Wednesday, March 22, 2023
  • About us
    • Write for us
    • Disclaimer
    • Terms of use
    • Privacy Policy
  • RSS Feeds
  • Advertise with us
  • Contact us
DefenceTalk
  • Home
  • Defense News
    • Defense & Geopolitics News
    • War Conflicts News
    • Army News
    • Air Force News
    • Navy News
    • Missiles Systems News
    • Nuclear Weapons
    • Defense Technology
    • Cybersecurity News
  • Military Photos
  • Defense Forum
  • Military Videos
  • Military Weapon Systems
    • Weapon Systems
    • Reports
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Defense News
    • Defense & Geopolitics News
    • War Conflicts News
    • Army News
    • Air Force News
    • Navy News
    • Missiles Systems News
    • Nuclear Weapons
    • Defense Technology
    • Cybersecurity News
  • Military Photos
  • Defense Forum
  • Military Videos
  • Military Weapon Systems
    • Weapon Systems
    • Reports
No Result
View All Result
DefenceTalk
No Result
View All Result

New Afghan War Plan Announced, But How Much Will It Cost?

by Project on Government Oversight
June 3, 2014
in Defense Geopolitics News
4 min read
0
US vows to probe soldier’s Afghan massacre
14
VIEWS

President Barack Obama recently announced that, following the end of major combat operations in Afghanistan this year, the United States will retain a residual force of 9,800 troops to continue to train local security forces and conduct counterterrorism operations. Under this new plan, the number of troops in Afghanistan will continue to decline until Fiscal Year 2017 when all U.S. troops will be redeployed.

The White House had been holding back the announcement while awaiting the final results of the presidential election in Afghanistan, in which both leading candidates have pledged to support a long-term security agreement, known as a Bilateral Security Agreement, to authorize a U.S.-led military presence in the country after 2014. But with pressure mounting in Congress for the President to declare a path forward, he has decided to pull the trigger and announce his commitment to a residual force of 9,800 troops.

While the Pentagon submitted its regular base budget request back in March, it held back on submitting the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), also known as war funding, request pending the results of the Afghan election and the President’s announcement on troop levels.

It’s important that the administration’s forthcoming OCO funding request reflect the President’s vision for a significantly truncated force in Afghanistan next year. As William Hartung of the Center for International Policy points out, “In recent years, the OCO budget has been saddled with tens of billions of dollars in expenditures that are unrelated to the war in Afghanistan or any other overseas contingency.”

For example, last year, the number of troops deployed to Afghanistan fell by almost forty percent, but the amount of war funding provided actually increased in nominal terms from $82 billion to $85.2 billion. This was largely due to an increase in war funding provided by Congress to help the Pentagon circumvent statutory spending caps that have constrained growth in the defense budget. As a result, the OCO account has become a slush fund that supports activities and assets unrelated to counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan. For example, earlier this year, the Air Force used OCO funds to replace a V-22 Osprey that had crashed during a training exercise in Florida.

Currently, there are no statutory restrictions on what activities or programs may be included in the OCO account. Fortunately, concern over the OCO slush fund has been growing in Congress. The recent slush fund gimmickry has caught the attention of Representatives Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) and Patrick Murphy (D-FL) who successfully offered an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would codify metrics developed by the Office of Management and Budget to determine what should and should not be funded through the OCO account. For example, this amendment would authorize the military to use the account only to replace aircraft that have been destroyed in combat.

The primary purpose of the OCO account is to fund unexpected contingency operations to which Congress and military budget planners cannot respond quickly enough. Regrettably, though, the OCO account is now being used to support long-term, so-called “enduring” missions. According to senior military officials, war funding is now being used to support operations in Africa, global ship deployments, and operational costs for the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Mulvaney-Murphy amendment would crack down on this trend by restricting the ability of the Pentagon to spend war funds outside of certain geographic areas.

Representatives Mulvaney and Murphy were recently joined by a group of twenty-two lawmakers in writing to the President requesting that he reduce war funding as major combat operations in Afghanistan draw to a close. “As the last of our troops prepare to come home, it is also time to wind down the OCO budget and fund the operations of the Defense Department entirely through the base budget,” the bipartisan group wrote.

So, with the Pentagon in the final stages of preparing its OCO budget request for Fiscal Year 2015, the question remains: how much funding should be provided for the war in Afghanistan?

During previous budget cycles, the annual per troop cost has been pegged at around $1.3 million according to Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Based on historic funding trends, Harrison estimates that maintaining a force of 9,800 troops should cost around $20 billion. “Twenty billion [dollars] is a reasonable estimate for what it will cost for 9,800 troops in Afghanistan next year. It’s a legitimate number. In fact, it’s a little above the trend line, but pretty close to it,” Harrison told Defense News.

Indeed, the President’s Deputy National Security Advisor has also suggested that the Pentagon will need around $20 billion to prosecute the war in Afghanistan and draw down to a force of 9,800 personnel next year. An additional $5 billion will likely be required to support the retrograde of equipment out of Afghanistan. Yet, what remains to be seen is whether Congress’s propensity for padding the war funding account with unrelated activities and programs wins out over prudent and accountable budgeting.

Both Congress and the Pentagon must avoid the temptation of adding billions of dollars in unrelated expenses to the OCO account. The Senate can help end this practice by adopting the Mulvaney-Murphy OCO language in its version of the NDAA.

Furthermore, the Pentagon should request, and Congress should appropriate, a reasonable level of funding close to the $20-25 billion likely needed to support continued counterterrorism activities in Afghanistan. However, this $20-25 billion figure should be seen as a ceiling, not a floor, and the Pentagon can and should do everything possible to bring down costs in a safe and responsible manner.

Should lawmakers appropriate at a level above that requested by military planners, the Project On Government Oversight will vigorously support efforts to bring that funding level in line with what is needed to close out the longest war in American history. Last year, an amendment offered by Representatives Mulvaney and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) did just that, and enjoyed broad bipartisan support on the House floor.

Tags: afghan warafghanistancostwar
Previous Post

Thai Coup Not Affecting Swedish Gripen Deal

Next Post

Russian Air Force Unveils Arms Procurement Plan

Related Posts

Made in China: Saudi-Iran deal goes beyond Middle East, say analysts

Made in China: Saudi-Iran deal goes beyond Middle East, say analysts

March 13, 2023

A surprise deal to restore ties between Saudi Arabia and Iran will reverberate across and beyond the Middle East, analysts...

Vostok-2022

What is China’s game plan in Ukraine?

March 1, 2023

China is playing an increasingly prominent role on the sidelines of Russia's war in Ukraine as the conflict drags on...

Next Post
Russia at Aero India 2011 Airshow

Russian Air Force Unveils Arms Procurement Plan

Latest Defense News

Hwasong-17 ICBM

North Korea fires ‘long-range’ missile as S. Korea president heads to Japan

March 16, 2023
North Korea fires multiple suspected cruise missiles

North Korea fires two ballistic missiles, Seoul says

March 14, 2023
Australia to get nuclear submarines in new US, British partnership

Australia to buy US nuclear subs in ambitious new pact

March 14, 2023
Su-35 Fighter Aircraft, Russian Air Force

Iran says deal reached to buy Russian fighter jets

March 13, 2023
Made in China: Saudi-Iran deal goes beyond Middle East, say analysts

Made in China: Saudi-Iran deal goes beyond Middle East, say analysts

March 13, 2023
North Korea says Kim ordered test of ‘new type’ of ICBM

North Korea adopts war deterrence measures: state media

March 13, 2023

Defense Forum Discussions

  • NZDF General discussion thread
  • The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread
  • Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
  • General Aviation Thread
  • Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
  • Australian Army Discussions and Updates
  • China - Geostrategic & Geopolitical.
  • Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force Thread
  • Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
  • Royal Danish Navy
DefenceTalk

© 2003-2020 DefenceTalk.com

Navigate Site

  • Defence Forum
  • Military Photos
  • RSS Feeds
  • About us
  • Advertise with us
  • Contact us

Follow Us

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Defense News
    • Defense & Geopolitics News
    • War Conflicts News
    • Army News
    • Air Force News
    • Navy News
    • Missiles Systems News
    • Nuclear Weapons
    • Defense Technology
    • Cybersecurity News
  • Military Photos
  • Defense Forum
  • Military Videos
  • Military Weapon Systems
    • Weapon Systems
    • Reports

© 2003-2020 DefenceTalk.com