Obama says Afghan surge will cost $30 billion in fiscal 2010

President Obama, declaring the war in Afghanistan vital to American security, appealed Tuesday night for public and congressional support for a 30,000-troop surge that will cost $30 billion this fiscal year.

Addressing cadets at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., the president said he made his decision after a lengthy review of the military situation in which he weighed the pleas of military commanders and concluded that "the status quo is not sustainable."

The decision to boost U.S. troop levels to nearly 100,000 by the end of next year will trigger a contentious battle with a Congress anxious about the cost and weary of a war in its ninth year.

By picking a July 2011 date to start withdrawing troops but refusing to target when all will be home, Obama chose a path guaranteed to please neither the left nor the right. For Republicans, the date is too close to a timetable. For Democrats, the absence of a pullout date leaves open the possibility of an endless war.

And for members on both sides, the address left unanswered perhaps the biggest question: How will a president who pledged honest budgeting for the war come up with the money to implement his new policy?

After pointedly noting that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had drained almost $1 trillion from the U.S. treasury before he took office, Obama acknowledged the concerns about costs. "Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly," he said. "Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion dollars for the military this year, and I will work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit."

Indeed, the debate over costs has already begun on Capitol Hill, particularly among Democrats dismayed that a Democratic president had escalated the war.

"I'm very upset about the president's decision to increase our troop levels," said Rep. James McGovern, D-Mass., warning that the White House should not be allowed to delay the formal request for funds until January.

"What I'm going to talk to [House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.] about ... is to get the supplemental up as early as possible before the escalation takes place in a major way so members can vote on this policy," he said. "I'm going to urge her that we should separate the humanitarian aid in the supplemental from the military part of it. ... Members should have an opportunity before this escalation gets much farther to debate this policy. War's a big deal, and it shouldn't be an hour debate."

Republicans have been cool to an idea backed by many Democrats to impose a war surtax. "Ideally, it would be better to pay for the war than not," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., before the speech, lamenting that "in previous years, both sides agreed not to." McConnell suggested using "unexpended stimulus funds," a step Democrats are likely to oppose.

But in a conference call after the president's speech, McConnell was generally upbeat. "Most of my members are on board," he said. "We think the surge in Afghanistan has a very good chance of working."

After a lengthy review of war policy and White House criticism of the policies followed by former President George W. Bush, the speech marked a turning point in political ownership of the war, particularly in the view of Republicans. "As of [Tuesday], this is going to be his war," said House Armed Services ranking member Howard (Buck) McKeon, R-Calif.

But with liberal Democrats unhappy with the escalation, the president almost certainly is going to need substantial Republican support to sustain his policy and secure the needed funding.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., sidestepped a question that suggested less than half the Democratic Caucus would support Obama's policy. "I don't want to make that judgment," he said, adding he wants to wait for congressional hearings. But he acknowledged that there are "great reservations within our caucus."

Hoyer also declined to take a stand on the effort by House Appropriations Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., to impose a surtax.

"I am going to talk to Obey about it. ... I am not supporting the tax at this point in time. It is complicated by the necessity, on the one hand, to get the economy going again and, on the other hand, to pay for what we buy," Hoyer said.

Before the speech, the president spent an hour meeting with the bipartisan leadership of Congress, briefing 14 senators and 17 House members. Hoyer said some members raised the issue of how to pay for the buildup. But he said the president did not voice a preference for any method.

Dan Friedman, Billy House, Megan Scully and Peter Cohn contributed to this report.