What, they run commercials on prime time Al-Jazeera and buy banner ads on allahoo.com? There's a parodical sig file lurking somewhere in that last paragraph of yours.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2099574/ Kurd Sellout Watch, Day 421 Should we partition Iraq? By Timothy Noah Posted Tuesday, April 27, 2004, at 3:56 PM PT . . .
Not only are we short on soldiers, armored vehicles, high quality personal armor, tank treads, and Arab linguists - we are running out of *cannons*. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/04/27/state1615EDT7095.DTL -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sierra ski resorts ordered to return howitzers for war effort (04-27) 15:26 PDT RENO, Nev. (AP) -- The military is demanding two Sierra Nevada ski resorts return howitzers used for avalanche control, saying the weapons are needed by troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. . . .
That's not all they're short on. CNN just had a short story about the shortage of Purple Hearts. Apparently there's a backlog of Purple Heart recipients. They don't have enough to go around. I'll see if I can find a link.
Our tax dollars at work U.S. Wants Iraq Guerrillas on Payroll Thu Apr 29, 4:45 PM ET By JIM KRANE, Associated Press Writer BAGHDAD, Iraq - A new Iraqi military force being proposed to tame Fallujah's guerrillas could bear a striking resemblance to the guerrillas themselves. The band of about 1,000 Iraqis would be led by one of Saddam Hussein's generals, and its U.S.-funded payroll might include some of the same gunmen who have been fighting U.S. Marines. In a move resembling U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, the United States appears to be co-opting its enemies to end a siege that has drawn international condemnation. A U.S. military officer privy to the negotiations said it was "very likely" that the Fallujah Protective Army, which would fall under the command of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, could include some gunmen who joined the uprising in Fallujah — particularly criminals who signed on for money, and former soldiers disgruntled at losing their jobs when the Americans disbanded the Iraqi army. The officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, added that "hardcore" fighters and Islamic militants would not be included. U.S. military authorities said an agreement to end the fighting in Fallujah was "tentative," even after the Marines said it had been completed. As negotiations continued, U.S. airstrikes targeted insurgents in the city. U.S. Marines are supposed to pull back from Fallujah, although if the new deployment works out, they could come back in joint patrols, said Marine Capt. James Edge. The development makes possible the bizarre scenario of U.S. Marines patrolling alongside some of the same people they were shooting at earlier this week. The tentative agreement came as the United States was barraged by international pressure to prevent a revival of the bloodshed seen in Fallujah in the first two weeks of April. It copies Washington's strategy in Afghanistan of giving armed militias cash and autonomy in exchange for keeping nettlesome areas quiet. In this case, once-hostile sheiks in Iraq (news - web sites)'s vast and lawless western Anbar province have been coaxed to make common cause with the United States, a senior U.S. military official said. "We have in Afghanistan hired away militia," the official said. "If we've got some sheiks in al-Anbar that want to be part of the solution, that may be helpful." The fighters would receive salaries paid by the United States, said the official, who had no word on any incentive bonuses promised to end the standoff. The Fallujah Protective Army would move into U.S. Marine positions and erect a new cordon around the city, Marine Lt. Col. Brennan Byrne said. Eventually, the new force would try to take control of rebel-held parts of the city. Byrne identified the commander of the new force only as Gen. Salah, a former division commander under Saddam. He said he did not know the general's full name, but a Lt. Gen. Salah Abboud al-Jabouri, a native of the Fallujah region, served as governor of Anbar province under Saddam and was a senior commander in his military. Byrne called the formation of the Fallujah army "an Iraqi solution to an Iraqi problem." As Iraqis, "they know the populace, they know the terrain." It remains to be seen whether the new force could wrest control of the city from as many as 2,000 rebels, most of whom wouldn't likely be joining the new force. The U.S. siege of Fallujah, launched April 5 after the killing and mutilation of four American contract workers in the city, has killed hundreds of Iraqis, including many civilians, according to hospital sources. At least eight Marines have been killed. U.S. civilian and military leaders blame the battle on foreign fighters and terrorists. But aid workers and reporters in Fallujah reported seeing little or no evidence of a foreign presence, saying the guerrillas were Iraqis fighting a legitimate battle against U.S. occupation. The U.S. military has released no evidence of a foreign presence in the city. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...20040429/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_fallujah_force_1
In our Central American wars we always had local elites with their death squads to do the heavy lifting. The Iran Contra guys who dominate the Administration and our new Ambassador have years of experience with the death squad routine. In Iraq we bomb the crap out of them for 13 years and destroy one of the better economies in the Middle East. With them all being out of work we can hire the hungrier of Sadam's killers to kill for democracy. No need to import as many mercs from the high wage countries. Iraqi mercs work cheaper. Save the US taxpayers some money. Cool. That should really lead to some peace. Pay some of them to kill the others in a civil war. Wait, that is why we are there to prevent civil wars. Oh , well, no mind we're always the good guys. Besides in 20 or 30 years it wii be shown to have been for the best. After all as Bush said at his press conference "Brown People" need democracy, too.
Not only that, but we're hiring people who killed American soldiers in uniform. Bush is just like Reagan, *rewarding* terrorists for their actions.
I missed this earlier, but we were short on ammo in *January*. http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/...mand=viewone&op=t&id=51&rnd=428.5040126097824 . . . This report and similar accounts of ammo shortages during the past few months have caused me to check into this story with great urgency. Because soldiers fight as they train – which, by the way, is the U.S. Army’s most heavily exercised mantra – an Army without sufficient training ammo is an Army that will fail on the battlefield. I posted a “help wanted” ad on my Hackworth.com web page, and within 24 hours had received more than 500 messages from serving Army troops in the United States preparing for deployment to hot battlefields like Iraq or Afghanistan, as well as from warriors all over the world, confirming that our soldiers don’t have sufficient stocks of live or blank training ammo to prepare adequately for combat. Although Pentagon spokesman Maj. Gary Tallman was most cooperative, it took him several weeks to line up the experts. When asked why, he said, “Some folks here are busy playing ‘pass the grenade.’ ” For sure, the ammo-shortage problem is a live grenade. But eventually I did speak with Brig. Gen. Louis Weber and Lt. Col. Susan Carlson. Weber, recently back from Iraq – where he served with the spearhead unit that took Baghdad – insisted that the “Army has adequate ammo for training and deployed units.” But he did admit that there was a lot of ground truth in the reports I’d received from the troops. Gen. Weber explained that the Army ammo inventory includes 350 different lines of munitions, and that fragmentation grenades and blank training ammo are a problem, along with 23 other lines of ammo. When I asked for a list of the shortages, the Pentagon declined to provide it in the interests of “operational security.” Tallman assured me that small-arms-training ammunition is now the No. 1 single line item for procurement dollars for the 2004 budget. “The Army will spend just over $1 billion, ahead of Stryker, upgrades for Apache, Abrams, CH-47, MLRS, procurement of communications systems and procurement of medium and heavy tactical vehicles,” he said. West Point-trained Lt. Col. Carlson – coincidentally the daughter of retired Col. Jerry Carlson, who served with great distinction alongside of me in Korea and Vietnam – said that our Lake City ammo plant in Missouri “has gone to three shifts.” Sources say that Lake City – both the largest Army ammo facility in the world and the producer of all the Pentagon’s small-arms ammo – has reached “capacity” and “units in the field still don't have the right stuff to do the job.” A regular Army major just back from Iraq says: “President Bush told the armed forces, ‘Help is on the way.’ But in Iraq and now in the training business, I’ve seen very little help, but a whole lot of pork.” . . .
Those pictures are from 60 minutes 2 and the alleged court martial offenses committed by soldiers and contractors. Supposedly the contractors are in a no man's legal land. Not going to be prosecuted!
So, the Repubs have $18 billion to funnel to their contributors and buddies with virtually no oversight and only a small percentage has actually been spent because they have been siphoning off the funds for security and administrative costs... (read mercenaries). This goes to the lie that the security situation was ever good. As much as these people don't mind having other people die so they can make money, they aren't at the point yet where they are willing to die for money. Admittedly, a decent chunk has been stolen by our Iraqi friends, but the If the security situation was anywhere near as rosy as has been painted, if this were just a few miscreants, that money would have been flowing like there's no tomorrow... _______________ Bush Administration Under Fire for Iraq Spending Fri Apr 30, 2004 04:25 PM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration is under fire from U.S. lawmakers who complain that only a tiny portion of the $18.4 billion to rebuild Iraq has been allocated and some funds are being diverted for security and administration costs. As of March 24, only $2.24 billion has been earmarked according to an early April report prepared for Congress by the White House. "They appropriated $18.4 billion for Iraq and precious little of it is being spent for reconstruction," said Dave Helfert, a spokesman for Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee said on Friday. "We need these public works projects to improve the lives of the Iraqi people and yet we can't build them because of the security situation." According to the report, $184 million is being diverted away from the water sector to pay for the costs of operating the successor to the Coalition Provisional Authority. A further $29 million is being reallocated "from various lines" to pay for administrative expenses at the U.S. Agency for International Development. "I have very serious concerns about the pace of assistance funding in Iraq, and the management of those funds," Rep. Jim Kolbe, an Arizona Republican who chairs the House Appropriations foreign aid subcommittee said on Thursday.
Why aren't these guys welcoming us with flowers and hugs? I guess they won't get any coverage on Fox. http://www.boston.com/dailynews/124/world/Editor_in_chief_of_U_S_funded_:.shtml Editor-in-chief of U.S.-funded Iraqi newspaper quits, complaining of American control By Lee Keath, Associated Press, 5/3/2004 14:47 ADVERTISEMENT BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) The head of a U.S.-funded Iraqi newspaper quit and said Monday he was taking almost his entire staff with him because of American interference in the publication. On a front-page editorial of the Al-Sabah newspaper, editor-in-chief Ismail Zayer said he and his staff were ''celebrating the end of a nightmare we have suffered from for months ... We want independence. They (the Americans) refuse.'' Al-Sabah was set up by U.S. officials with funding from the Pentagon soon after the fall of Saddam Hussein last year. Since its first issue in July, many Iraqis have considered it the mouthpiece of the U.S.-led coalition, along with the U.S.-funded television station Al-Iraqiya. Zayer said almost the entire staff left the paper along with him and that they were launching a new paper called Al-Sabah Al-Jedid (''The New Morning''), which would begin publishing Tuesday . . .
They are not free apparently to express viewpoints in newspapers if we don't agree with those ideas. This in the war whose latest offered reason is that we want the Iraiqis to be free. This is becoming a farce and a demonstration to the Arab world of how the US is not actually interested in democracy and freedom , there. We just want them to do what we want in our way. Of course those who have studied history can see that several times we have overthrown democratic leaders who have arisen that we don't feel are in the US interest. ******** Another story about how US government controlled and financed TV media can't compete with the Arab media, who even many Americans are now coming to rely on to report what is actually happening in the Middle East. LINK
Josh Marshal's very apt take on the neocon's Chalabi adventure- In the popular political imagination we're familiar with the neocons as conniving militarists, masters of intrigue and cabals, graspers for the oil supplies of the world, and all the rest. But here we have them in what I suspect is the truest light: as college kid rubes who head out for a weekend in Vegas, get scammed out of their money by a two-bit hustler on the first night and then get played for fools by a couple hookers who leave them naked and handcuffed to their hotel beds. Marshall wrote this after reading this article from Salon- www.salon.com How Ahmed Chalabi conned the neocons The hawks who launched the Iraq war believed the deal-making exile when he promised to build a secular democracy with close ties to Israel. Now the Israel deal is dead, he's cozying up to Iran -- and his patrons look like they're on the way out. A Salon exclusive. - - - - - - - - - - - - By John Dizard May 4, 2004 | When the definitive history of the current Iraq war is finally written, wealthy exile Ahmed Chalabi will be among those judged most responsible for the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein. More than a decade ago Chalabi teamed up with American neoconservatives to sell the war as the cornerstone of an energetic new policy to bring democracy to the Middle East -- and after 9/11, as the crucial antidote to global terrorism. It was Chalabi who provided crucial intelligence on Iraqi weaponry to justify the invasion, almost all of which turned out to be false, and laid out a rosy scenario about the country's readiness for an American strike against Saddam that led the nation's leaders to predict -- and apparently even believe -- that they would be greeted as liberators. Chalabi also promised his neoconservative patrons that as leader of Iraq he would make peace with Israel, an issue of vital importance to them. A year ago, Chalabi was riding high, after Saddam Hussein fell with even less trouble than expected. Now his power is slipping away, and some of his old neoconservative allies -- whose own political survival is looking increasingly shaky as the U.S. occupation turns nightmarish -- are beginning to turn on him. The U.S. reversed its policy of excluding former Baathists from the Iraqi army -- a policy devised by Chalabi -- and Marine commanders even empowered former Republican Guard officers to run the pacification of Fallujah. Last week United Nations envoy Lakhdar Brahimi delivered a devastating blow to Chalabi's future leadership hopes, recommending that the Iraqi Governing Council, of which he is finance chair, be accorded no governance role after the June 30 transition to sovereignty. Meanwhile, administration neoconservatives, once united behind Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress he founded, are now split, as new doubts about his long-stated commitment to a secular Iraqi democracy with ties to Israel, and fears that he is cozying up to his Shiite co-religionists in Iran, begin to emerge. At least one key Pentagon neocon is said to be on his way out, a casualty of the battle over Chalabi and the increasing chaos in Iraq, and others could follow. "Ahmed Chalabi is a treacherous, spineless turncoat," says L. Marc Zell, a former law partner of Douglas Feith, now the undersecretary of defense for policy, and a former friend and supporter of Chalabi and his aspirations to lead Iraq. "He had one set of friends before he was in power, and now he's got another." While Zell's disaffection with Chalabi has been a long time in the making, his remarks to Salon represent his first public break with the would-be Iraqi leader, and are likely to ripple throughout Washington in the days to come. Zell, a Jerusalem attorney, continues to be a partner in the firm that Feith left in 2001 to take the Pentagon job. He also helped Ahmed Chalabi's nephew Salem set up a new law office in Baghdad in late 2003. Chalabi met with Zell and other neoconservatives many times from the mid-1990s on in London, Turkey, and the U.S. Zell outlines what Chalabi was promising the neocons before the Iraq war: "He said he would end Iraq's boycott of trade with Israel, and would allow Israeli companies to do business there. He said [the new Iraqi government] would agree to rebuild the pipeline from Mosul [in the northern Iraqi oil fields] to Haifa [the Israeli port, and the location of a major refinery]." But Chalabi, Zell says, has delivered on none of them. The bitter ex-Chalabi backer believes his former friend's moves were a deliberate bait and switch designed to win support for his designs to return to Iraq and run the country. Chalabi's ties to Iran -- Israel's most dangerous enemy -- have also alarmed both his allies and his enemies in the Bush administration. Those ties were highlighted on Monday, when Newsweek reported that "U.S. officials say that electronic intercepts of discussions between Iranian leaders indicate that Chalabi and his entourage told Iranian contacts about American political plans in Iraq." According to one government source, some of the information he gave Iran "could get people killed." A Chalabi aide denied the allegation. According to Newsweek, the State Department and the CIA -- Chalabi's longtime enemies -- were behind the leak: "the State Department and the CIA are using the intelligence about his Iran ties to persuade the president to cut him loose once and for all." But the neocons have bigger problems than Chalabi. As the intellectual architects of an "easy" war gone bad, they stand to pay the price. The first to go may be Zell's old partner Douglas Feith. Military sources say Feith will resign his Defense Department post by mid-May. His removal was reportedly a precondition imposed by Ambassador to the U.N. John Negroponte when he agreed to take over from Paul Bremer as the top U.S. official in Iraq. "Feith is on the way out," Iraqi defense minister (and Chalabi nephew) Ali Allawi says confidently, and other sources confirm it. Feith's boss, Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, may follow. Bush political mastermind Karl Rove is said to be determined that Wolfowitz move on before the November election, even if he comes back in a second Bush term. Sources say one of the positions being suggested is the director of Central Intelligence. In part, the White House political crew is reacting to pressure from the uniformed military, which is becoming a quiet but effective enemy of the neocons. The White House seems to be performing triage to save the political capital of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney, Iraq hawks who have close ties to the neocons. "Rumsfeld and Cheney stay," says an Army officer. "Powell has his guy Negroponte in there. But the neocons are losing power day by day." Why did the neocons put such enormous faith in Ahmed Chalabi, an exile with a shady past and no standing with Iraqis? One word: Israel. They saw the invasion of Iraq as the precondition for a reorganization of the Middle East that would solve Israel's strategic problems, without the need for an accommodation with either the Palestinians or the existing Arab states. Chalabi assured them that the Iraqi democracy he would build would develop diplomatic and trade ties with Israel, and eschew Arab nationalism...... See www.salon.com for the rest of the article.
George Will takes the wood to Bush and the neoc-cons... (I started to bold some phrases, but ended up bolding most of the column... read the whole thing.) _______________ Time for Bush to See The Realities of Iraq By George F. Will Tuesday, May 4, 2004; Page A25 Oh? Who? Appearing Friday in the Rose Garden with Canada's prime minister, President Bush was answering a reporter's question about Canada's role in Iraq when suddenly he swerved into this extraneous thought: "There's a lot of people in the world who don't believe that people whose skin color may not be the same as ours can be free and self-govern. I reject that. I reject that strongly. I believe that people who practice the Muslim faith can self-govern. I believe that people whose skins aren't necessarily -- are a different color than white can self-govern." What does such careless talk say about the mind of this administration? Note that the clearly implied antecedent of the pronoun "ours" is "Americans." So the president seemed to be saying that white is, and brown is not, the color of Americans' skin. He does not mean that. But that is the sort of swamp one wanders into when trying to deflect doubts about policy by caricaturing and discrediting the doubters. Scott McClellan, the president's press secretary, later said the president meant only that "there are some in the world that think that some people can't be free" or "can't live in freedom." The president meant that "some Middle Eastern countries -- that the people in those Middle Eastern countries cannot be free." Perhaps that, which is problematic enough, is what the president meant. But what he suggested was: Some persons -- perhaps many persons; no names being named, the smear remained tantalizingly vague -- doubt his nation-building project because they are racists. That is one way to respond to questions about the wisdom of thinking America can transform the entire Middle East by constructing a liberal democracy in Iraq. But if any Americans want to be governed by politicians who short-circuit complex discussions by recklessly imputing racism to those who differ with them, such Americans do not usually turn to the Republican choice in our two-party system. This administration cannot be trusted to govern if it cannot be counted on to think and, having thought, to have second thoughts. Thinking is not the reiteration of bromides about how "all people yearn to live in freedom" (McClellan). And about how it is "cultural condescension" to doubt that some cultures have the requisite aptitudes for democracy (Bush). And about how it is a "myth" that "our attachment to freedom is a product of our culture" because "ours are not Western values; they are the universal values of the human spirit" (Tony Blair). Speaking of culture, as neoconservative nation-builders would be well-advised to avoid doing, Pat Moynihan said: "The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself." Here we reach the real issue about Iraq, as distinct from unpleasant musings about who believes what about skin color. The issue is the second half of Moynihan's formulation -- our ability to wield political power to produce the requisite cultural change in a place such as Iraq. Time was, this question would have separated conservatives from liberals. Nowadays it separates conservatives from neoconservatives. Condoleezza Rice, a political scientist, believes there is scholarly evidence that democratic institutions do not merely spring from a hospitable culture, but that they also can help create such a culture. She is correct; they can. They did so in the young American republic. But it would be reassuring to see more evidence that the administration is being empirical, believing that this can happen in some places, as opposed to ideological, believing that it must happen everywhere it is tried. Being steadfast in defense of carefully considered convictions is a virtue. Being blankly incapable of distinguishing cherished hopes from disappointing facts, or of reassessing comforting doctrines in face of contrary evidence, is a crippling political vice. In "On Liberty" (1859), John Stuart Mill said, "It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to say" that the doctrine of limited, democratic government "is meant to apply only to human beings in the maturity of their faculties." One hundred forty-five years later it obviously is necessary to say that. Ron Chernow's magnificent new biography of Alexander Hamilton begins with these of his subject's words: "I have thought it my duty to exhibit things as they are, not as they ought to be." That is the core of conservatism. Traditional conservatism. Nothing "neo" about it. This administration needs a dose of conservatism without the prefix.
We have nine of ten Army divisions now committed. Hope the Bushies don't break anything else, cause we can barely own Iraq. At least they went up to 138,000 instead of going to 100,000.
Bush Asks Congress for Additional War Funding $25B Needed for Contingencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Says By Jonathan Weisman and William Branigin Washington Post Staff Writers Wednesday, May 5, 2004; 5:21 PM Driven by unanticipated combat, higher-than-expected troop levels and rising political pressure, the White House reversed course today and asked Congress for an additional $25 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the fiscal year that begins in October. "While we do not know the precise costs for operations next year, recent developments on the ground and increased demands on our troops indicate the need to plan for contingencies," President Bush said in a statement on the request this afternoon. "We must make sure there is no disruption in funding and resources for our troops." He said he was asking Congress to "establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops and to make sure we succeed in these critical fronts in the war on terror." He said his administration later would seek a full supplemental request for fiscal 2005 "when we can better estimate precise costs." Bush made the request after a meeting this morning in which he and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld discussed recommendations from U.S. military commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan about their needs. Bush included no war funding in his fiscal 2005 budget, and he had hoped to avoid such a request until after the November election, fearing a divisive, campaign-year debate over the war's conduct and future, Republican congressional aides said. Congress has already approved two wartime emergency spending laws totaling $166 billion, of which $149 billion went to Iraq. But in recent weeks, military officials publicly stated that U.S. forces were already running into financial problems, and would likely run out of money even before Sept. 30, the end of the current fiscal year. Accounting tricks would likely patch those holes, they said, but it was unclear how the military would be able to wait until January or February, when the administration planned to detail its next war request. Democrats -- and some Republicans-- have put increasing pressure on Bush to detail the cost of operations and to request additional funding as soon as possible. The Democrats used their weekly radio address Saturday to air a critique by 1st Lt. Paul Rieckhoff, an Army reservist who spent 10 months in Iraq. "There were not enough vehicles, not enough ammunition, not enough medical supplies, not enough water," he said. "There was not enough body armor, leaving my men to dodge bullets with Vietnam-era flak vests. We had to write home and ask for batteries to be included in our care packages. Our soldiers deserve better." White House budget director Joshua B. Bolten and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz made an unscheduled trip to Capitol Hill this afternoon to lay out the request in a meeting with House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and House and Senate appropriations committee Republicans. "It was a bit of a surprise for us," said one House Republican leadership aide. Republican aides conceded today that the $25 billion Bush will seek is likely to be only the first installment. In February, Bolten said the president would seek as much as $50 billion next year. But that was when the Defense Department had expected U.S. troop levels in Iraq to be about 115,000 by now and to fall to about half that by the summer of 2005. Now, the Pentagon is preparing to maintain a force of 138,000 for at least the next 18 months. House and Senate budget negotiators have already agreed to include $50 billion in the budget blueprint they are trying to complete for 2005, but defense experts say even that will fall short. One House appropriations committee aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the full cost of war in 2005 will be around $65 billion, more than two and a half times the president's request. "Given the increased tempo of operations as seen in April and the need for the long-term deployment of troops, it is clear that this is not enough money," said Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) "It is unfortunate that the administration spends so much energy and time in denying the fact they need any help." Sophisticated munitions, combat intensity and the high cost of an all-volunteer Army have already made the Iraq war an expensive conflict. With an additional $25 billion, the war's total cost exceeds the inflation-adjusted costs of the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War and the Persian Gulf War combined, according to a war cost study by Yale University economist William D. Nordhaus. At $174 billion, the Iraq conflict would be approaching the inflation-adjusted, $199 billion cost of World War I, a level the war will likely pass next year. Such numbers figured prominently in the contentious debate last fall over Bush's $87 billion request for military and rebuilding activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. But a House Republican leadership aide said the debate this year will likely be less divisive. The last bill included nearly $20 billion in reconstruction funds that even many Republicans believed was excessive for an oil-rich nation like Iraq, the aide said. This time, the money will be devoted almost exclusively to U.S. troops and security needs. Congressional aides said the White House changed tack when it became clear the debate over the war would be unavoidable. Leaders of the House and Senate armed services committees said they would include money for the war in their annual defense bills. And appropriators were expected to follow suit, with or without a request from the administration. Indeed, Republican and Democratic aides on the appropriations committees said today the big fight will be holding the request down to the president's level. For weeks, Republicans and Democrats have been imploring Bush to send up a war request before the military was forced to juggle different accounts to fund combat operations. "Forcing the services to piece together budgets is likely to have a deleterious effect on training, housing, recapitalization of equipment and, ultimately, morale," wrote 11 Democratic senators in a letter to Bush two months ago. "Our fighting men and women deserve better." The White House would like to keep the request as a discreet, emergency spending bill, but appropriators will likely fold it into the larger defense spending bill to keep off extraneous pet projects that lawmakers would try to slip into such a "must-pass" measure in an election year, aides said.
