Pentagon wants $7.5 billion to fight ISIS

posted at 2:01 pm on February 4, 2016 by Taylor Millard

The Pentagon is looking to get $7.5B to fight ISIS. Jazz has already looked at the increased military spending Defense Secretary Ash Carter wants for Europe and countering Russia, but the massive jump (50%) in fighting ISIS, shows the Obama Administration isn’t treating them like the JV team anymore. Via ABC News:

“This will be critical as our updated coalition military campaign plan kicks in. For example, we’ve recently been hitting ISIL with so many GPS-guided smart bombs and laser-guided rockets that we’re starting to run low on the ones that we use against terrorists the most,” [ Ash ] Carter said. ISIS is also known as ISIL or the Islamic State. “So we’re investing $1.8 billion in FY 2017 to buy over 45,000 more of them.”

The interesting part of this request is the fact the Defense Department is hoping to keep spending mostly level. They got around $580B last year and the official tally for this coming fiscal year is $582B. This has Republicans asking the same question I want to know: Where is the money going to come from? Via The Hill:

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) earlier Tuesday said the budget request did not account for a 50-percent increase in spending for the war against ISIS from last year, or a quadrupling of funds to reassure European allies worried about Russia. 

“The increase in counter-ISIS investments and deterrence of Russia are welcome and needed moves,” Thornberry said in a statement. “But the president’s budget request, for example, does not add funds to accommodate the $7.5 billion in additional funding to counter ISIS or the $3.4 billion to deter Russia.” 

Thornberry’s point is valid, but also shows the problem the GOP tends to have when it comes to military spending. The GOP likes to be pro-military (and I agree, we need to have a strong military) but for them it means all budget increases, and no budget cuts. This was something Marco Rubio and Rand Paul argued about during the November presidential debate. Transcript via Business Insider:

Paul: How is it conservative to add a trillion-dollar expenditure for the federal government that you’re not paying for? How is it conservative to add a trillion dollars in military expenditures? You cannot be a conservative if you’re going to keep promoting new programs that you’re not going to pay for.

Rubio: We can’t even have an economy if we’re not safe. There are radical jihadists in the Middle East beheading people and crucifying Christians, a radical Shia cleric in Iran trying to get a nuclear weapon. The Chinese taking over the South China Sea. Yes, I believe the world is a safer … no, no, I don’t believe, I know … that the world is a safer and better place when America is the strongest military power in the world.

The two, along with Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham, also argued with each other over defense spending on the Senate floor last March, with Cruz going with Rubio and Graham over Paul. The former wanted to raise defense spending without actual cuts elsewhere, while Paul wanted to make sure the defense expenditures were off-set by cuts to other government programs. What Thornberry should actually be asking is “where is the Obama Administration willing to cut to get this spending increase?” That’s the more logical question to ask, and would actually put the GOP in a position of power because they’re standing in favor of fiscal sanity. If the GOP wants more money to fight ISIS, then it’s going to have to decide where the cash is going to come from. The government cannot afford more spending with the debt at $19T. It’s going to have to eliminate wasteful programs like the VA, like Rural Utilities Service (which lost billions), like the GSA (which is auctioning off a Blackhawk helicopter), the Farm Service Agency, etc. etc. before the government can consider increased defense spending.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

They can’t wait to hand over more equipment and fire arms.

31giddyup on February 4, 2016 at 2:03 PM

Pentagon wants $7.5 billion to fight ISIS

That is some JV team.

bbordwell on February 4, 2016 at 2:03 PM

How about a real strategy first?

gwelf on February 4, 2016 at 2:03 PM

But obama always sides with his bros, never with his siblings.

Schadenfreude on February 4, 2016 at 2:04 PM

I suspect the Pentagon just wants $7.5b —-

jake-the-goose on February 4, 2016 at 2:06 PM

Talk about trying to close the barn door after the horse got out.

31giddyup on February 4, 2016 at 2:07 PM

Perpetual war.

This conflict could be ended within a month if not sooner but they won’t do it.

darwin on February 4, 2016 at 2:09 PM

How ‘bought sharing the “wealth” start at the border first?

31giddyup on February 4, 2016 at 2:10 PM

ISIS gets their money from selling the oil.

So why don’t we just take the oil? Who is going to stop us? Some kids running around in sandals and pajamas with faces covered in pubic hair? Because I can remember a time when the US military wouldn’t even have noticed guys like that as even being valid targets.

HugoDrax on February 4, 2016 at 2:10 PM

bought = about (double sheesh)

31giddyup on February 4, 2016 at 2:10 PM

Let’s start by not giving them refugee status.

Valiant on February 4, 2016 at 2:12 PM

So why don’t we just take the oil?

HugoDrax on February 4, 2016 at 2:10 PM

Do you realize that oil is a major contributor the biggest threat the USA faces today? And it ain’t ISIS.

antipc on February 4, 2016 at 2:14 PM

How much does a nuke cost?

Oil Can on February 4, 2016 at 2:17 PM

“So we’re investing $1.8 billion in FY 2017 to buy over 45,000 more of them.”

I’m sorry but they want to buy 45,000 more GBU-12’s? Uh we only used 5,000 of them in Desert Storm and we totally destroyed almost the entire Iraqi Army with that many.

Johnnyreb on February 4, 2016 at 2:21 PM

On night patrol with the ‘Soldiers of Odin’, neo-Nazi led vigilantes vowing to ‘keep Europe’s women safe from migrant sex attacks’

‘The Government screwed things up so bad, and we are the consequence,’ says masked Jani, 27, one of the group’s leaders, who works in a paper factory by day.
‘Politicians are allowing migrants to rape our women, and they are doing nothing about it. There will be a war on the streets, and we are ready to fight.’

Oil Can on February 4, 2016 at 2:27 PM

How about we get our border under control first before worrying about some other country’s border?

xblade on February 4, 2016 at 2:28 PM

This has Republicans asking the same question I want to know: Where is the money going to come from?

I like how you pretend you don’t know. Print and borrow, print and borrow. Budgets don’t mean squat.

lowandslow on February 4, 2016 at 2:30 PM

Maybe cancelling the showboating in the South China Sea could save a few bucks? ;)

DarkCurrent on February 4, 2016 at 2:31 PM

How much has Obama already spent supporting ISIS?

albill on February 4, 2016 at 2:32 PM

I thought congress just passed the omnibus to finance Obama’s last year? No more until a president with a detailed plan to beat ISIS takes over.

tej on February 4, 2016 at 2:32 PM

Democrats hate America

jaime on February 4, 2016 at 2:35 PM

Perpetual war.

This conflict could be ended within a month if not sooner but they won’t do it.

darwin on February 4, 2016 at 2:09 PM

We have always been at war with Oceania…

KMC1 on February 4, 2016 at 2:47 PM

… and if tanks and Humvees weren’t enough, that same year:

ISIS is using modern U.S. weapons its fighters have seized from Iraqi forces, while the Kurds fight with Soviet arms.

“They are literally outgunned by an ISIS that is fighting with hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. military equipment seized from the Iraqi Army who abandoned it,” Ali Khedery, a former American official who has served as an adviser to five U.S. ambassadors and several American generals in Iraq, told The New York Times.

31giddyup on February 4, 2016 at 2:50 PM

dump the f35 program.

dmacleo on February 4, 2016 at 3:02 PM

Where is the money going to come from?

From the fines and back taxes owed by all the illegal aliens.

Duh..

BobMbx on February 4, 2016 at 3:06 PM

“They are literally outgunned by an ISIS that is fighting with hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. military equipment seized from the Iraqi Army who abandoned it,”

That means they’re using a box of hammers and a Military Diversity Training DVD.

BobMbx on February 4, 2016 at 3:10 PM

Sounds more like Crony defense contractors want 7.5 billion to waste.

Screw that, let Russia and the middle east deal with it – the only problem the government should be looking at is how to stop immigrants into the US for those regions and how to find and deport those here past their VISA limits.

celt on February 4, 2016 at 3:22 PM

Why don’t they use the money we already gave them to exist in the first place. Use the soldiers, guns, bullets and bombs already in the arsenal up first before asking for more. Even better, cut out the green fuel experiment and every fifth person in the pentagon first.

Kissmygrits on February 4, 2016 at 3:25 PM

Its not where the cash comes from, it’s where does it go?
We know the %7.5 billion is borrowed or from taxes. Who gets it? What do we get in return?

Those are the big questions.
Rather than the aimless ISIS fight, use that $7.5 billion to buy 3 more Virgina class subs and the missiles, torpedo’s and crew to staff them.

richardb on February 4, 2016 at 3:33 PM

dump the f35 program.

dmacleo on February 4, 2016 at 3:02 PM

We can’t, China hasn’t stolen 100% of the secrets yet.

Oil Can on February 4, 2016 at 3:42 PM

Go get it back from the Iranians.. Right Jonny?

Goodie on February 4, 2016 at 3:49 PM

We can’t, China hasn’t stolen 100% of the secrets yet.

Oil Can on February 4, 2016 at 3:42 PM

Not a problem. With 4x the number of engineers as the US they can fill in the gaps. :D

DarkCurrent on February 4, 2016 at 3:49 PM

Where does the money come from?

Rand Paul’s presidential campaign?

Ok, that was mean.

But spending on defense is a proper function of government. Extremist libertarians are as bad as liberals about wanting to cut the jobs the government is supposed to be doing. Liberals, of course, just want to spend that money on more social programs. Libertarians who agree with liberals on cutting national defense don’t wind up shrinking government at all, because any money cut will be sent straight to social programs. Even nominally conservative politicians know it’s easier to get reelected if you can brag about how much money you bring home.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 4, 2016 at 4:22 PM

BTW, we could reduce the spending on ISIS considerably by using fewer smart bombs and relying instead on relatively cheap weapons. And we could reduce spending a lot more by giving them better reason to worry about provoking us.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 4, 2016 at 4:32 PM

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 4, 2016 at 4:22 PM

I got into a fight with a Paul supporter on this and actually ended up changing my mind. We don’t need to give the military more, we need them to manage what they have. Like all government, they are terrible with their money management and overspend on everything. If they need a part that’s the equivalent of a Ford taurus to get the job done, they’ll spec a Lamborghini diablo. Now add that up for all parts in a product and that’s why they pay 10 X more for everything than anyone else would.

Yes the national defense is constitutionally required, but man, we already spend tons more than anyone else. (Which I’m fine with). I’m just not fine with all the waste!

Also, I’m fine with taking that money from the elimination of the EPA, slashing the USDA, or whatever. Hell, they could probably get it if they took over Obama’s golf budget.

Free Indeed on February 4, 2016 at 4:54 PM

Oh and also, instead of hitting them with expensive smart munitions, put some boots on the ground and start killing them with 5.56. Hell, rain hydra rockets down on them until there’s nothing left. The only reason it costs so much is the ROE and dainty way we’re fighting ISIS. Fight them to win! (yes, I know we’re talking about liberals here….)

Free Indeed on February 4, 2016 at 4:58 PM