.Next Army Chief Isn’t So Cool With A Smaller Force
Back in January, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that the Army would get smaller as U.S. troops left Iraq and Afghanistan. Unsurprisingly, the Army’s next top officer isn’t particularly nuts about that idea – and hopes folks on Capitol Hill will reconsider.
There’s no doubt that budget cuts are going to put big pressures on the size of the Army, Gen. Raymond Odierno told a Senate panel on Thursday morning. Over 40 percent of the Army’s budget is spent on its soldiers. “The Army will pay [for those cuts] in force structure,” Odierno said.
Cutting the Army’s 569,400 active-duty soldiers must depend “on what the demand is for soldiers,” Odierno told the Senate Armed Services Committee at his confirmation hearing to become the next Army chief of staff. Deep cuts could impact the Army’s ability to meet the U.S.’s “commitments around the world.”
“We’ve never been good at predicting the future,” Odierno said, “and we must have an army capable of responding with overwhelming force.”
That’s a far cry from the plan Gates announced. He put forward a staggered reduction of 49,000 soldiers, with a temporary plus-up of 22,000 ending by 2015, and another 27,000 leaving the Army afterward.
In his prepared remarks, Odierno went further. “End strength reductions should not be automatic,” Odierno told the committee. Instead, he pledged to work with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Army Secretary John McHugh to “determine the appropriate Army active duty end strength,” the term of art for the size of the Army.
A steep troop reduction carries the disadvantage of “reduced flexibility for meeting unseen demands and the ability to maintain the skills and quality of the remaining force,” Odierno said.
The troop shrinkage isn’t the only big Army plan that prompted a lukewarm reaction from Odierno. He referred to the Ground Combat Vehicle program, the Army’s major investment in creating an armored vehicle by 2017, as merely “one of the potential vehicles.” Odierno warned that the Army needed to “look at the requirements” it sets for the Ground Combat Vehicle to make sure it’s not hugely expensive and obsolete by the time it’s ready — some of the reasons its predecessor program, called Future Combat Systems, bit the budgetary dust in 2009.
But the size and structure of the Army appear to be an early priority for Odierno’s tenure atop the Army, which is all but guaranteed. (Senator after senator lined up to praise Odierno as one of the heroes of the Iraq surge he helped command.) He pledged “detailed assessments” into what the Army needs to look like. “We need to become more agile, adaptable and responsive to a wide variety” of threats, Odierno said.
As a division commander who went into Iraq rounding up and detaining scores of military-age men and ended it as “The Patton of Counterinsurgency,” it’s a challenge he probably understands as much as any general
Wired
That must mean they will shrink soldiers
There’s no doubt that budget cuts are going to put big pressures on the size of the Army, Gen. Raymond Odierno told a Senate panel on Thursday morning. Over 40 percent of the Army’s budget is spent on its soldiers. “The Army will pay [for those cuts] in force structure,” Odierno said.
Cutting the Army’s 569,400 active-duty soldiers must depend “on what the demand is for soldiers,” Odierno told the Senate Armed Services Committee at his confirmation hearing to become the next Army chief of staff. Deep cuts could impact the Army’s ability to meet the U.S.’s “commitments around the world.”
“We’ve never been good at predicting the future,” Odierno said, “and we must have an army capable of responding with overwhelming force.”
That’s a far cry from the plan Gates announced. He put forward a staggered reduction of 49,000 soldiers, with a temporary plus-up of 22,000 ending by 2015, and another 27,000 leaving the Army afterward.
In his prepared remarks, Odierno went further. “End strength reductions should not be automatic,” Odierno told the committee. Instead, he pledged to work with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Army Secretary John McHugh to “determine the appropriate Army active duty end strength,” the term of art for the size of the Army.
A steep troop reduction carries the disadvantage of “reduced flexibility for meeting unseen demands and the ability to maintain the skills and quality of the remaining force,” Odierno said.
The troop shrinkage isn’t the only big Army plan that prompted a lukewarm reaction from Odierno. He referred to the Ground Combat Vehicle program, the Army’s major investment in creating an armored vehicle by 2017, as merely “one of the potential vehicles.” Odierno warned that the Army needed to “look at the requirements” it sets for the Ground Combat Vehicle to make sure it’s not hugely expensive and obsolete by the time it’s ready — some of the reasons its predecessor program, called Future Combat Systems, bit the budgetary dust in 2009.
But the size and structure of the Army appear to be an early priority for Odierno’s tenure atop the Army, which is all but guaranteed. (Senator after senator lined up to praise Odierno as one of the heroes of the Iraq surge he helped command.) He pledged “detailed assessments” into what the Army needs to look like. “We need to become more agile, adaptable and responsive to a wide variety” of threats, Odierno said.
As a division commander who went into Iraq rounding up and detaining scores of military-age men and ended it as “The Patton of Counterinsurgency,” it’s a challenge he probably understands as much as any general
Wired
That must mean they will shrink soldiers
posted by madtom at 11:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home