Iraq, Afghanistan Funds to Dry Up

American military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will run out of money in September, leaving the Pentagon scrambling to cover as much as $19 billion in costs until the White House seeks additional funding through an emergency measure expected in January, top defense officials said Tuesday.

The Army and Marines, the branches with the most troops on the ground, expect to spend about $56.5 billion fighting on two fronts this year, almost all in Iraq. The Army, which has the majority of troops involved, is spending about $55 billion a year in the two countries, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee. The Marines expect to spend $1.5 billion.

As head of the most acutely stretched military service, Schoomaker said, he did not know how the Army would make up the shortfall for the 120,000 soldiers in the Persian Gulf.

“I am concerned ... on how we bridge between the end of this fiscal year and whenever we could get a supplemental in the next year,” Schoomaker said. “And I do not have an answer for exactly how we would do that.”

President Bush’s military budget request of $401.7 billion increases spending by 7%. But that figure includes nothing to fund the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also not covered is Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld’s decision to temporarily increase the Army by 30,000 troops to staff the Iraqi reconstruction effort. Pentagon officials have said they will ask for additional money for that budget measure next year.

Disclosure of the military spending shortfall fueled bipartisan criticism Tuesday of the appropriations strategy on Capitol Hill. . Service chiefs acknowledged they would have to shift money from other current and future projects to cover the four-month funding gap.

However, Rumsfeld said members of Congress asked that the funding be sought in emergency spending bills, and White House Office of Management and Budget officials decided to do so.

“They’ve made the decision in the OMB, and it’s a pattern, I believe, that’s probably the correct pattern, to use supplementals, although I tried to do it differently the year before,” Rumsfeld said.

Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, predicted little disruption during the unfunded period, saying, “We think we’ll be fine through this fiscal year.”

Yet some analysts considered the tactic election-year sleight of hand.

“It’s not unusual to ask for supplemental funding as things change. It’s very unusual, though, to request a supplemental when you know the money will be needed,” said Stanley E. Collender, a former House and Senate budget analyst and now general manager of Financial Dynamics, a business communications firm in Washington.

“So in this case, if they already know they’re going to need $50 billion more for ongoing operations, then not including it in the budget is disingenuous at best.”

By delaying a request for money for the military, the administration also is able to “understate” the federal budget deficit and make overall spending appear lower.

“And they don’t really want to ask the question right now whether the U.S. is entrenched in a Vietnam-style situation,” requiring continuing annual allocations, Collender said.

Analysts project that the 2005 special war request, when it does come, will top $50 billion.

“I think it’s a deceptive way to finance the operations of the military, and I think it has practical ramifications also,” said Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.).

Unlike the detailed annual funding request, supplemental appropriations measures allocate money through vague categories, giving the federal government greater spending latitude. They also have been sent to Congress with shorter timelines for action, minimizing scrutiny by lawmakers and the public.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called funding additional troops through emergency spending measures unprecedented. Funding the fighting later “deceives the American people about the size of the deficit and the debt that we are incurring,” he said.