Officials in Washington said that the Defense and State cuts were interconnected in several ways, including the expectation that the Iraqi military could assist in providing security for an increased American civilian presence as the U.S. military relinquishes that task.
But while Iraqis are providing some help, officials said they were not yet comfortable depending on them. “We want to work with both the Iraqi army and the Iraqi police in bolstering our security,” a senior administration official said. “That has to be worked out in terms of the availability of trained personnel, and it will take time to achieve it.
“I’m not saying it’s never going to happen. I’m just saying it’s not going to happen tomorrow.”
*****
You guys think? lol What is interesting about what is going on now, is everyone on the hill is looking at things they can cut. And if defense is getting cut, all those congressmen who will lose jobs for constituents back in their districts because of these defense cuts, will certainly lash out to make sure others feel the pain. So of course they will attack budgeting for other programs that are not as protected as defense.
But reality dictates. The quote up top is the one thing that I keep thinking about. Can we depend upon the Iraqis to protect the DoS in Iraq? Or better yet, why have the DoS in Iraq in the first place, if they will not have the funding to move off the bases (which would require ‘dependable’ security). Obviously these requests for security related programs and equipment is necessary in DoS’s view, because they do not feel they could depend upon the Iraqis. The cheapest option would be to depend upon the Iraqis, but in this case, the Best Value option would be to take all things into consideration, and get their own capability.
The question is, can they sell this to congress? Because instead of going cheap on security, it sounds to me like they are cutting bases and programs. The only place they are going cheap for security, is cutting the fortification process for some Iraqi police stations. So yeah, the smart thing to do is not even open up a base if you cannot afford proper security for it. That also cuts into the overall mission in Iraq that DoS had in mind, which is essential to getting Iraq to a point of stability and good governance. Either way congress goes with this, State will always have to default to ensuring security is at it’s optimum. Especially if congress will not assign more troops to Iraq for DoS protection duties. –Matt
——————————————————————-
State Dept. faces skyrocketing costs as it prepares to expand role in Iraq
By Karen DeYoung and Ernesto LondoñoAugust 11, 2010
As the last U.S. combat troops prepare to leave Iraq this month, the State Department is struggling to implement an expanded mission that it has belatedly realized it might not be able to afford.
Beginning in September, the State Department will take over all police training in Iraq from coalition military forces, and it has proposed replacing its current 16 provincial reconstruction teams spread across the country with five consular offices outside Baghdad.
But since planning for the transition began more than two years ago, costs have skyrocketed and the money to pay for them has become increasingly tight. Congress cut the State Department’s Iraq request in the 2010 supplemental appropriation that President Obama signed late last month; the Senate Appropriations Committee and a House subcommittee have already slashed the administration’s $1.8 billion request for fiscal 2011 operations in Iraq.
Gen. Ray Odierno, the outgoing commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, and other U.S. officials are urging lawmakers to reconsider their plans, citing concerns that waning resources could jeopardize tenuous security gains.
“We can’t spread ourselves so thin that we don’t have the capacity to do the job in the places where we put people,” said Deputy Secretary of State Jacob Lew, who has told Congress that State will not deploy civilians where it cannot protect them. “If we don’t put people in a place where they have mobility, where they can go out and meet with the people and implement their programs,” he said, “there’s very little argument for being in the place we send them.”
The State Department has signaled in recent weeks that it will need up to $400 million more than initially requested to cover mushrooming security costs, but lawmakers seem in no mood to acquiesce.