战略与国际研究中心-Paying-for-America-s-Wars-in-FY2017_117页_6mb

Summary of CSIS Report: Paying for America’s Wars in FY2017

Core Content

This report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) provides an analysis of the U.S. Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) budget for Fiscal Year 2017. It outlines the projected costs and nature of U.S. military engagements in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, the European Reassurance Initiative (ERI), and the Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund (CTPF). The report highlights the lack of transparency and detailed cost-benefit analysis in U.S. defense budgeting, and evaluates the strategic and operational implications of the FY2017 OCO funding.

Main Points

• Transparency and Budgeting: The U.S. is more transparent in military spending than most other countries, but the budget documents often lack specificity and meaningful cost-benefit or effectiveness analysis, making it difficult to assess the true cost and impact of military operations.

• OCO Funding Overview: The FY2017 OCO budget request is $58.8 billion, slightly higher than the FY2016 enacted amount of $58.6 billion. This increase is largely due to a rise in funding for the Syria Train and Equip Fund (STEF) and the European Reassurance Initiative (ERI).

• Afghanistan: The Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (ASFF) is the largest OCO program, with a funding decrease from $4.1 billion to $3.4 billion in FY2017. Despite this, the U.S. continues to maintain a significant presence, with troop levels dropping from 10,012 in FY2015 to 6,217 in FY2017. The report notes that the reduction in funding does not reflect a sustainable assessment of the ongoing combat and attrition in the region.

• Iraq and Syria: The Iraq Train and Equip Fund (ITEF) and Syria Train and Equip Fund (STEF) are both part of the broader effort to counter ISIL. While ITEF funding decreased slightly from $0.7 billion to $0.6 billion, STEF was newly established at $0.3 billion. The report emphasizes the need for more detailed support at the combat unit level, which is not adequately addressed in the current budget plans.

• European Reassurance Initiative (ERI): ERI receives its first significant funding boost in FY2017, rising from $0.8 billion to $3.4 billion. This initiative aims to enhance U.S. presence and support in Eastern Europe to reassure NATO allies and deter aggression. However, the effectiveness of this effort is limited by the lack of coordinated planning and commitment from European allies.

• Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund (CTPF): CTPF funding slightly decreased from $1.1 billion to $1.0 billion in FY2017. The report notes that the fund supports counterterrorism efforts in various regions, including Africa, the Levant, the Arabian Peninsula, and Central Asia. However, it lacks detailed strategic rationale and does not provide a clear link to broader civil-military operations.

• Military Deployment and Support: The report includes detailed maps and charts showing U.S. military deployment and support activities. It highlights the lack of coordination among the military services in presenting budget justifications and the complexity of in-theater and CONUS support.

• State Department OCO Program: The State Department provides data on OCO expenditures, but the budget justification is criticized for being overly fragmented and lacking integration with military efforts. It does not offer a clear strategy or effective measures for long-term planning.

Key Information

OCO Funding by Activity

Force Levels

Strategic and Operational Challenges

• The report highlights that U.S. military efforts are often not clearly tied to strategic goals or threat assessments.
• The focus on reducing troop levels and cutting costs does not always reflect the actual needs of the operations.
• The lack of integrated planning between military and civilian efforts is a recurring theme, especially in the State Department's OCO program.
• The ERI and CTPF are criticized for not providing a clear strategic rationale or long-term planning.
• The report underscores the need for more transparency and a "whole of government" approach to counterterrorism and military operations.

Conclusion

The FY2017 OCO budget reflects a shift in U.S. military strategy, with a focus on counterterrorism, training, and reassurance. However, the report criticizes the lack of detailed cost-benefit analysis, threat assessment, and strategic coherence in the budgeting process. It calls for more integrated planning and better transparency to ensure that the U.S. is effectively managing its overseas military commitments.