国际英语新闻：Obama's defense budget plan reflects shift of focus

WASHINGTON, May 7 (Xinhua) -- The Obama administration unveiled a 664-billion-U.S.-dollar defense budget plan Thursday, which reflects the new American administration's shift of focus in weapon programs and wars.

    Overall, the budget blueprint for fiscal year 2010, which begins on October 1, includes 534 billion dollars for baseline defense budget and 130 billion dollars for overseas military operations, primarily for wars in Iraq and the Afghanistan.

    The total sum represents a modest one-percent increase of the total military budget for the current fiscal year, but the war funding will decrease by 10 percent and the baseline budget grows by 4 percent (2.1 percent after adjusting for inflation).

U.S.President Barack Obama (R) delivers remarks on the budget for fiscal year 2010 ,as White House Budget Director Peter Orszag (L) stands aside, in the Eisenhower Executive Office Buildingin in Washington, the United States, May 7, 2009. Obama said on Thursday that he will trim 121 programs worth some 17 billion U. S. dollars from his 3.4 trillion-dollar budget for fiscal year 2010

    "The budget provides the balance necessary to finance our capabilities to fight the wars we are in today and the scenarios we are most likely to face in the years ahead, while at the same time providing a hedge against other risks and contingencies," Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who is visiting overseas, said in a statement.

    Pentagon Comptroller Robert Hale echoed him at a Pentagon briefing, described the new plan as "a reform budget crafted to reshape the priorities of America's defense establishment."

    The "sizeable" defense spending increase carried out by the Bush administration is coming to an end, Hale noted.

　　"RESHAPING MILITARY"

    Analysts said the new plan reflects the Obama administration's ongoing efforts to reshape the U.S. military into a force better suited to unconventional wars rather than being prepared for fighting large-scale conventional wars, which is what Gates has been advocating for months.

    In April, Gates said the administration "must rebalance this department's programs in order to institutionalize and enhance our capabilities to fight the wars we are in today and the scenarios we are most likely to face in the years ahead, while at the same time providing a hedge against other risks and contingencies."

    A number of expensive traditional programs will be terminated under the plan, including the F-22 fighter jet, the VH-71 presidential helicopter program, the DDG-1000 destroyer program and the Transformational Satellite program.

    Meanwhile, the plan also calls for cancellation of a new combat, search and rescue helicopter bidding program and 87 billion dollars of funding for the ground vehicle portion of the Army's Future Combat System program, and the kinetic energy interceptor program.

    The plan has no funding for an alternate engine for F-35 fighter jet, a development project for a new long-range bomber and the C-17 transport planes.

    It also envisions to reduce the number of U.S. aircraft carriers from 11 to 10 and cuts 1.2 billion dollars from the missile defense program.

    At the same time, the plan proposes increasing funds for programs that will enhance the U.S. military's counterinsurgency capabilities, including adding 2 billion dollars to the Pentagon's overall Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance budget.

    It requests 2,400 more U.S. Special Operations troops, a 4-percent hike.

    The plan will "fully fund" the ongoing increase of the Army and Marine Corps, while also halting planned personnel reductions for the Air Force and Navy.

    It also seeks to buy 30 F-35 Joint Strike fighters.

　　SHIFTING WARS

    The proposed 130 billion U.S. dollars of war funding include 65billion dollars for Afghanistan and 61 billion dollars for Iraq.

    It marks the first time that war spending for Afghanistan overtook those for Iraq and is in accordance with the new administration's ongoing shift of war focus from Iraq to Afghanistan.

    Steve Stanley, the director of force structure, resources and assessment on the Joint Staff, told reporters at a Pentagon briefing that the budget request represents "where you're going to first see the swing of not only dollars or resources, but combat capability" from Iraq to Afghanistan.

    "The money requested here -- about 65 billion dollars for Afghanistan -- actually exceeds the 61 billion dollars that we're requesting for Iraq," he said.

    "So that's the first time in our war costs request," the official added.

    Stanley explained that those numbers are based on keeping between 50,000 to 100,000 troops in Iraq and 68,000 in Afghanistan.

    In Iraq, U.S. troop levels are supposed to come down gradually over the next year, and these numbers are based on plans to bring troop levels down to around 50,000 by the end of the fiscal year 2010, which is Sept. 30 next year, according to the Pentagon.

    Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, troop levels will grow to 68,000 later this year after all the additional troops Obama planned to send there are in position.

    In addition to pay for an increase of troops, war funds allocated for Afghanistan will pay for new equipment, like the scaled-down version of the Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected truck that will be customized for the primitive roads of Afghanistan.

    This budget plan also marks the first time that the war funding is included in the overall defense budget, a departure with the practices of the Bush administration, which paid for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan largely through emergency supplemental appropriations.

    LOOMING FIGHT

    However, the budget plan looks unlikely to sail smoothly through the Congress, due to resistance to cutting weapon programs from defense contractors and lobbyists, and difference opinions of some lawmakers on personal programs and war funding.

    Earlier on Thursday, Senator John Cornyn, a Republican from Texas, accused the Obama administration of "cashing in on a peace dividend by growing domestic spending and weakening our defenses."

    The senator said he is still looking for "the rationale" behind the budget plan.

    The administration also risks a looming fight with Congress over some key personnel programs in the plan.

    For example, the plan includes a 2.9-percent pay raise for active and reserve forces, an amount already rejected by the House and Senate armed services committees, which have indicated they will provide a 3.4-percent raise for troops.

    On war funding, even Democratic lawmakers said they wish to set preconditions before the funds are appropriated, especially those funds for Afghanistan.

    Some lawmakers reportedly said the Congress should establish a set of benchmarks and assess whether progress is being made in Afghanistan before approving funds to support the war efforts.