|
|
 | 
|
|
|
Length of tours, number of BCTs in Iraq to be reduced by July, Casey says
04/01/2008
 |
| A soldier with the 2nd Infantry Division and his military working dog clear a building in Iraq’s Diyala Province. Gen. George W. Casey Jr., Army chief of staff, said cutting the length of tours and the number of brigade combat teams in Iraq will allow more time between deployments. |
The chief of staff of the Army told the Senate Armed Services Committee the Army plans to cut tours in Iraq from 15 months to 12 in July as the drawdown of forces from a surge high of 20 brigade combat teams drops to 15.
When asked several times by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., committee chairman, whether the Army could continue to keep force levels at 15 brigade combat teams or about 130,000 soldiers, Gen. George W. Casey Jr. said it could, but he said in his prepared testimony and opening statement: “The cumulative effects of the last six-plus years at war have left our Army out of balance, consumed by the current fight and unable to do the things we know we need to do to properly sustain our all-volunteer force and restore our flexibility for an uncertain future.”
It was a message he and Army Secretary Pete Geren repeated at three hearings on the state of the Army and its budget request.
In the past, active duty soldiers serving yearlong tours would often be back with their families for a year before deploying again.
Geren and Casey said the 15-month tours and the adding of more brigade combat teams over the next several years would allow more time between deployments.
“So the most important thing for us right now is to return to 12-month deployments. And our goal is to do that after we see what General [David] Petraeus says here in April,’’ Casey told the House Armed Services Committees two days later.
Until that happens, Levin said the Army is “way overstretched” and voiced his concern over readiness, recruiting standards and the loss of mid-grade noncommissioned officers and captains.
Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., said he was concerned about the psychological impact on soldiers who were being “rapdily cycled through combat.”
Two days later, Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., chairman of the House Armed Service Committee, echoed those concerns: “I would add that we appear to be out of balance and walking on a tightrope. The consequences of falling are unpredictable, but likely grave, and certainly are a gamble that we can ill afford.”
As he did before the Senate panel, Geren said about balance, “We aren’t where we need to be right now. And some of it’s a question of organizing, but part of it’s just a question of dwell time – having the soldiers home long enough to where they can do the COIN [counterinsurgency] mission, but also stay fully qualified in their MOS.
“And we have moved soldiers – folks out of artillery, and taught them to be MPs; and have reorganized, across all three components, to meet this demand and try to give more soldiers the opportunity to deploy.”
Before the Senate panel, Geren said that one way to handle a pause in drawing down American forces after July would be to continue using “stop-loss.” There are between 7,000 and 8,000 soldiers still serving under that policy.
He said, “We are consuming readiness now, as quickly as we’re building it.”
In his prepared testimony, Geren added, “While our reserve components are performing magnificently, many RC units have found themselves assigned missions for which they were not originally intended nor adequately resourced.”
Adding, “Current operational requirements for forces and insufficient time between deployments require a focus on counterinsurgency training and equipping to the detriment of preparedness for the full range of military missions.”
In his prepared testimony for the Feb. 26 hearing, Casey said, “We are unable to provide a sustainable tempo of deployments for our soldiers and families. Soldiers, families, support systems, and equipment are stretched and stressed by the demands of lengthy and repeated deployments, with insufficient recovery time. Equipment used repeatedly in harsh environments is wearing out more rapidly than programmed.”
As he did before the House Appropriations Committee earlier, Geren urged the Congress to move quickly on the $100 billion emergency spending bill for the current fiscal year.
The Army’s base budget request for Fiscal Year 2009 is $140.7 billion.
At the hearing a number of senators questioned the cost of the Army’s Future Combat Systems.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates at a hearing earlier this year testified the program may not be affordable.
“I think you’ve got a problem if the secretary honestly feels he can’t fund” FCS, Reed said.
Two days later Geren and Casey were asked: “Are we trying to do too much too fast? Do we have the right personnel to manage and oversee these complex modernization programs? What is the Army doing to address these acquisition challenges? And finally, are we confident that the global repositioning of forces appropriately addresses our current and future needs?”
Geren said the program never accounts for more than one twelfth of the Army budget. “We believe the Future Combat Systems is exactly the full-spectrum system we need for the future,” Casey said.
He added the Army has begun limited testing of FCS at Fort Bliss, Texas, through its 900-member Experimentation Task Force.
Speaking at the Association of the United States Army’s science and technology symposium in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., Dean Popps, the acting assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology, said when he testifies on FCS he reminds senators, congressmen and staffers to “look at the level of modernity you are demanding when you buy your family vehicles.” The Army look at FCS in that way. “I never want to invest in a car with three on the column,” referring to manual transmissions.
The Army puts the cost of fielding FCS at $160 billion.
|
|
|