If a security deal between the U.S. and Afghanistan is finalized, military commanders plan to station between 8,000 and 12,000 U.S. troops there after 2014. The uncertainty of the deal has created budgetary and logistical problems between congressional appropriators and military leaders.
So far, the Pentagon has only provided a placeholder request of about $79 billion, which would be on top of the $495.6 billion base budget request sent to Congress earlier this month. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told the panel that it would be difficult to provide more details for the war budget without knowing how long U.S. forces would be asked to remain in Afghanistan.
“We believe we have a role and ought to have a role, a continued role in Afghanistan, train, assist, advise, counterterrorism, but that has to be done in coordination, first with the people of Afghanistan inviting us and agreeing,” Hagel said.
The Obama administration is expecting that the next president of Afghanistan will sign the bilateral agreement.
The war funding has been important to appropriators not only because it provides for U.S. operations overseas, but because it also has allowed appropriators to fund priorities that don’t fit into the spending caps that Congress placed on the base budget.
The OCO fund is exempt from those spending limits, which has allowed appropriators to shift as much as $8 billion of critical operations and maintenance funding to the fund in recent years.
With the likelihood that lawmakers will need to make further reductions to the president’s budget request — because it includes billions in reductions to personnel benefits and other changes Congress likely won’t support — the OCO fund is an important pressure relief valve.
Rep. Peter J. Visclosky of Indiana, ranking Democrat on the House Defense Appropriations panel, echoed Frelinghuysen’s concern. “As discussions take place with the president they have to understand there is some urgency here in terms of the appropriations process,” he said.
The absence of a bilateral agreement may also trigger a serious logistical problem for the U.S. military, which said its ability to extricate people and equipment from Afghanistan becomes far more challenging the longer it takes for a security deal to be finalized.
Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., said he supports the president’s decision to begin planning to pull out of Afghanistan entirely.
“I continue to believe that it is in our interest to continue supporting Afghanistan’s security forces beyond 2014 to secure the hard-won and impressive gains of the past decade,” Levin said.
When Levin asked U.S. Central Command chief Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III last week how long the United States can wait for an agreement, Austin said, “By mid-summer, we will experience moderate risk. As we go beyond that time frame, the risk increases substantially.”
Austin said that if the deal is not signed, “we will move rapidly to consider alternatives for continuing a security cooperation relationship with Afghanistan. Unfortunately, in the wake of such a precipitous departure, the Afghan government’s long term viability is likely to be at high risk and the odds of an upsurge in terrorists’ capability increases without continued substantial international economic and security assistance.”
Austin warned that a failure to complete the security pact could cause a breakdown in Afghanistan, as well as the entire region.
“Without our mentorship, we would immediately see a much less effective” Afghan force, Austin said. Later, Afghan forces would likely fracture.
Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., right, hugs Harold Schaitberger, General President of the International Association of Fire Fighters, after the Congressman spoke at the IAFF's Legislative Conference General Session at the Hyatt Regency on Capitol Hill, March 9, 2015. The day featured addresses by members of Congress and Vice President Joe Biden.