Every Budget Suggests a Policy

Admiral Morgan used to say that for the military services, every budget is a strategy. I remain unconvinced, but when it comes to budgets, I do believe every budget suggests a policy.

The AP is reporting on the bill passed in the Senate regarding President Barack Obama's $128 billion FY 2010 budget for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. What do we make of the Senates opinion regarding Afghanistan policy with this bit of budget reorganization?

The bill would cut $900 million from Obama's request for Afghan security forces, though the $6.6 billion provided still represents a 17 percent increase over current spending. Inouye says the Pentagon acknowledges the full budget request wouldn't be spent in the coming year and instead devoted the $900 million to bomb- and mine-resistant vehicles.

A counterinsurgency approach in Afghanistan will not work without Afghanistan security forces. In fact, advocates of a counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan have emphasized we need to expand Afghan security forces to succeed, and do so at a much faster rate. This money, which Inouye says wouldn't be spent this year, would potentially be how to fund building a larger Afghan security force faster.

If we use this budget as guidance to suggests the Senate's policy position, it looks to me like the Senate has no interest in counterinsurgency for Afghanistan. This type of changes suggests Senate policy is for our troops to kill more bad guys, and have the staying power necessary to do it. MRAPs purchased with this money will not influence the Afghanistan theater faster than if the money was used for Afghan security forces, even if the money wasn't used for Afghan security forces in FY 2010. The time issue may not be a very good reason.

I think Senators should be asked about this budget change directly, because I think the answer would suggest whether this was a policy choice, or an industrial choice. The American people need to know how seriously our elected officials are taking the war in Afghanistan, and this issue offers an opportunity for insight into what Senators are thinking. Will their answers reveal policy differences with the administration, or strategic ignorance to the situation?

MRAPs represent a policy alternative for those who reject a counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan, but it would also suggest that all of those good will projects we are doing in Afghanistan as part of the counterinsurgency approach do not need funding either. I would recommend shifting that money towards buying more aircraft and bombs for the Navy and Air Force, if we are to keep our budgets consistent in policy.