It includes a number of independent groups.

The SPWG panel released a report card on Thursday rating the budget. The panel gave administration D's and F's on "Use of Emergency Spending and 'Global War on Terror' Funding", "DOD Earmark Reform," "Use of the Nation's Resources," "Affordability," "Realism," and "Transparency," as well as a C on "Force Size and Strength."

Winslow Wheeler, of the Center for Defense Information, a Washington-based think tank focusing on military issues, gave the budget its only good grade: an A+ for "advertising." The Pentagon had managed to persuade the U.S. Congress that its current budget was not sufficient, he said.

Cindy Williams, of the MIT Security Studies Program stated that, "In four years, three years, if the Iraq war is over, there will be substantial pressure on the Defense Department to rein in costs." She said that they are trying to "get as much as they can right now."

Carl Conetta, from the Commonwealth Institute, Steven Kosiak of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and Williams all agreed that they expected the emergency requests to fund the war on terror to include requests for allocations that are not directly related to war costs.

Williams said that if the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the "global war on terror" continued at their current level, the upcoming budget would fall short of realistic costs.

According to Williams, a realistic Future Years Defense Program that took into account budgeting through 2013, would add a trillion dollars to the federal debt.

Under current policies, a realistic FYDP would be nearly impossible, Williams said. Large numbers of baby boomers are expected to retire during this period and with fewer workers in the workforce to support retirees than in previous decades, this could cause a dilemma over whether money should go to programs like Social Security and Medicare or to support the defense budget, she said.

Williams said other costs that may be neglected in the new budget included the net new cost to permanently expand the U.S. Army and Marine manpower levels, increases in military and civilian pay, and unplanned cost growth for new military equipment.

Not having enough money allocated for new military equipment is a major concern, especially in light of the recently announced Iraq troop surge, Conetta said. "A lot of reserve Army brigades are at 40 percent equipment or less," he said.

The U.S. Marines plan to raise their end strength from 181,000 uniformed personnel to 184,000 by the end of 2007 adding an additional 7,000 troops a year until 2011, Conetta said. The U.S. Army plans to increase uniformed personnel from 507,000 (not including activated reserves) to 518,000 soldiers by the end of 2007 with an additional 5,000 troops each year until 2012, he said.

However, the majority of these troops will not necessarily be coming from new recruits. The goal for new recruits is expected to rise only by 2,000 or 3,000, Conetta said. He said the Pentagon's would try to retain American troops currently in Iraq and send back the troops who have returned home. He said that in order to make these ideas more appealing, they are "throwing money at people."

The U.S. Army has stated that one of its budget themes was to "sustain the all volunteer force," but Williams said that if current trends continue, the Army will not be able to sustain itself.

The new budget was put together before the announcement of the troop surge, Williams said. She said the financial requirements generated by an increase in Army recruiting and reenlistment was not sufficiently dealt with in the budget. This could make it difficult to achieve the military's end strength goals for the year, especially since enlistment has fallen in recent years.

"The war drastically suppressed (the number of) people willing to join (the U.S. Army and Marines) ... Turning the tide for recruitment and retention is not possible until the war is over," Williams said.

Related Links
The Military Industrial Complex at SpaceWar.com