No Need to Hurry- Updated

All that talk about how the military had no need to have the funding bill voted on right away is being shown to be the load of manure I have been claiming it was.

The military is already feeling the effects (Hat tip: Gateway):

The U.S. Army will defer spending and slow repair work on any equipment not needed for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan due to Congress’ failure to approve $100 billion in extra war funding, the largest branch of the armed forces said on Monday.

The Pentagon also will ask Congress to allow the Defense Department to use $1.6 billion in funds meant for the Navy and Air Force to pay the Army’s operating expenses, the Army said.

If funds are not approved by May, further spending restrictions will be made. That, the Army warned, could hurt its ability to take on a new fight.

“The Army estimates that even with these spending restrictions and a temporary reprogramming of $1.6 billion, funds are sufficient to keep operations running only until the end of June,” the Army said in a prepared statement Monday.

“These actions carry consequential effects, including substantial disruption to installation functions, decreasing efficiency and potentially further degrading the readiness of non-deployed units,” the Army said.

Thanks to McQ I found this:

Gen. Caldwell: It’s interesting. I link up with you all, and you all — right away, that’s the one thing that — (laughter) — and I’ll tell you, if you watch the debate back in the United States, you know, I’m an Army guy. My chief of staff, you know, taking off my Joint hat, the chief of staff of the Army back there has stated that, he’s been very clear on when that’s going to start having an impact on the United States Army. And that’s relatively soon, according to him. And I think he has always been a very straightforward caller, like no-nonsense kind of guy. So I would put a lot of credence into whatever he said back there.

Again, I don’t know because I’m not back there. But I can tell you from over here, it’s going to have an immediate impact in the sense that the Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq element that we have is charged with building, equipping, helping to develop the Iraqi security forces, and that is going to have an impact on them. Now to what degree? You know, we can get into a lot more specifics, but they are already starting to feel the effects of not having this funding.

What about those troops? In my post on FAQ’s about the war in Iraq I noted that there has been progress on that front. If there is progress then the effort has a chance for success. Is this funding which is now threatened having an effect?

Victoria Coates: Just to follow up on that quickly, the idea of the Iraqi Security Force bearing the immediate brunt of the funding lack — I was wondering if you could talk a little bit more about their performance over the last two months, and how integral they’ve been to the Baghdad security operation, and how effective you think you can be if their readiness starts to deteriorate.

Gen. Caldwell: I’ve been here almost a year now. And I can tell you that from a year ago when I first got here to now, and I’m out, you know, every week someplace, having the ability to get out and go around the country — that, you know, they continue to get better all the time.
From better equipment, more capable leadership and the quality of their young soldiers as they develop the professionalism inside their force, it’s going to still take time, but is beginning to take hold. Obviously, they’re not going to be anywhere near the capabilities and the professionalism of our force any time soon, but they’re moving forward, which is the important thing, and they are getting better all the time.

Obviously, we count on them very much. As part of this Fard al-Qanun, they brought into the city about 4,500 extra troops, nine battalions, with some headquarters, but they brought in nine additional infantry battalions. And again, when I go back a year ago, the idea of even trying to move one Iraqi battalion was unheard of. About six months ago, if we attempted to move Iraqi army battalions, it was a significant challenge and we were not always successful; and when we did move them, it was very painful and it was unsustainable.

Today they’ve moved nine battalions into the city, as they said they would. They got them there. They’ve come in at varying levels of overall strength, some very good, some needing additional troops brought in to bring it up to strength. But they’ve moved all nine, and they’re already starting to work the plans on how they would do the rotation out of those nine and bring nine more in. I mean, that is just an incredible step forward, to have developed that capability over the last year from non-existent last year this time to today they’ve moved nine in and they’re going so far as now talking about rotating those nine in and out, which is just an incredible step forward for them to have that planning, discussions, mapping it out and then going and executing it.

[...]

But at the current moment, because of this lack of funding, MNSTC-I is unable to continue at the pace they were in the developmental process of the Iraqi security forces. And, you know, obviously we’re looking at that real closely and it is starting to have some — an impact today and will only, you know, have more of an impact over time.

Am I going to hear apologies for claiming otherwise from Think Progress and others who spread this meme? I’m listening.

Update: Nancy Pelosi is still stalling:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday delayed appointing lawmakers to finish a war-funding bill, putting off the emergency legislation for the second day since returning from the House’s two-week spring break.

In the no S**t sherlock category Representative Steny Hoyer accidentally tells the truth:

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat, said stalling the spending bill for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan was “more tactical than substantive.”

More on the progress General Caldwell is referring to with accompanying maps here.

Others blogging:

The Sandbox

More from Red State:

Indeed, it’s remarkable what’s not really a priority for the House Democrats these days…

 

The top military commander in Iraq will make a rare visit to Capitol Hill next week but House Democratic leaders – unlike their Senate counterparts – initially declined the Defense Department’s offer of a Members-only closed-door briefing with Army Gen. David Petraeus, according to Congressional and administration sources.

 

 

A spokesman for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) at first acknowledged Tuesday that the Pentagon’s request to have Petraeus give a House briefing had been denied due to “scheduling conflicts” next week. Later on Tuesday, Pelosi’s office contacted Roll Call stating that the Speaker was now working to set up a session…

Tags: Democrats, Iraq, politics, War, funding