Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould the US government continue to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq through Emergency Supplemental legislation instead of through the Pentagon's base budget?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Yes | 27% | 10 votes | Total: 37 votes | |
| No | 73% | 27 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesThe emergency supplemental legislation should continue to be a resource of funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, firstly, because of the simple fact that obtaining necessary funding through the supplemental avenue is a much quicker and efficient process. This is important because without the immediate additional funding, the DoD would be under-resourced and would have to divert funds from other important missions throughout the world to finance the two wars and would undermine global US security interests in areas such as Europe, South Korea and Taiwan. Furthermore, the emergency supplemental legislation is passed by congressional edict, and therefore it is legal.
In addition, the traditional pre-nineties defence budget has historically averaged approximately 7% of GDP over a forty-year period vs. the current approximate 3-4%. By way of comparison, the percentage of GDP spent on defence during the Korean War was 14% and during Vietnam was 9%, hence, the current budget is historically less than percentages of the GDP in the past anyway, and it should be taken into consideration when approving additional funding, that the USA and partners are in a GLOBAL War on Terrorism, not just a regional war as the two previously mentioned. Also, without the emergency supplemental funding, non-combat specific military programs would suffer as well, including the following (from 2007 Supplemental Figures):
-$8.65 billion for military personnel
-$49.20 billion for operation and maintenance
-$10.45 billion for procurement
-$575.70 million for the Defence Health Program
The three main reasons I argue in favour of Emergency Supplemental Legislation is firstly, because it is ran through Congress as mentioned above, therefore it is legal. Secondly, that without the funding, US troops could go without needed services, and thirdly, the very nature of the Emergency Funding process is a much quicker procedure and gets the funding in the hands of the DoD much quicker than the traditional DoD Congressional budget process.
In addition from an Iraq specific perspective, as stated by Congressman Todd Platts at www.house.gov,
"With the continued support and assistance of the United States and our allies, the people of Iraq are on the path to transforming their country into a peaceful, thriving democratic nation. The funds for civilian infrastructure projects contained in this legislation will help ensure that the years of despair, fear, and torture under Saddam Hussein's regime are successfully replaced with freedom, justice, and hope for a bright and promising future for all Iraqi citizens.... as Generals Sanchez and Odierno emphasized, these supplemental funds will help to ensure that our courageous men and women in uniform have the resources they need to fulfil their challenging mission in Iraq and in the broader War on Terrorism."
We cannot just simply walk away from Iraq and Afghanistan, leave their new governments without assistance and the necessary time to build a foundation for their future and expect them to defend their countries alone from inside and out because of a lack of needed resources. Their success is directly proportional to advancing the USA's national Interest and the funding helps make this win/win situation have a much better chance of success.
Learn more about this author, Anson Bentley.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
IN THE BALANCE
Wasn't one direct hit at the most powerful nation on earth's power house, The Pentagon, enough to say, back off? If the budget for wars lies at this base, keeping the fires fueled in Afghanistan and Iraq, funded by the U.S Government, what do they need more funds from the Supplemental legislation to only add more fuel to their warring efforts for? Aren't they tired of warring yet? Will any amount taken from whichever source, Emergency Supplemental, or the Pentagon base, ever be able to wipe the blood off their hands, if truth should speak?
The USA did not weep alone when 9/11 happened, or the Pentagon was a target! Nor do these very targets of the West, (the USA and her allies etc, ) those in Afghanistan or Iraq, weep alone. There has been more tears and blood shed, since The Power of the World, in whom God we Trust, USA was hit, than there could ever be enough, in either Emergency Supplementary legislation reserves, or base Pentagon supplies, could ever measure up to. Government money is the people's money. Which people?
The time for these things are stale mate. Or else the US won't have time to ask any more of these questions, because the call will be check mate! It's so tragic to see, those who class themselves in the category of being so Christian, being such war mongers instead. Is that trusting in the God you claim to trust? Or does the next Cyclone in the US oil Gulf have to hit home harder, and then be able to say, it was an Act of God, instead?
Dear George... I have watched you both with interest and concern. With humanness and humor. You were caught in a time of Presidency especially prepared for you. You were forced to speak up about your strong belief in Jesus Christ, because our brothers and sisters of Islam, were involved. You even found them in your own back yard! Apart from 9/11, none have warred by honing in on your own homeland with all the guns of war ablaze for just one or two men, like you went after, into theirs.
But please... don't let your Jesus Christ down by continuing further than you were ever intended to. Why were you and your 'buddies' safe on the morning of 9/11? Or when your Pentagon was hit. Why could you and they be fore-warned, and no-one else was? Stand in the Light you claim, George. You are not a Goliath! Though you as Chief of your Army, your men and women in the Forces are your Goliath's for you. Give them a break too.
Trust more in the Savior you claim to, and stop trying to be the Savior! Was he a war-monger? Did he, like a King in his counting house counting out his money, debate which amount should be taken from where, to keep the wars going? Take a humble bow George, Chief of Army, when you must bow out to Higher Powers than yourself. You might just be relieved to know you don't have to ask any more of these questions, like... "Should the US government continue to fund the wars in Afghanistan, and Iraq through Emergency Supplementary legislation, instead of through the Pentagon's base budget?"
If you have that kind of surplus... sure you knocked down enough to rebuild to keep workers (no matter from where,) to try and re-build again, in pocket. The supply and demand on building supplies alone must be a huge drain. But the lives? Can you pay for them? Not every civilian who fell by the sword was your enemy, any more than those lost in 9/11. These human life figures are weighed in the balance, and found greatly wanting now, more for life, than money.
So if you must draw from the Emergency Supplementary coffers, instead of what's left at base Pentagon, weigh it against your young men and women, and all who have suffered, and be the Peace Warrior, Brave Heart, who learns to turn the other cheek, and says, "sorry, the banks are all empty. We'll have to halt this war." You might find you need that money to rebuild the US Emergency Supplies!
Learn more about this author, Irrira Rikki.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- War & Peace
- Should the UN intervene by force in Darfur?
- Should America or other powers charge for liberating the oppressed in other countries?
- Is Guantanamo unconstitutional?
- Does the US need more spies to help inform and protect our country?
- Should Tony Blair be the lead Mideast envoy in upcoming peace talks in Egypt?
