When it comes to Israel and Ukraine funding, go big and go long

The House of Representatives remains grasped by chaos, and even when a Speaker is elected, the appetite for Ukraine spending appears to be limited. And yet, writes retired Army general John Ferrari below, Congress needs to find a way to pass a supplemental for both Ukraine and Israel — and make it a big one.

With our government’s dysfunction on full display to the world, war rages in both Europe and the Middle East. To assume our adversaries are not taking note would be foolish: Russia is both continuing its terror in Ukraine while deepening its relationship with North Korea. Meanwhile, China continues to aggressively challenge America’s ability to operate in the international waterways around Taiwan. And the Middle East is on a knife’s edge in what could set off a regional conflagration.

In order to convince Hamas and our state adversaries that we have both the will and capacity to thwart their aggression, Congress should pass, as soon as legislatively possible, an emergency wartime supplemental funding bill of $100 billion.

Yes, that seems like an eye watering figure on paper. But given the coming election year and the slim margins of power within the House, Congress will have one and only one realistic opportunity to pass this emergency funding. Therefore, the dollar amount needs to be sufficient to last until the next Congress is seated in early 2025, and passed without expiration dates tied to its funds.

The White House, at least broadly, seems to be on the same page, with Bloomberg reporting on Tuesday that President Joe Biden is considering a $100 billion supplemental that would cover Israel, Ukraine, some border security and funding for Taiwan. That would be good, but the dollar total isn’t the only part that matters: Congress has to do the right thing in structuring the aid so it is as flexible as possible. Additionally, Congress needs to keep the government funded in three weeks, so a supplemental needs to happen soonest and without brinksmanship, in a bipartisan manner.

We cannot be sure of where our adversaries will strike next or what assistance Ukraine or Israel will need over the next eighteen months, so Congress should appropriate this supplemental into one account, allowing the president to allocate money as necessary. Congress hasn’t traditionally provided the executive branch with this much discretion, but with two wars ongoing and a third war or hostilities involving China or North Korea always on the horizon, the president is in need of this flexibility.

While the president sets policy, Congress appropriates money. And in this case, they can exercise that authority by directing that the funds be spent to deepen the magazines of every single munition in the Defense Department’s arsenal. Oftentimes, the Pentagon only replenishes weapons expended, leaving it time and again reacting to the daily warfighting expenditure reports. Only by buying munitions for ourselves and for our allies to fight multiple wars over multiple years can we rest assured that we won’t run out of ammo before our adversaries run out of willpower. Our risk as a nation is not that we have too many weapons, it is that we have too few. We simply need, immediately, to buy more of everything.

The Pentagon should strive to get the majority of the supplemental’s funds on contract and into the hands of weapons manufacturers within ninety days of the law’s enactment, as unspent money does no good. Although our industrial base remains anemic, the solution to getting it to produce in greater quantities is a series of large contracts over multiple years. Congress, as part of this emergency appropriation, should grant the president with blanket multiyear procurement authority in addition to the funding. This will signal to industry that even when the money is spent, more is on the way. Only with this assurance will industry expand capacity and, more importantly, invest in expanding and retaining its workforce.

Appropriating $100 billion in the face of national deficits that are approaching $2 trillion will be unpopular with many. But that’s exactly the point: It’s a clear signal to our allies and adversaries alike that Congress will not let conflict spiral into another world war, and that even amongst our political dysfunction at home, we remain committed to America’s role abroad.

With Russia and China and the world’s most vicious terrorist organizations banking on America quickly losing interest in waging a long war, it’s also a signal that America won’t cave in fighting a drawn-out conflict. Preparing for a short war is almost the certain way to have a long war; If you prepare for a long war, you have a shot at breaking the will of your opponent early. Accidents, strategic opportunism, and a belief that America will only tolerate one quick war at a time could be the exact ingredients that spark a global conflict. This must be avoided at all costs.

Spending money to win today’s wars and deter future conflicts is money well spent. Congress needs to remember its primary job.

Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. John Ferrari is a senior nonresident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute think tank. Ferrari previously served as a director of program analysis and evaluation for the Army.