GovernmentExecutive.com

The high cost of maintaining an all-volunteer military during wartime is reflected in the $515.4 billion defense budget request the Bush administration sent to Congress this week, a 7.5 percent increase over last year's budget. Nearly 30 percent of the request, $149.4 billion, is designated for military pay and health care.

Along with the base budget request, the administration also requested $70 billion in an emergency bridge fund for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. A more detailed request for additional war funding will be sent to Congress this spring, said Defense Secretary Robert Gates at a Pentagon briefing. Last year, the administration requested $189.3 billion for the wars.

It has been widely noted that the fiscal 2009 request is the largest since the peak years of World War II. It reflects the increased costs of maintaining a large volunteer force during a protracted war.

Nearly $150 billion is directed to military pay and health care. Under the proposal, service members would receive a 3.4 percent pay raise next year. For a staff sergeant, that means an additional $1,289 a year. Civilian Defense employees, like other civilian workers across government, are slated for a 2.9 percent pay bump.

Health care costs for 9.2 million service members and their dependents consume $23.6 billion of the budget request. Vice Adm. Steve Stanley, director of force structure, resources and assessment for the Joint Staff, said the Pentagon was extending additional benefits to service members and their families, such as backing public-private partnerships for child care centers and allowing members of the armed forces to transfer Montgomery GI bill benefits to their spouses and children.

The budget dedicates $20.5 billion to increasing the number of ground forces and improving their readiness. By 2012, the Pentagon plans to add 65,000 Army soldiers, for a total of 547,400, and an additional 27,000 Marines, for a total of 202,000.

The Pentagon's top priority in the budget, Stanley said, was relieving the stress on troops serving repeated tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Because of the surge of additional soldiers to Iraq last year, the tours of some Army units were extended to 15 months. Stanley said combat tours are being reduced to the standard 12 months.

The additional troops will allow units rotating to Iraq double the time spent at home stations to rest, train and repair war-worn equipment. For the Army, that means 24 months home for every 12 months deployed and for the Marines, 14 months at home for every seven months in the combat zone.

The rising cost of fuel has increased operating costs -- forcing the Air Force, for example, to cut back its training flights and increase its use of simulators. The department added $1 billion in the budget to Air Force accounts to cover higher fuel costs, said Defense Comptroller Tina Jonas.

The Pentagon requested $183.3 billion to develop and buy new weapons systems, $104.2 billion for procurement and $79.6 billion for research and development -- an increase of $10.5 billion over 2008.

If Congress approves the procurement request, it would mark nearly a doubling in procurement funding since 2007, and matches the peak year of weapons purchases during the height of the Cold War in 1985, according to an analysis by Steven Kosiak of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

Still, the procurement request is below the $6.4 billion increase projected in last year's budget. Kosiak said the increased costs of the war and personnel are causing a shift of funds out of procurement accounts, a trend that "does not bode well for DoD's long-term modernization plans."

COMMENTS

• Is 30% of the Non-Military/Defense/Homeland Security budget spent on pay and health care of the civilian workforce? If not, why not? I agree with bringing back the draft for both temporary military and temporary civilian federal service that would require SOMETHING of virtually every American in return for the great privilege of living in this country . . . but PEOPLE are expensive to maintain no matter whether they are employed as a result of their choice or the choice of an employer. That's simple reality. Desert Dweller Posted February 7, 2008 11:33 AM
• I gotta disagree with Bob. Slashing soldier pay by 75% makes about as much sense as raising federal judge pay by 32%. Regardless of whether a service member is drafted or volunteers, he/she is a valuable asset. The measures the government has implemented to care for the force and their families serve our long term national interest. I agree we need to share the war with all of America though, but I think this needs to be accomplished initially by media focus on progress, and more information on specific issues impeding progress that will help grass roots efforts to effectively impact the war. Ray Posted February 6, 2008 3:09 PM
• I'm considered by those who know me to be a liberal, I tend to vote Dem, etc, etc. However, I have always been pro-military, and I have NEVER believed that eliminating the draft was a good idea. Every citizen and every family should have first-hand exposure and knowledge of military operations. Going all volunteer will one day, sooner or later, create a military with a mindset that it is apart from the citizenry and can do whatever it - the military - believes is best without "outside interference." As citizens, we all need to have this experience much closer to each of our lives. And I also agree with others who call for ALL young people to be drafted, men and women. Each individual will go where their abilities and skills will take them - there's plenty of work to share. Bring back the draft! AF HR Posted February 6, 2008 2:59 PM