In a move that is heartily approved and applauded by ComNavOps, the Biden administration is proposing to eliminate the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding as a separate account from the base military budget.
The OCO was initially set up to pay for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan from sources outside the military’s base budget. It had very little oversight and was quickly abused by the military which turned it into a slush fund for all sorts of non-combat items. OCO funds were also not subject to sequestration which, again, prompted the military to use it as a slush fund.
As an example of the magnitude of the OCO, the OCO budget in 2015 was $64B(1) and $77B in 2019(3). The FY2020 budget request contained a staggering $174B in OCO and emergency budget requests.(4)
The degree of abuse of the OCO fund is extensive, as noted below.
“You would expect to see war funding decrease as the U.S. withdraws troops from operations. But the sticking point is that the OCO budget has been used to skirt the Budget Control Act caps,” said Seamus Daniels, a program manager for defense budget analysis at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Approximately 70 percent of the war budget constitutes enduring costs unrelated to war efforts, he noted. (2)
The fund was supposed to have been purely for combat operations but now consists of 70% non-combat items. That’s abuse! It is well past time for this ill-conceived budget manipulation to end.
Those who believe that some type of combat operations funding mechanism was needed would do well to recall that ONLY Congress can declare war. Combat operations that last decades should have long ago been either halted or war should have been declared by Congress and funded as such. The OCO was a gross abuse of the military budgeting process and a way for the military to fund programs outside the oversight of Congress and the regulation of the sequestration legislation.
If Congress follows through on this effort to remove OCO funding, ComNavOps gives a major salute and kudos to the Biden administration.
___________________________________
(3)Congressional Research Service, “Overseas Contingency Operations Funding: Background and Status”, Sep-2019,
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44519
That OCO budget would more than pay for equipping the Navy's air wings with navalized F-22's.
ReplyDeleteLutefisk
OCO also makes top commanders and defense industry more want to go to wars with other nations than sort out disputes through diplomatic channels.
ReplyDeleteYeah, its a good move. Their lack of other detail other than funding the new SSN was less exciting, but I hadn't expected anything yet. Any move that keeps the click bait, fund raising end of his party from tipping the cart they don't understand.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how much of the Pentagon bureaucrat overkill and consultant slush funds are being run through the OCO?
ReplyDeleteWe need to start at the very top, with a meat cleaver, not a scalpel. Half of whatever we cut needs to go into the field as combat or combat support, and the other half needs to go either back to the taxpayers or into the reserves (which, since we pay reservists for 60 days a year, cost about 1/6 what active forces cost). We cut costs and improve readiness at the same time.
And never fight a war that we don't intend to win. That eliminates the need and justification for OCO right there. Moreover, never, never, never, never fight a war that we don't want anybody to win. Whom do we want to win in Syria? Assad/Russia, ISIS, Iraq/Iran? Because those are the options. Other than defending the Kurds (which we don't seem to be doing) what reason do we have for being anywhere in that part of the world at this point?
"And never fight a war that we don't intend to win."
DeleteI would phrase it, never fight a war that you can't get Congress to support with a formal declaration of war.
A formal declaration would, presumably, also ensure full funding support since Congress, itself, committed to it so, again, no need or justification for OCO funding.
This is why it became common to send reserve units overseas. The entire cost to included their pay could be charged to OCO. Also, every overseas deployment cost could be charged to OCO, no matter how dubious, like fuel for Navy ships in the Med.
ReplyDelete"Those who believe that some type of combat operations funding mechanism was needed would do well to recall that ONLY Congress can declare war."
ReplyDeleteTrue. But, given that Congress authorized the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is a formal declaration of war really necessary? And, the War Powers Act still allows the President to commit military forces to combat for up to sixty days without without congressional authorization or a declaration of war.
You need to read the actual verbiage of the Constitution regarding wars and the authority to authorize and fund wars and a military. Here's a portion of the relevant text:
Delete“The Congress shall have Power . . . To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules conquering Captures on Land and Water;
“To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"
It is clear from that simple reading that the Executive branch, in the form of the Presidency, has usurped the Constitution and Congress' enumerated power. To their eternal shame, Congress has willfully abdicated their responsibility.
Note, further, that NO act of legislation can superseded the Constitution without a Constitutional Amendment. Thus, any war authorization, war power act, or similar military funding is unconstitutional. That the Constitution is routinely flouted does not make the practice constitutionally acceptable - it just makes, as yet, unchallenged in court.
To answer your question, a formal declaration of war is ALWAYS required. The Constitution has no exception for short wars or less intense wars or pseudo-wars against terrorists. Similarly, there is no Constitutional provision for a pseudo-authorization of war by Congress. Constitutionally, you either declare war or you do not.
One might postulate the need the for some intermediate form of war power authority but, if so, it needs to be formalized as a Constitutional Amendment.
Most of our societal problems stem from trying to work around the Consitution. This failure to follow the Constitution needs to end. Unfortunately, the courts, who should be protecting the Constitution, have become one of the major sources of constitutional abuse in the form of legislating from the bench.
"The Congress shall have Power . . . To declare War, . . ."
DeleteGreat! How does Congress do that? The Constitution doesn't define the form nor format such a declaration should take. Nor the process how a war is declared. Congress' power to declare war is ambiguous and subject to interpretation.
In the eleven times Congress has declared war, it has always been against another country. How does Congress declare war against a terrorist group or another non-state group? Do we declare war against the countries that harbor them?
Say what you want, but an AUMF provides specific directions a president can take. They could be improved with an expiration date or require them to be reauthorized every few years or so.
And, the president should be allowed to employ the military in response to an actual or imminent threat and the War Powers Act does just that. And, being federal law (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) it is just as valid as anything defined by the Constitution.
I can envision revising the War Powers Act, which has been abused as of late, to limit the president to 30 days of combat operations without an AUMF from Congress to continue military operations.
"How does Congress declare war against a terrorist group"
DeleteBy stating, we declare a state of war against -fill in the blank-. There's nothing particularly complex about this.
"AUMF"
This is a debatable procedure that may or may not be constitutionally valid and whose main characteristic is to pass the responsibility for war from Congress, where it should lie, to the President who, invariably, then proceeds to abuse it. In contrast, a formal declaration of war cements the responsibility firmly where it should be, with Congress and the people (via their representatives in Congress).
More specifically, the AUMF passed after 9/11 ONLY authorized actions against terrorists. It did not authorize actions against Syria, for example. Yet another example of Presidential abuse of war powers and why Congress should NOT use fuzzy 'authorizations' in lieu of actual declarations of war.
An 'authorization', by passing the responsibility to the President, bypasses the intent of the Founders that the PEOPLE, in the form of their representatives, determine whether to engage in war. With 'authorizations', one man - the President -, now determines whether to engage in war, instead of the people. This is not the intent of the Constitution.
"I can envision revising the War Powers Act, which has been abused as of late, to limit the president to 30 days of combat operations without an AUMF from Congress to continue military operations."
The War Powers Resolution (Act) already has a 60 day limit and Presidents routinely ignore it both from a reporting requirement and the time limit. Why you think a 30 day limit would be any more effective is a mystery.
"AUMF"
DeleteI would further suggest that a President should veto any AUMF and demand that Congress either declare a formal war or not. In fact, this was bandied about prior to the Gulf War but Bush chose not to push the issue.
The advantages for the President in doing so are that it alleviates any political responsibility for the war from the President and places on Congress, where it should be. Further, it then obligates Congress to fully fund the war which alleviates the President from any criticism about funding manipulations like the OCO because it will be Congress who funds the war in whatever manner they choose.
There does exist a gap in the Constitutional combat needs for national security. There is no Constitutional means to conduct small, less-than-war combat actions. This ought to be addressed in the form a Constitutional amendment. The danger for abuse, however, is off the charts as evidenced by the Korean non-War, the Vietnam non-War, and so many others.
DeleteThis is one of those areas that, on a practical basis, may be better left undefined and, therefore, always capable of being reigned in when abused.
"There does exist a gap in the Constitutional combat needs for national security.
DeleteThere is no Constitutional means to conduct small, less-than-war combat actions."
Perhaps that was by design.
Note that most of those "non-wars" generally ended in fiascos.
"Perhaps that was by design."
DeleteThe Founding Fathers did not want, or provide for, a standing military. They were very much a 'leave us alone' (we would call it isolationist) group. They had no interest in engaging in foreign conflicts.
"Note that most of those "non-wars" generally ended in fiascos."
And that's in large measure due to the lack of commitment to war as demonstrated by the unwillingness to actually declare war and commit the entire nation to war. That lack of commitment, unsurprisingly, results in half measures and half measures in combat do not generally end well.
"And that's in large measure due to the lack of commitment to war as demonstrated by the unwillingness to actually declare war and commit the entire nation to war. That lack of commitment, unsurprisingly, results in half measures and half measures in combat do not generally end well."
DeletePrecisely.
Either declare war and get in to win, or stay home.
The Founders were a lot wiser than modern politicians.
"By stating, we declare a state of war against -fill in the blank-. There's nothing particularly complex about this."
DeleteOkay. What about the countries they operate in or support them, are we at war with them as well? Unless they are located in international waters, we would have to violate another nation's airspace to attack a terrorist group. And, doing so, even with cruise missiles, is generally construed as an act of war.
"I would further suggest that a President should veto any AUMF and demand that Congress either declare a formal war or not."
DeleteWhy? A formal declaration of war or an AUMF doesn't alleviate or diminish the President's responsibility as Commander-in-Chief to commit the military to combat operations. And, as Commander-in-Chief, the President bears sole responsibility for the success of such operations. Granted, Congress controls the purse strings and can vote to defend a war as they did in Vietnam, but that should only be done in consultation with the President.
"There does exist a gap in the Constitutional combat needs for national security."
The War Powers Act fills that gap and being federal law it is as legally binding as anything defined by the Constitution. And, as we have done through amendments to the Constitution, the War Powers Act could be improved with revised or additional legislation.
And, if a president is willing to abuse an AUMF, there nothing stopping him, but himself, from abusing a declaration of war.
"And that's in large measure due to the lack of commitment to war as demonstrated by the unwillingness to actually declare war and commit the entire nation to war."
Would Vietnam have ended any differently if the US declared war on Vietnam? I don't think so.
Commitment is one thing, putting limitations on how to fight a war, limited or all out, matters as well. But, what matters most is public opinion and if you lose that, the war is over no matter how successful you are on the battlefield.
"Unless they are located in international waters, we would have to violate another nation's airspace to attack a terrorist group."
DeleteThis is exactly the kind of timid, half-hearted commitment that results in failure. In previous posts I've laid out the justification for attacking into another country but I'll briefly repeat myself:
Any country that harbors (willingly or unwillingly) an enemy of the United States falls into one of two categories:
1. An active supporter of a declared war enemy in which case we have every right to attack them.
2. An unwillingly supporter of a declared war enemy in which case they lack the ability to protect themselves from a declared war enemy and, again, we have every right to attack due to their inability to do so themselves.
"Would Vietnam have ended any differently if the US declared war on Vietnam? I don't think so. "
DeleteYou are willfully ignoring the implication of a formal declaration of war versus an authorization. I know you see the meaning so I'm not going to waste time repeating myself.
"You are willfully ignoring the implication of a formal declaration of war versus an authorization."
DeleteMaybe I'm too jaded, but I honestly don't see a distinction between a declaration of war and an authorization to use military force. Both require the president to commit the military to combat in order to achieve some national goal. And, both require funding from Congress. And, troops die in combat whether the hostilities are declared or not.
Going back to your declaration of war against a terrorist group, what do you do when a new country, willingly or unwillingly, is involved? Is a new declaration of war required? Or, does the first one grant the president permission to attack them in any country they are found in?
This notion of going after a terrorist group wherever they are located is risky and could lead to open conflict with other nations, worst case being another world war.
"This notion of going after a terrorist group wherever they are located is risky and could lead to open conflict with other nations, worst case being another world war."
DeleteI already explained the justification for attacking into another country. That aside, good grief, how timid have we become that you would think a strike into some third world country harboring terrorists would lead to a world war?
"I already explained the justification for attacking into another country."
DeleteAbsolutely stunning. If you already have justification to attack another country, regardless of their culpability, why do you even need a declaration of war?
"That aside, good grief, how timid have we become that you would think a strike into some third world country harboring terrorists would lead to a world war?"
DeleteGranted that there were underlining conditions, but WWI started with the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.
While I agree with your intent and I think it is more important than ever in order to focus the Congress and the Nation, there are ample precedence's for not declaring war and yet having us fight. Starting as a new nation with the 6 Frigates and the Barbary pirates.
ReplyDeleteThere's a huge difference between a very short term police-type action that is protective in nature (your pirate example, for instance) and a sustained war.
DeleteThe first Barbary War lasted from 1801 to 1805 - 4 years. Where are you drawing the line on 'sustained'?
DeleteI would also add that technically the Barbary States were part of the Ottoman Empire so this was an example of attacking a 'terrorist' group without declaring war against the country they were based in. Perhaps the difference we need to consider is whether a significant portion of territory is actually under the control of the nominal state owner versus war against an actual state.
Delete"There's a huge difference between a very short term police-type action that is protective in nature (your pirate example, for instance) and a sustained war."
DeleteOur "police action" in Korea lasted three years and cost over 44,000 lives when you include those listed as missing in action.
"The first Barbary War lasted from 1801 to 1805 - 4 years. Where are you drawing the line on 'sustained'?"
DeleteI'm going to assume that you're genuinely asking rather than trying to be a lawyer so …
In the 1800's, it would take many months for a ship to simply sail from the US to an overseas location. Communications suffered the same lag. The definition of 'rapid' action was extremely drawn out. Four years in the 1800s WAS rapid!
Today, time lines are much more compressed. The Global War On Terror, for example, has been on-going for two decades with little to show for it. THAT is the very definition of sustained!
But you already knew all that, didn't you?
"Our "police action" in Korea lasted three years and cost over 44,000 lives when you include those listed as missing in action."
DeleteDon't be obtuse.
"Don't be obtuse."
DeleteThings don't always go according to plan. There is no guaranty that a "police action" will remain just that.
Actions against the Barbary States were most assuredly taken with the support of Congress.
ReplyDeleteThere is no secret that current administration wants to cut defense spending. They know that if they do so outright, even many Democrat lawmakers cannot support because too much soft money and too many jobs in their districts would be in stake. Therefore, Biden needs to first attack frauds and wastes then expands. Sadly, there do have frauds and wastes in Pentagon for them to attack. it is interesting to see how they expand from attack genuine frauds and wastes to cut defense spending.
ReplyDeleteThere is also a miss conception - those who advocate more defense spending are patriotic but those who ask for cut are traitors. No! it depends on their points and current US financial situation. Buy things which we cannot afford accelerate the nation's downfall. Soviet Union is a poster boy.
OCO, used correctly, is actually a good thing from a budget management perspective: the real issue is the near constant abuse of the Constitution in starting endless and frivolous ‘wars of choice’.
ReplyDeletePrior to OCO, contingency operations were funded ‘out of hide’ – that is the NCA directed an operation, and the affected Combatant Commander would turn to whichever service was the executive agent and direct them to pay for the operation. Since contingency and other operations are dificult to predict, and because it is hard for services to move money out of procurement programs or manpower accounts, O&M (typically fuel and maintenance) accounts (typically IDIQ contracts) are pillaged and often ammunition stocks ordered for training are diverted. It is insanely easy to simply not execute all options on an IDIQ contract and move the funds to pay for the contingency.
This is how the services are hollowed out and explains to vets and active-duty people why funded training gets cut, how scheduled and funded flight hours or underway periods get reduced/eliminated, and why troops rarely get to shoot all the ammunition that they should. DoD literally robs Peter to pay Paul, at least in the short term, but rarely does Congress re-imburse the services fully for expenditures, and if the O&M budgets are raided too late in the calendar year, it is frequently difficult to reschedule the training. This is a tremendous source of wastage and disruption for DoD, that OCO can help to solve.
That said, CNO is right to point out that the OCO process is being abused, and the Special IG reports for Iraq and Afghanistan (SIGIR and SIGAR) were full of amazing stories of gross incompetence and outright criminality, many were OCO funded…
Your blood would really boil if you saw how much OCO $$$ the alphabet agencies were given that went to waste. Glad to see this slush fund end.
ReplyDeleteSo give us some data!
Delete