I start with an obvious admission. I only know what I know about this subject, only what I see in or on media. Having said that……
I understand the difficulty even a rational Congress would have with the administration’s latest request for another $67.1 billion for the war in Iraq (the money presumably is to carry out the war going forward, and to replenish some of the military weaponry and equipment used so far). If you add this to the money contained in previously approved funding for the Department of Defense (a/k/a Department of War), some, or much, of which is unspent apparently, and add all of that to the money being requested for the upcoming fiscal year, you are talking about real money.
On the other hand, we are engaged in active fighting with Iran, we have troops and equipment and bases all over the Middle East, and we have used up (or have had destroyed) materiel that we need for our defense. We need to protect what we have, and we need to get what we need.
Here is part of what I don’t know. Is there someone on some Congressional staff who is really studying the requests of the administration and who can look at the requested $67.1 billion supplemental, and say: we need this, but not this, and that but not so much of that, and so forth? Or is it simply going to be an up or down vote? Is there anyone in the employ of any Congressional committee whose job it is to examine the overall budgeting and expenditures of the DOD/DOW and make ongoing recommendations to the elected officials? I don’t know, but there should be.
Of course, in order for this to be accomplished (and a big task it is or would be), you need to have the cooperation of the administration, and this administration is not at all big on cooperation, and it gets even more complicated when you get to matters of secrecy, necessary for our defense. And you compound this even further when one or another side can not be trusted, when amounts budgeted or set aside for certain items are not spent or our used in different ways that intended. And finally, as we all know (or think we know), the DOD/DOW has never been audited (and maybe for some of the reasons set forth above) can not be.
So it may be that the money being requested will simply be given to “protect our troops”, although how each dollar would protect any single troop may be hard to detect.
With all this being said, I have to add that, as I watched Secretary Hegseth be queried by the Senate Appropriation Committee Democrats yesterday, I was disappointed at most of the questioning (as usual). There were exceptions: Senators Ossoff, van Holland, and Peters. But by and large, the questions did not probe sufficiently the issues.
For instance, I don’t think anyone asked about the effect of these requests on the national debt. I don’t think anyone concentrated on whether these additional defense expenditures would result in an decrease in other expenditures in order to keep the national debt from climbing more than it has to.
There were some questions as to what would happen if the supplemental funds were not approved. The answers were that there would be other ways to support the most important things, but other matters necessary for our defense would be shortchanged or ignored. This requires more probing, of course, and I saw no sign that anyone was going to follow up and ask for details.
The other issue related to how the war was going to end. Obviously, no one can predict the future and, as one of those testifying said, “the enemy has a vote”, but what is clear is that the definition of what would constitute a victory is missing, and that this makes everything very difficult.
At first, there was regime change, and making it impossible for the Iranian military to “engage in combat” and keeping Iran from developing a nuclear bomb at any time in the future. Now regime change is off the table, and while the administration claims that Iran no longer has any military capacity, Iran certainly acts like it does and, although Hegseth may think this is no more than flies or gnats flying around, they cause real harm and there is no sense yet of this ending. And, then of course, President Trump himself has said that it would be expected that Iran would be able to keep some missile capacity, although Hegseth, like most Trump officials, says, in effect, that “Trump, who always means what he says never means what he says.”
But what does it mean that we will fight until Iran can no longer ever ever ever have a nuclear weapon, or maybe any sort of nuclear program? When can we possibly say that this goal (according to Hegseth, the most important and most consistent goal) has been met?
And then, of course, there is the question of the Strait of Hormuz, about which enough has been said.
Trump himself has no idea of what to do, except “keep ’em guessing” as to our next steps, and bully them into……into what? Today, he tried a trick from old cowboy movies, or Netflix thrillers: Until you do what I want, I am going to kill one of you every ten minutes!
For Trump, the president with a disturbed adolescent mind, it was: Every time you attack a commercial ship, Iran, I am going to blow up a bridge or an urban power plant!! So there!! “Thank you for paying attention.” Statements like this must drive the military, who rely on set goals, which enable them to make the best strategic and tactical choices, crazy. Here their tactical choices are being made for the, the concept of strategy is being ignored or overridden, and of course the goals have never really been set, or have not been set in way that are, in any event, achievable.
Meanwhile, China bides its time with infinite patience and worldwide success, chuckling to each other as they discuss the United States: “Gee, they really are living in interesting times.”



























































































































































