Actually, I didn't make any points for you. Your logic only works with 20/20 hindsight, you see.
Let's look at Korea. The shift to funding in the budget, vs. supplemental, tracks closely with the shift from fighting North Korean forces, to fighting Chinese main force units. Basically, it had shifted into a heavy, "conventional" war, which is more amenable to that kind of funding, because it's more predictable.
Or we can look at Vietnam, where the shift from supplemental to on-budget funding heavily tracks with the shift in combat from facing VC irregular troops, to facing NVA units after the VC was largely destroyed during Tet 68 and Tet 69.
The Clinton-era efforts shifted from supplementals to on-budget funding mostly once it became clear that they were extended, multi-year commitments of a definable size and operational scope.
The problem is, in Iraq and Afghanistan, we've been facing an evolving, insurgent war with a constantly changing size and scope. Seriously - there has been no way to reliably predict, 18 months out, what the size and scope of operations would be, in either country.
And yeah, you're right - supplemental funding is runs counter to fiscally conservative approaches.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Off Budget?
Date: 2009-04-23 04:37 am (UTC)Let's look at Korea. The shift to funding in the budget, vs. supplemental, tracks closely with the shift from fighting North Korean forces, to fighting Chinese main force units. Basically, it had shifted into a heavy, "conventional" war, which is more amenable to that kind of funding, because it's more predictable.
Or we can look at Vietnam, where the shift from supplemental to on-budget funding heavily tracks with the shift in combat from facing VC irregular troops, to facing NVA units after the VC was largely destroyed during Tet 68 and Tet 69.
The Clinton-era efforts shifted from supplementals to on-budget funding mostly once it became clear that they were extended, multi-year commitments of a definable size and operational scope.
The problem is, in Iraq and Afghanistan, we've been facing an evolving, insurgent war with a constantly changing size and scope. Seriously - there has been no way to reliably predict, 18 months out, what the size and scope of operations would be, in either country.
And yeah, you're right - supplemental funding is runs counter to fiscally conservative approaches.