how much vehicles cost, and how quickly they get worn down or destroyed in battle. So why was there a problem projecting how much money would be needed for this expense, and why wasn't all that included last time they asked for money? How is it that it turns out they need 'extra money' for those things?
Unless, somehow, more vehicles have been damaged in combat then they projected?
But that can't be, can it? I mean, General Petraeus had all those lovely graphs about how we're making progress, right? So why would we be running through vehicles at a faster rate, one which would require a big 'extra' expenditure?
Or do you suppose that, if one were faced with the political challenge of asking for more to be appropriated by a hostile Congress, one might decide to claim the money, whatever it was for, was required to pay for something no one would want to vote against, like bomb-resistant vehicles?
$1 billion is going to improve facilities and consolidate bases. Seems small beans compared to the other items, but $1 billion is a lot of money. If we wanted, $1 billion would go a long way toward improving a major commuter bridge in my city, and give Americans in my region value for decades.
$15 billion total for training, equipment and technology, aside from those vehicles. I realize that budgets in my state are tighter than the Federal Government, but could Secretary Gates explain to me just how it is that Pentagon planners were off by $15 BILLION dollars on their estimates there? I mean, there's rough estimating, and then there's pathetic estimating, and I have to think errors over, say, $10 billion are bad.
It sure would be swell to get some pushback, or even questioning, on this request, but I can see that anyone who hesitates will be accused of wanting our troops to be vulnerable to land mines.
Well, whatever. We certainly do want the Pentagon to better manage its resources. A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money!
WASHINGTON (AP) - Defense Secretary Robert Gates will ask Congress Wednesday to approve nearly $190 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2008, increasing initial projections by more than a third.Now, I like mine-proof vehicles just fine, but why is this an extra?
In remarks prepared for a Senate hearing, Gates says the extra money is necessary to buy vehicles that can protect troops against roadside bombs, refurbish equipment worn down by combat and consolidate U.S. bases in Iraq. A copy of the remarks was obtained by The Associated Press.
We've been in Iraq for quite a while now, so we know how much vehicles cost, and how quickly they get worn down or destroyed in battle. So why was there a problem projecting how much money would be needed for this expense, and why wasn't all that included last time they asked for money? How is it that it turns out they need 'extra money' for those things?
Unless, somehow, more vehicles have been damaged in combat then they projected?
But that can't be, can it? I mean, General Petraeus had all those lovely graphs about how we're making progress, right? So why would we be running through vehicles at a faster rate, one which would require a big 'extra' expenditure?
Or do you suppose that, if one were faced with the political challenge of asking for more to be appropriated by a hostile Congress, one might decide to claim the money, whatever it was for, was required to pay for something no one would want to vote against, like bomb-resistant vehicles?
In February, President Bush requested $141.7 billion for the wars; officials said at the time the figure was only a rough estimate and could climb. In July, the Defense Department asked Congress for another $5.3 billion to buy 1,500 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles.So, $11 billion is for buying nearly twice as many MRAP vehicles as planned. Hmm. Why? Why isn't 8,000 enough?
Gates says another $42 billion is needed to cover additional requirements. The extra money includes:
- $11 billion to field another 7,000 MRAP vehicles in addition to the 8,000 already planned;
- $9 billion to reconstitute equipment and technology;
- $6 billion for training and equipment of troops;
- $1 billion to improve U.S. facilities in the region and consolidate bases in Iraq; and
- $1 billion to train and equip Iraqi security forces.
$1 billion is going to improve facilities and consolidate bases. Seems small beans compared to the other items, but $1 billion is a lot of money. If we wanted, $1 billion would go a long way toward improving a major commuter bridge in my city, and give Americans in my region value for decades.
$15 billion total for training, equipment and technology, aside from those vehicles. I realize that budgets in my state are tighter than the Federal Government, but could Secretary Gates explain to me just how it is that Pentagon planners were off by $15 BILLION dollars on their estimates there? I mean, there's rough estimating, and then there's pathetic estimating, and I have to think errors over, say, $10 billion are bad.
It sure would be swell to get some pushback, or even questioning, on this request, but I can see that anyone who hesitates will be accused of wanting our troops to be vulnerable to land mines.
Congress should approve the request as quickly as possible "and without excessive and counterproductive restrictions," Gates will tell the Senate, according to his testimony. Doing so, he added, helps the Pentagon to better manage its resources and avoid shifting money around, which often requires additional cash.As we can see so well, based on previous appropriations which happened quickly, and then didn't require extra appropriations later. Oh, wait.
Well, whatever. We certainly do want the Pentagon to better manage its resources. A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money!
posted by Paul at 8:54 AM |
|
email this
