Rising CostOf Iraq WarMay ReignitePublic Debate

By YOCHI J. DREAZEN and JOHN D. MCKINNON
Wall Street Journal
WASHINGTON -- The cost of U.S. military operations in Iraq is risingrapidly, and could reignite the national debate about the war, which hastaken a back seat to the economy as an issue for most voters this electionyear.Today, the White House will propose a federal budget that for the first timetops $3 trillion. The plan is expected to include a record sum for thePentagon and an additional $70 billion in funding for the wars in Iraq andAfghanistan, while essentially freezing discretionary spending in areasother than national security, including most domestic programs.
The sharp contrast between President Bush's defense and domestic-spendinggoals could give Democrats a potent political weapon as the economycontinues to deteriorate. But with the Democratic-controlled Congress likelyto scrap most of Mr. Bush's spending plans, his funding proposal for Iraqmay be one of the budget's most enduring elements.Mr. Bush's budget calls for about $515 billion to be allocated to theDefense Department for the fiscal year that starts Oct. 1, according topeople familiar with the matter. If passed by Congress, that would be thelargest military budget -- adjusted for inflation -- since World War II.Pending RequestsThe budget also includes a separate request of $70 billion for Iraq andAfghanistan for the first quarter of fiscal 2009 alone. For this fiscalyear, Congress has yet to approve additional spending of about $102 billionthe White House has requested for the two conflicts.Boosted in part by rising fuel prices and the expense of repairing orreplacing vehicles worn down by the long war, U.S. spending on Iraq hasdoubled in the past three years.Last year's buildup of U.S. troops -- known as the "surge" -- and themilitary's growing use of expensive heavy munitions to roust Iraqiinsurgents also have contributed to the cost increase. According to a recentCongressional Research Service report, the average monthly cost of theconflict -- by CRS's measure -- hit $10.3 billion in the year ended Sept.30, 2007, up from $4.4 billion in fiscal 2004.$1 Trillion MarkWith Congress having already approved $691 billion in war spending since2001, the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined could rise to justunder $900 billion by next spring and could near the $1 trillion mark by theend of 2009.Pentagon officials acknowledge that war costs have risen sharply, but theysay the added spending is justified not only by higher fuel and food prices
but also by the need to provide better protective gear and other equipmentto U.S. troops. They also note that the U.S. has begun spending tens ofmillions of dollars a year on salaries for what the Pentagon calls"Concerned Local Citizens," the mainly Sunni fighters who now function asneighborhood-watch organizations in many parts of Iraq.On the domestic front, the president's new budget is expected to keep atight lid on costs that aren't security-related. One big target for savingswould be Medicare, the health-care program for the elderly. But the budgetfor homeland security is expected to rise sharply again, with much of themoney going to increasing immigration enforcement and border security.Today's announcement is also expected to project deficits in the range of$400 billion for both 2008 and 2009, thanks to a big economic-stimulus planCongress is expected to approve. If war costs were fully included, the 2009deficit would be even higher.Congress has been unable to limit war funding in the past. Last year,several measures aimed at changing administration policy failed to make itthrough both chambers, damping calls for change. The progress the U.S. troopsurge has made in tamping down violence in parts of Iraq also has helped todislodge the war from the top of the political agenda.But the issue of war costs is gaining traction. Democrats believe they havea stronger hand now amid fears of a recession. Polling and focus groupscommissioned by several unions and activist groups last year suggested thatDemocrats should focus on the war's impact on domestic needs as they girdfor a budget battle with Mr. Bush. According to a memo describing theresults, the best way for the Democrats to frame their message would be tocriticize Mr. Bush for vetoing "important priorities at home after spendinghalf a trillion dollars in Iraq."
A big test of this approach could come as soon as this spring, when Congressbegins debating the additional Iraq war funding the Bush administration hasrequested for this year.Democrats' MessageKansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius sought to make those points last Monday in theDemocrats' official response to President Bush's State of the Union address.She complained that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan "have cost us dearly --in lives lost; in thousands of wounded warriors whose futures may never bethe same; [and] in challenges not met here at home because our resourceswere committed elsewhere."On the campaign trail, Democrats have hit that message harder, arguing thaturgent domestic needs -- from children's health care to expanded spending onhighways and other infrastructure -- are going unmet because of the highcosts of the two conflicts."We are spending $9 billion to $10 billion every month," Democraticpresidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama said late last month during a debatein South Carolina. "That's money that could be going right here in SouthCarolina to lay broadband lines in rural communities, to put kids back toschool."Several progressive groups and labor unions joined forces last fall to runTV ads targeting lawmakers for voting against a Democratic-led effort toexpand health insurance for children. One ad sponsored by USAction said"health care for 1.7 million kids costs the same as just one week in Iraq.But Republicans in Congress" helped President Bush to block the program'sexpansion.White House officials believe they weathered Democrats' attacks over Mr.Bush's veto of the expansion. Many voters, the White House believes, agreedthat the initiative represented an ill-advised, big-government-styleresponse to the country's health-care problems. They plan to maintain that
defense as Democrats broaden their arguments for more spending to includeinfrastructure and social spending.Senior military officials, meanwhile, want to see the Defense Department'sbudget grow beyond what Mr. Bush has requested so far. Adm. Michael Mullen,the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says that total defensespending -- for the Defense Department itself and the wars in Iraq andAfghanistan -- should rise to 4% of gross domestic product a year. That'sequivalent to about $700 billion a year.Replacing EquipmentSenior Pentagon officials say they need the extra money to pay for thecontinuing costs of expanding the nation's active-duty military by tens ofthousands of troops and repairing or replacing the planes, helicopters,tanks and armored vehicles consumed by the two wars.Speaking to reporters Friday, Gen. James Conway, the commandant of theMarine Corps, argued that a wartime defense budget of 4% of GDP would besmall compared with the ratios in previous conflicts. "We're fighting a waron less than 4%," he said. "It was 9 during Korea, 13 for Vietnam, 35, 38for World War II. We're making do with it, but...we do see some needs on thehorizon."The 30,000 additional U.S. troops sent to Iraq last year as part of thesurge are expected to return to the U.S. by the end of the summer, bringingthe total U.S. troop presence back down to about 130,000.Defense Secretary Robert Gates has talked in the past about trying towithdraw an additional 30,000 troops by the end of the year to reduce thestrains on the military. Mr. Bush said this week that he may hold off on anyfurther troop reductions for fear of jeopardizing recent security gains inIraq.