$25 Billion More Sought for Iraq, Afghanistan

In an unexpected shift in strategy, the White House asked Congress on Wednesday for an additional $25 billion for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Recent developments on the ground and increased demands on our troops indicate the need to plan for contingencies,” President Bush said in a statement requesting the funds.

The widespread insurgency across Iraq that made April the bloodiest month for U.S. forces since the war began forced the Pentagon to announce Tuesday that it would call up additional troops for the war-ravaged country, rather than scale back deployment as it had planned.

“I have pledged to our troops that they will have all the resources they need to get the job done,” Bush said.

The announcement Wednesday marks a reversal in policy for the administration, which had said that it would not seek additional funds for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan until next year.

Recognizing that more money would probably be required, GOP congressional leaders have been quietly urging the White House to seek the funding now, rather than closer to the presidential and congressional elections in November.

The request was sent to Congress after Bush met Wednesday morning with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. The $25 billion, on top of more than $120 billion already spent in Afghanistan and Iraq, would fund U.S. operations in Iraq beyond Sept. 30 and is expected to be approved by Congress.

Even with the additional $25 billion, more money may be needed next year, members of Congress said.

“All of us want to provide whatever is needed to finish this job and protect our guys who are there doing the job,” said House Appropriations Committee Chairman C.W. “Bill” Young (R-Fla.).

Bush said in a statement issued by the White House that he was requesting the additional money for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq to “make sure we succeed in these critical fronts in the war on terror.”

A senior administration official described the $25 billion as an “emergency reserve fund.”

“We think we can manage through to the early part of 2005, but we want to make sure that the reserve fund is there so there is no disruption to the mission,” the official said.

Rep. David R. Obey of Wisconsin, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said the request represented “another effort to conceal the full costs of meeting the challenge in Iraq until after the election.”

“Military leaders, who ought to know, have left no doubt that the cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the cost of securing our embassies around the world, is at least three times the amount being talked about” by the administration, Obey said.

The White House budget office did not provide any details of the latest spending request.

Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, issued a statement Wednesday urging fellow legislators not to “consider approving a single dime of this funding until the administration provides a specific plan with specific details.”

Bush’s previous requests for funding U.S. operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have cleared Congress easily, with members of both parties seeing the appropriations as crucial to showing their support for the troops. But there could be an effort to demand greater accountability from the Pentagon for any additional funds provided.

Some key congressional Democrats recently complained about allegations in the book by Washington Post editor Bob Woodward that the administration diverted money allocated for the war in Afghanistan to prepare for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq without informing Congress. The Pentagon disputed the charge.

Congressional Republican leaders expressed support for the additional funding after a closed-door meeting at the Capitol with White House budget director Joshua B. Bolten and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz.

Democrats were excluded from the meeting, a slight that Obey took issue with. “On a subject as serious as war, which is certainly a bipartisan matter, this administration has once again treated it as a partisan issue,” he said.

Bush’s budget for the next fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1, includes no money for Iraq operations, which are funded only through Sept. 30. Officials have said that the occupation is costing about $4.7 billion a month.

The unrest is pushing costs far higher than anticipated, Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the House Armed Services Committee last month, predicting a $4-billion shortfall by the end of summer.

Some lawmakers, including some of Bush’s fellow Republicans, had threatened to allocate additional money for Iraq whether the administration requested it or not.

Last month, Army officials confirmed that the service told lawmakers that it had identified $6 billion in funding needs that were not addressed in the administration’s $402-billion defense budget request for 2005.

The list of unmet needs includes $21.5 million for M-249 squad automatic weapons; $879 million for combat helmets, boots, underwear and other clothing; $956 million for repairing equipment; $101 million for replacing equipment lost in combat; and $132 million for adding armor to vehicles.

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) predicted that Congress would approve the $25-billion request.

“We have no choice but to support our president and our troops at this critical time,” he said.

Congress last November approved nearly $87 billion for U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. In April 2003, Congress approved $79 billion to help fund the war in Iraq, but the measure included money for other purposes, such as homeland security.

Times staff writer Esther Schrader contributed to this report.