Experts foresee need for fiscal 2010 Defense supplemental in spring

If President Obama, as expected, announces a significant boost in the U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan, defense analysts and other observers say the military will need more money for the war by late spring to continue funding operations without depleting other Pentagon accounts.

The new Afghanistan strategy -- which is widely expected to include an influx of at least 30,000 more troops -- could require tens of billions of dollars more than what has already been requested for this fiscal year.

The money could be attached to the fiscal 2010 Defense spending bill, which has not yet cleared Congress. But, with the clock ticking down on the end of the year and the Defense bill expected to be the vehicle for other legislation, analysts say a supplemental spending bill is a far more likely scenario despite Obama's pledge to fund the wars out of the annual budget.

"I don't see any way that they could put an [budget] amendment together and get it considered, so it's going to be a supplemental," said David Berteau, senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Appropriators, Berteau said, do not want the administration to "mess with whatever agreement they have in play" on the defense bill.

Indeed, House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha, D-Pa., said Nov. 18 that adding money for Afghanistan to the defense bill, versions of which have already passed both chambers, would be "very difficult."

"That is going to be a separate issue later on," he added.

The Obama administration requested $138.6 billion for overseas operations for fiscal 2010, $73 billion of which was earmarked to pay for Afghanistan. That figure already marked a 70 percent increase over fiscal 2008 funding for Afghan operations.

"At this point, I think [the military] is probably funded enough to get through the winter," said Gordon Adams, the Office of Management and Budget's associate director of national security during the Clinton administration. "Besides, you're not going to deploy all of these forces right away. You can probably handle the funding stream between now and late spring."

The White House estimates that each additional troop would cost about $1 million a year, while the Pentagon projects the costs to be about half of that. Many analysts disputed the veracity of the price-per-troop calculation, arguing that there are too many variables to devise a simple price tag for the operations.

But what appears certain is that the deployment of more troops will happen gradually -- meaning that much of the funding to pay for heightened operations in Afghanistan will be required in the fiscal 2011 budget.

Adams said he doubts there will be much fidelity in next year's war request and added that he believes another supplemental could be required for fiscal 2011. The Pentagon will finalize its budget request by the end of December and the administration will send it to Capitol Hill in February.

"If they say their budget is accounting for the troop increase, then it's wrong," Adams said. "That's a technical judgment, not a political judgment, because the decision to send them [the additional troops] was made so late in the game."

Any additional war spending requested by the administration would likely prompt pushback from antiwar Democrats, who have routinely voted against supplemental spending packages for several years. They have already raised concerns that more money for military operations means less money will be available for domestic priorities.

Lawmakers will get their first crack at questioning top administration officials about the Afghanistan plan at hearings later this week with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Michael Mullen.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, and U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl W. Eikenberry are tentatively scheduled to testify before congressional panels next week, congressional aides said Monday.

Congress is still widely expected to vote to support funding for the troop increase, regardless of the cost, analysts say.

"We're not in the war because of cost and we're not going to get out of the war because of cost," said a former senior Pentagon official.

Humberto Sanchez contributed to this report.