The nation’s shift to a wartime footing in the wake of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have dramatically altered the tone of the military debate in Washington.
Until shortly before 9 a.m. EDT on Sept. 11, Congress and the White House had been headed for a clash over President Bush’s requested $18.4 billion defense spending increase for 2002 in light of the dwindling federal budget surplus.
Also, the ongoing Quadrennial Defense Review that will set the Bush administration’s military priorities for the next few years had focused on esoteric debates about how many potential scenarios the force should be asked to handle.
Now, however, the budget shackles are coming off and the substance of the military strategy debate is changing because of the events of Sept. 11, which Bush and many members of Congress consider acts of war.
This may not be an officially declared war, such as World War II — not yet — but for many lawmakers, the use of hijacked airliners as missiles to destroy targets on American soil have had the same effect as the 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, driving home the point that terrorism is not just something that happens in foreign countries.
“We are, unfortunately, entering a new era,” Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told reporters Sept. 13. “We’re each going to be tested.”
Details of the QDR, due to Congress by Sept. 30, were secret even before the Sept. 11 attacks. But Wolfowitz said the study puts far more emphasis than in the past on preparing the United States to deal with terror attacks, particularly within its borders.
As such, there likely will be additions, rather than significant changes, to the work already done, he said.
“We now have requirements we didn’t anticipate two weeks ago,” he said.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has spoken of transforming the forces for 21st-century threats, and his QDR work already reflects the new direction, said Michele Flournoy, who helped conduct the last QDR in 1997 for the Clinton administration.
“In the aftermath, we should conduct a real assessment of the shortfalls in our capabilities” to fight terrorism, said Flournoy, a senior analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington, D.C., think tank.
$40 billion infusion?
As usually happens in times of national crisis, the White House and Congress put aside bickering over whether the proposed $18.4 billion increase in the 2002 defense budget would break the federal bank. Instead, President Bush and congressional leaders swiftly agreed on the need for a huge emergency appropriation for this year.
Bush asked for $20 billion, but the House and Senate approved a $40 billion emergency spending bill Sept. 14 that is split into three chunks, none of which will count against any current federal budget caps.
Lawmakers earmarked $10 billion for immediate needs, which Bush can use as he sees fit. A second $10 billion would be released once the White House provides a detailed list of where the money would go.
The remaining $20 billion could only be spent with further congressional approval for specific projects, which is expected to be done as part of the normal 2002 budget process.
Lawmakers included a provision that at least half the money be used for disaster recovery in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania, the states where the hijacked airliners crashed.
Rep. C.W. “Bill” Young, R-Fla., the House Appropriations Committee chairman, said even $40 billion probably won’t be enough to cover all the costs that are expected to arise in the wake of the tragedy.
Just how that money would be spent was not determined. There are no estimates yet on the cost of fixing damage to the Pentagon or on how much federal relief may be needed for New York City or for federal authorities investigating the terrorist acts.
There also has been no assessment of the cost of any immediate security measures that might be taken at military facilities.
“I don’t think we know the breakdown yet, partly because the needs are so enormous,” Wolfowitz said, adding that the entire $20 billion requested by the White House would not go to the Defense Department.
White House officials said some of the money would go to improve national security, fix damaged facilities, cover the costs of emergency services and provide victim assistance.
Congressional leaders were trying to work out an informal process to give them a say in how the money is spent.
One concern is that Bush might use the bulk of the money for military programs, at the expense of disaster aid to New York City.
Debating better security
Congressional aides said they expect requests for projects to improve security around U.S. military facilities at home and abroad and upgrade intelligence-gathering capabilities to provide warning before future attacks and for research into ways to stop terrorists.
Congress stalled work on the 2002 defense budget in the wake of the terrorist attacks to allow for potential changes. The House and Senate Armed Services committees, which had written their versions of the 2002 defense authorization bill before the attacks, expect a flood of terrorism-related amendments to come when the bills are debated on the floors of those chambers.
“There are 100 senators, and there are 100 different proposals for what we should do,” said a senior Republican aide on the Senate Armed Services Committee. “We need to sift through them and hear from the White House before deciding where we are headed.”
Counterterrorism funds
House Armed Services Committee aides estimated that about $5 billion of the $328 billion defense budget for 2002 requested by the administration could be considered related to counterterrorism, including money for force-protection measures, new equipment and training systems.
“We approved everything they requested,” a senior aide said.
Support for increased spending is bipartisan, but a partisan fight over how to spend the money could quickly develop. For example, the use of hijacked airliners as basically flying car bombs has raised questions about how much priority to put on national missile defense research.
Some lawmakers, such as Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., argue this type of attack is proof that spending $8.3 billion on missile defense is out of line.
Others, such as Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., say the death and destruction resulting from these attacks highlight the importance of giving even more priority to building a defensive shield against a potentially much more devastating missile strike.
