Bush Seeks 7% Boost in Military Spending

The Bush administration wants to boost military spending by 7%, to nearly $402 billion, in fiscal 2005, the Pentagon said Friday.

That would take the defense budget to levels exceeding those at the height of the Cold War. The increase would help pay for a raft of costly weapons and programs bolstered by Washington’s response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

But the proposed budget does not include the costs of ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which for two years have largely been funded through massive supplemental spending bills.

The administration is expected to make a request later in the year -- most likely after the November presidential election -- for an additional $50 billion or more to pay for those military operations.

The $401.7-billion request is in line with what the Pentagon a year ago projected it would seek as part of a long-range plan to boost military spending to $484 billion annually by 2009. It does not include defense programs funded by the Energy Department, expected to cost about $20 billion in 2005.

Although public support for the war on terrorism has been key to securing annual spending increases, defense analysts said, ongoing programs such as fighter jets, warships and missile defense also have reaped the benefits.

“When you listen to the rhetoric coming from the Pentagon, one might get the impression that all the increases in spending since 9/11 have been closely related to waging the war on terrorism. But clearly this has not been the case,” said Steven M. Kosiak, director of budget analysis at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a nonpartisan defense think tank in Washington.

The Pentagon is not expected to release a complete breakdown of the spending request until Friday, but said it included more money for intelligence, homeland defense and readiness and training.

Defense officials said privately that the budget will include increased spending on unmanned spy planes and robotic technologies considered the vanguard of fighting terrorists and other emerging threats. It will keep funds flowing to two new multibillion-dollar jet fighter programs and is expected to further increase spending on missile defense testing and deployment -- a program that grew by more than $9 billion in 2003.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in a statement Friday that the budget reflects both the need to retrain troops and to provide the pay, benefits and other quality-of-life measures necessary to recruit and retain volunteers for both active and reserve forces.

The long deployments faced by reserve and National Guard troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have raised fears of a major exodus when enlistments are up.

“This budget builds upon past work to provide for a ready force made up of the talents and skills needed in our new national security environment,” Rumsfeld said.

With Republicans in control of both houses of Congress, lawmakers are likely to look favorably on the Pentagon’s request. And in the Democratic presidential campaign, only Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio has talked of cutting the defense budget if elected.

Stephen Daggett, a defense analyst for the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, said the requested 2005 budget increase is about half of what is needed to keep up with inflation.

“The big news is that it doesn’t include the supplemental appropriations for Iraq or any projection of what those costs will be in fiscal 2005,” Daggett said.

The proposed budget is likely to reflect more money for forces and resources to fight the sort of prolonged conflict that has emerged in Iraq since the end of major combat operations in May, and less for a force to fight big, quick battles, military analysts said.

The Pentagon is “looking at an army that is built for marathons instead of sprints, that is built for handling stability operations that take years instead of fighting blitzkriegs,” said Andrew F. Krepinevich, director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

That means shifting soldiers away from war-waging specialties like heavy armor and artillery and into peacekeeping specialties like military policing, intelligence and civil affairs jobs.

It also means moving troops into smaller, more mobile units oriented to fighting demanding missions in the near term, instead of building a military geared toward fighting a large-scale war in another decade.

And while the armed service chiefs have been under pressure to increase the size of the military -- most recently from more than two dozen House Democrats backing a bill to add 40,000 soldiers, 28,700 airmen and 15,000 Marines to the active-duty ranks -- they are expected to continue to resist.

Military officials worry that the money that would be necessary to pay ballooning personnel costs would be bled from badly needed modernization programs.

In addition, a report by the Congressional Budget Office Friday warned that war and reconstruction costs in Iraq could soar if oil production there remains weak and Iraq doesn’t win relief from the international community of its debt.

“Lower oil exports or oil prices and higher levels of debt service could mean that Iraq would need billions in additional assistance in the years to come,” said the budget office, which is Congress’ nonpartisan fiscal analyst.