| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Senate Passes $447 Billion Defense Bill |
| 2004-06-24 |
| The Senate passed a massive defense spending bill that, at $447 billion, still only covers a fraction of war costs in Iraq and Afghanistan...The bill, which now must be reconciled with a similar House bill passed a month ago, includes a military pay raise, an increase in the size of the Army and billions of dollars for weapons systems. The measure includes $25 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the Bush administration plans to submit a supplemental budget at the start of the next calendar year, after November’s election, that is expected to seek at least an additional $25 billion for the two ongoing military campaigns. Defying the White House and Pentagon, senators also included a provision to add 20,000 troops to an Army stretched thin by the war in Iraq, the global war on terror and other commitments around the world. Lawmakers have for months heard complaints from families of service men and women who have served repeated deployments or been forced to remain on duty after their obligation has ended under a Pentagon device called "stop-loss." The Senate bill would increase the Army by about 4 percent, to 502,400. The House version would add 30,000 Army soldiers and 9,000 Marines over three years. a) Strange that the WH and the Pentagon would not want to increase troops. Why is that? b) How will the military manage to attract 39,000 warm bodies to join the military in 3 short years? |
| Posted by:rex |
| #5 passed 97-0, as usual, Kerry was not there to vote, too busy out scouring money to do the job he was elected to do. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-06-24 11:31:51 PM |
| #4 I participated in the stand up of the last active division brought on line in the mid to late 80's, that being the 10th. It took two years of planning, building, training and organizing before we could field our first battalion task force in a worldwide deployment. You want to fill body bags, yep, you can do that in 90 days. You want effective soldiers in a cohesive unit that matches today efficient Army, then it'll take two years to build a new organization that can be sustained and supplied. |
| Posted by: Don 2004-06-24 11:21:24 PM |
| #3 a) Strange that the WH and the Pentagon would not want to increase troops. Why is that? Because of the money it takes to recruit, train and provide pay/benefits for a new soldier and their dependents (figure at least 2X that for an officer). It will take about 1-2 years to get them into the field and at least another year for them to be begin to be effective. This isn't even covering SpecOps, language, or intel specialists. Meanwhile, money has to be found for equipment and facilities maintenance, research, new and replacement equipment, fuel, cost of operations, training, medical costs, paying for existing procurement programs and bases that Congress is loathe to give up on.... |
| Posted by: Pappy 2004-06-24 9:05:14 PM |
| #2 The Pentagon doesn't want to increase the size of the force because it wants the dollars that would go to pay for the extra troops to modernize equipment. The rationale is the same one used to justify BRAC (Base Realignment And Closure), the money saved is needed for new equipment and improved maintenance for what we already have. |
| Posted by: RWV 2004-06-24 1:05:58 PM |
| #1 The Dems want a draft...It's going to backfire on them at election time. |
| Posted by: Anonymous5333 2004-06-24 9:27:22 AM |