The bottom line?
Source: Washington Post
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4065-2004Jul21.html
Title: "War Funds Dwindling, GAO Warns"
Date: July 22, 2004
This ain't good:
Comment:
It's a hard target to resist in a political year. Senator Kerry's campaign has weighed in already, of course: "George W. Bush likes to call himself a wartime president, yet in his role as commander in chief, he has grossly mismanaged the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq . . . . He went to war without allies, without properly equipping our troops and without a plan to win the peace. Now we find he can't even manage a wartime budget."
But I think the sound bite misses the point. According to the Post story, the GAO report notes errors in Pentagon troop projections, including a decline to 99.000 by September 30. Among the implications and complications of keeping troop levels over 130,000 for the foreseeable future is the fact that the larger number of troops will be operating in a manner that is lest cost-effective than they would in a more peaceful environment. So in addition to taller troop numbers, there appears to be a higher logistical cost per troop as well.
And given that higher troop levels also mean higher costs in contracts under Halliburton--well, there we see a possible issue of mismanagement, but more than mismanagement I think the real issue behind the incorrect projections is politically-motivated dishonesty on the part of the Bush administration. Few disagree that Bush understated the magnitude of commitment, and that deception still haunts our troops overseas.
Strange, then, that the Democrats should choose the softer criticism. Of course, there is also the consideration that the American electorate is such a collective dullard that it is a wise choice to go with "mismanagement," which, while having more syllables than "lies," is actually an easier concept for people to grasp. A liar is a complex issue. An idiot is a simple issue.
So none of it bodes well for our troops abroad; their boss is f@cking up spectacularly and the opposition is pitching sliders at the corners when all we need is to throw strikes.
The Pentagon is taking a political angle, aiming after bureaucracy: they have the money, but they need more authority from Congress to wrangle it loose from its various accounts. Meanwhile, the GAO, which is supposed to be apolitical, may well be covering Congress' asses. Of course, it may just be telling the truth:
Histrionics? The "bow wave" they refer to is the kind that can shatter or sink ships. Grim, and hopefully overstated.
____________________
• Weisman, Jonathan. "War Funds Dwindling, GAO Warns." Washington Post, July 22, 2004; page A01. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4065-2004Jul21.html
Source: Washington Post
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4065-2004Jul21.html
Title: "War Funds Dwindling, GAO Warns"
Date: July 22, 2004
This ain't good:
Washington Post said:
The U.S. military has spent most of the $65 billion that Congress approved for fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and is scrambling to find $12.3 billion more from within the Defense Department to finance the wars through the end of the fiscal year, federal investigators said yesterday . . . .
. . . . Already, the GAO said, the services have deferred the repair of equipment used in Iraq, grounded some Air Force and Navy pilots, canceled training exercises, and delayed facility-restoration projects. The Air Force is straining to cover the cost of body armor for airmen in combat areas, night-vision gear and surveillance equipment, according to the report.
The Army, which is overspending its budget by $10.2 billion for operations and maintenance, is asking the Marines and the Air Force to help cover the escalating costs of its logistics contract with Halliburton Co. But the Air Force is also exceeding its budget by $1.4 billion, while the Marines are coming up $500 million short. The Army is even having trouble paying the contractors guarding its garrisons outside the war zones, the report said.
Comment:
It's a hard target to resist in a political year. Senator Kerry's campaign has weighed in already, of course: "George W. Bush likes to call himself a wartime president, yet in his role as commander in chief, he has grossly mismanaged the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq . . . . He went to war without allies, without properly equipping our troops and without a plan to win the peace. Now we find he can't even manage a wartime budget."
But I think the sound bite misses the point. According to the Post story, the GAO report notes errors in Pentagon troop projections, including a decline to 99.000 by September 30. Among the implications and complications of keeping troop levels over 130,000 for the foreseeable future is the fact that the larger number of troops will be operating in a manner that is lest cost-effective than they would in a more peaceful environment. So in addition to taller troop numbers, there appears to be a higher logistical cost per troop as well.
And given that higher troop levels also mean higher costs in contracts under Halliburton--well, there we see a possible issue of mismanagement, but more than mismanagement I think the real issue behind the incorrect projections is politically-motivated dishonesty on the part of the Bush administration. Few disagree that Bush understated the magnitude of commitment, and that deception still haunts our troops overseas.
Strange, then, that the Democrats should choose the softer criticism. Of course, there is also the consideration that the American electorate is such a collective dullard that it is a wise choice to go with "mismanagement," which, while having more syllables than "lies," is actually an easier concept for people to grasp. A liar is a complex issue. An idiot is a simple issue.
So none of it bodes well for our troops abroad; their boss is f@cking up spectacularly and the opposition is pitching sliders at the corners when all we need is to throw strikes.
The Pentagon is taking a political angle, aiming after bureaucracy: they have the money, but they need more authority from Congress to wrangle it loose from its various accounts. Meanwhile, the GAO, which is supposed to be apolitical, may well be covering Congress' asses. Of course, it may just be telling the truth:
Washington Post said:
"We believe that the deferral of these activities will add to the requirements that will need to be funded in fiscal year 2005 and potentially later years and could result in a 'bow wave' effect in future years," the report cautioned. "Activities that are deferred also run the risk of costing more in future years."
A "bow wave" refers to a time when deferred costs confront Congress all at once, making it impossible to meet the demands.
Histrionics? The "bow wave" they refer to is the kind that can shatter or sink ships. Grim, and hopefully overstated.
____________________
• Weisman, Jonathan. "War Funds Dwindling, GAO Warns." Washington Post, July 22, 2004; page A01. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4065-2004Jul21.html
Last edited: