Owens won't support tax for war effort

WASHINGTON — Rep. William L. Owens said Thursday he'll oppose a new tax to pay for the military buildup in Afghanistan, but otherwise has few specific ideas yet about how the $30 billion effort ought to be financed.

"I can't tell you I have one off the shelf," Mr. Owens, D-Plattsburgh, said following a House Armed Services Committee hearing with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael G. Mullen.

Paying for the ramped-up mission has quickly emerged as a difficult issue since President Barack Obama unveiled his plans Tuesday. Even the $30 billion figure is somewhat cloudy, as Mr. Gates said Pentagon officials have yet to go through all of the fine print in the president's proposal to determine what the cost will be.

Congress is likely to approve some Afghanistan funds in a supplemental spending bill for this fiscal year, then pick up with additional funds in the next fiscal year. The chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. David R. Obey, D-Wis., has called for a "war surcharge" of 1 percent on incomes up to $150,000, with rates for higher-income taxpayers to be decided by President Obama. People with incomes less than $30,000 would be exempt.

Fifteen Democrats and no Republicans have signed on to the idea, which Mr. Obey introduced in legislation Nov. 19.

Mr. Owens said he opposes raising taxes to pay for the war. In a statement following Mr. Obama's speech, he cited concerns about how to pay for the war. But without serving on committees tackling that issue — the Appropriations and Ways and Means committees hold the real spending power — Mr. Owens said Thursday that he has not seen many details yet.

Beyond opposing Mr. Obey's tax proposal, "I want to look and see what people have to say," Mr. Owens said.

He said he has not heard any discussion, for instance, of breaking the funding into pieces and approving it based on benchmarks such as growth, fielding of the Afghan police force or other measures that hint of greater Afghan control to come. That was an approach, generally, that his predecessor, former Rep. John M. McHugh, endorsed in Iraq.

Pressed at the hearing on what the $30 billion covers, Mr. Gates said "several billion" of that amount will pay for additional mine-resistant vehicles, for instance. The military has funding for between 5,000 and 6,000 such vehicles but will probably need 10,000, he said.

"The 30 to 35 billion was basically a ballpark figure and now we need to get down into the details," Mr. Gates told the committee.

Rep. John M. Spratt Jr., D-S.C., said the cost estimate "seems awfully high."

A day after Mr. Gates faced tough questioning in the Senate Armed Services Committee, the House committee provided some sweat-provoking material as well. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., questioned how the United States could succeed in a country where foreign occupiers have always lost — and even if the surge works, how the mission can be called a victory if the Taliban and al-Qaida simply move operation to Yemen or Somalia or another accommodating country.

"What will we have won?" Mr. Bartlett said.

Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, asked Mr. Gates about news reports that he opposed the president's decision to set a deadline to begin withdrawal but backed down, which Mr. Gates said was "not entirely" true. He has opposed deadlines and timelines for withdrawal, but was convinced that a timeline for beginning a process made sense, Mr. Gates said, to let Afghan officials know U.S. involvement will not be open-ended.

The United States has had no guidelines or timelines through eight years of war in Afghanistan, Mr. Gates added.

Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., repeatedly pressed Mr. Gates to talk about the narcotics trade in Afghanistan and particularly President Hamid Karzai's brother who is widely reported to be involved in the drug trade. Mr. Gates said he would not discuss the Afghan president or his brother in open session and added tersely, "We understand the problem."

Lawmakers also are looking for signs that the buildup will stretch an already stressed Army by adding more deployments. But the drawdown in Iraq should keep the Army's overall pace of deployments down, Adm. Mullen said. Total U.S. forces in Iraq are slated to fall incrementally through the next year.

Mr. Owens asked Mr. Gates how to keep Afghanistan from falling into civil war when U.S. forces leave, given the country's unstable past and officials' assertion that withdrawing now would lead to such a result. The key, Mr. Gates replied, is to help Afghanistan establish credible local and national governments "where high quality people are in charge."

As many as 90 percent of Afghans tell pollsters they do not want to see a return to Taliban control, Mr. Gates said.