This act, the Senate's version of the House's March 23 bill, calls for $122 billion in funding for Afghanistan and Iraq, a start to the withdrawal of troops from Iraq within 120 days after the bill's passage, and a nonbinding goal to end military operations by March 31, 2008.
The defense budget of the United States, the world's leading military power throughout the twentieth century, is not enough for the country to confront the threats of the twenty-first. It should be increased -- and can be without negatively affecting the economy. The money is available; it must be joined by political will.
The US Army Times reports comments from the acting Pentagon inspector general, that army spending on contractors is out of control: speaking before the Senate Armed Services subcommittee on readiness the inspector said that procurement laws are routinely violated, "price reasonableness," competitive awards and contractor oversight are abandoned, and millions of dollars are wasted.
With wars in Afghanistan and Iraq consuming lives, equipment, and political capital, talk of financial costs may seem petty. But this is budget season, and the way the Bush administration has been paying for the war is about to become a political issue.
This analysis in the Congressional Quarterly points out that three independent assessments place the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus anti-terrorism activities, at amounts in excess of the Bush administration’s figures. The difference ranges from $16 billion in the estimate of the Government Accountability Office to $18 billion in the view of the Congressional Budget Office to $23 billion in the estimate of the Congressional Research Service.
This Washington Institute paper outlines how for more than a decade, Iran has lavished a considerable share of its defense budget on its naval forces (which consist of both regular and Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps units), believing that the Persian Gulf will be its front line in the event of a confrontation with the United States. Following a naval war-fighting doctrine that suits its revolutionary ethos, Iran has developed innovative, asymmetric naval warfare tactics that exploit its favorable geographic situation, build on its strengths, and target the vulnerabilities of its enemies.
Leaks regarding the Bush administration's confidence in the Iraqi prime minister and a bipartisan commission's recommendations regarding American troop withdrawals create complications during the president's trip to the Middle East.
The text of a speech delivered at London’s Chatham House on October 02, 2006, by Constanze Stelzenmuller of the German Marshall Fund of the United States about the future of European defence. Stelzenmuller argues that the perception that a common EU defence policy is unworkable is based on myths that undermine pragmatic integration of defence policies.
This edition of Strategic Assessment from the Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University discusses current government policy towards Lebanon and Hezbollah, and debates the future of Israeli foreign policy after the war in Lebanon.
The Council on Foreign Relations' David Rockefeller Studies Program—CFR's "think tank"—is home to more than seventy full-time, adjunct, and visiting scholars and practitioners (called "fellows"). Their expertise covers the world's major regions as well as the critical issues shaping today's global agenda. Download the printable CFR Experts Guide.
The author examines Pakistan's complex role in U.S. foreign policy and advocates for a two-pronged approach that works to quarantine threats while integrating Pakistan into the broader U.S. agenda in Asia.