The Pentagon’s $419.3 billion proposed budget for 2006 would be a $19 billion increase over this year’s spending, though the budget recommends cuts for some premier weapons programs.
The budget reflects the needs of a military adjusting, abroad and at home, to increased wear-and-tear from prolonged conflicts. It allocates an additional $11 billion to operations and maintenance and gives service members a 3.1 percent pay raise.
But the document does not include the ongoing operating costs of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The administration next week will ask Congress for $81 billion to cover those expenses and others, on top of more than $100 billion in supplemental spending for Iraq and Afghanistan that Congress has already approved.
Some of the money from the supplemental spending as well as from Monday’s proposed budget will go toward changing the military’s structure, Defense Department officials said.
“It isn’t the size of the force that was wrong, it’s the shape of the force and the capability of the force,” said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. “All branches of the armed services have been restructuring to deploy more combat power with increased speed, lethality, agility and precision.”
Critics in Congress argued that the defense spending plan does too little to help service members and their families.
“Fighting the war in Iraq and against terrorism on multiple fronts is taking a toll on our ground forces and their families,” said Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee.
Although the Army’s actual budget drops by about $300 million, the service has received billions of dollars more for costs associated with Iraq and Afghanistan through the supplemental budget requests.
Some analysts said the Pentagon is playing a shell game because Iraq and Afghanistan are omitted from the budget. Some money from the supplemental budget requests that is intended for Iraq and Afghanistan, they said, actually is going for more basic military purposes.
“It’s another budget game, because that’s money that’s really supposed to be used for fighting the war,” said Marcus Corbin, a senior analyst at the Center for Defense Information. “The defense budget is a heck of a lot smaller than it might be since they haven’t put those other programs in there.”
The $100 billion allocated to the Army by the 2006 budget is designed to speed the effort to transform its fighting units from 33 to 47 brigades–about 5,000 soldiers each–by 2007.
The budget also proposes spending $3.4 billion on the Army’s Future Combat System, an effort to digitally link soldiers and commanders on the battlefield. More money–$1.6 billion in 2006 and $9.9 billion over the next five years–is included for stepped-up chemical and biological defenses for U.S. forces.
The 2006 budget also adds two active Marine infantry battalions (about 1,000 Marines apiece) and several reserve combat and support units.
U.S. Special Operations Forces, drawn from each service, will add 1,200 military personnel, including four Navy SEAL platoons, and 200 civilians. Rumsfeld earlier established a separate Special Forces Command, and the 2004 budget funded the addition of 5,000 Special Forces troops, bringing the size of the force to nearly 50,000.
In addition to moving forces into combat roles, the Army has grown by 20,000 troops authorized last year by Congress to more than 500,000 soldiers.
To offset its proposed $19 billion increase, the 2006 budget proposes a series of cuts to high-profile defense programs.
The administration proposes buying 179 F/A-22 Raptor fighter jets, the Air Force’s fighter that has been in development for more than 20 years. That’s 96 fewer than the Air Force was planning on obtaining.
The F/A-22’s estimated cost is $258 million each, a price tag that includes both manufacturing and development costs.
The Navy would reduce its fleet of 12 aircraft carriers by one ship, most likely the older USS John F. Kennedy, which is based in Florida. The budget also calls for the Navy to plan for four new large vessels in 2006–one submarine and three ships–instead of six.
Such moves are certain to meet with opposition in Congress because defense spending plays an important part in some regional economies.
