Army Leadership Discusses Budget Outlook

WASHINGTON, Oct. 11, 2011 — Addi­tion­al bud­get cuts beyond the $450 bil­lion the Defense Depart­ment already has planned for the next 10 years would be “cat­a­stroph­ic,” Army Sec­re­tary John M. McHugh said yes­ter­day.

Speak­ing at the open­ing day of the 2011 Asso­ci­a­tion of the U.S. Army’s annu­al meet­ing and expo­si­tion here, McHugh said the poten­tial for the depart­ment to face addi­tion­al bud­get cuts of $500 bil­lion to $600 bil­lion in the next decade keeps him up at night. Those addi­tion­al cuts could hap­pen if a con­gres­sion­al “super com­mit­tee” look­ing at ways to reduce the fed­er­al debt by $1.2 tril­lion can’t come to agree­ment by Thanks­giv­ing. If that hap­pens, the debt reduc­tion law passed over the sum­mer forces a “seques­tra­tion,” by which as much as half that amount must come from nation­al secu­ri­ty spend­ing.

“I think we’re in a pos­i­tive posi­tion to accom­mo­date at least the $450 bil­lion or so in cuts that have been sched­uled against the DOD to this point,” McHugh told a pan­el of jour­nal­ists at the meet­ing. But seques­tra­tion would be cat­a­stroph­ic, he added, “cer­tain­ly to the Army and cer­tain­ly to our nation­al defense pos­ture.”

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray­mond T. Odier­no said at the meet­ing that the poten­tial for a “hol­low force” would not come to fruition. Instead, he said, a ready and capa­ble force would exist, though its size might be affect­ed.

“No mat­ter what hap­pens, we are not going to have a hol­low force,” Odier­no said. “We are going to have a force that is a cer­tain size that has the mod­ern­iza­tion and readi­ness nec­es­sary to be qual­i­ty.”

McHugh and Odier­no agreed that defense cuts like­ly would be shared equal­ly across the ser­vices.

Ear­li­er, at the open­ing cer­e­mo­ny of the AUSA event, McHugh addressed more than 3,000 guests, includ­ing sol­diers, civil­ian employ­ees and defense con­trac­tors. He point­ed out that while all ser­vices con­tribute to the fight, the Army car­ries the brunt of the mis­sion in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

“There’s no get­ting around the fact that it is the Army that has been sad­dled with much of the bur­den these past years, pro­vid­ing between 50 to 70 per­cent of our deploy­able forces,” he said. “While I am loath to view our men and women in uni­form as mere bud­getary sta­tis­tics, I think it is impor­tant to remind peo­ple that while the U.S. Army rep­re­sents half of our nation’s entire force, we con­sume only a quar­ter to 30 per­cent of the entire defense bud­get.”

The sec­re­tary said deci­sion mak­ers often fail to cor­rect­ly pre­dict the nature of future con­flicts and that fol­low­ing con­flicts like World War I, World War II and Korea, for instance, bas­ing bud­get deci­sions on the notion that ground forces were no longer rel­e­vant. Those deci­sions end­ed up deplet­ing Army forces and reduc­ing qual­i­ty of life for sol­diers and their fam­i­lies, McHugh said.

This time, he added, the Army has seen the eco­nom­ic down­turn in advance, as well as the impend­ing bud­get cuts.

“Unlike in the past, this time we have seen this down­turn com­ing for some time,” he said. “We have been ana­lyz­ing the best ways to meet these chal­lenges, and as such, I can tell you we are bet­ter posi­tioned than at any time in our nation’s his­to­ry to deal with the fis­cal real­i­ties and do it in a way that tru­ly makes sense.”

Part of deal­ing with fis­cal real­i­ties, McHugh said, is cuts to the total num­ber of men and women in uni­form. The end strength will even­tu­al­ly look dif­fer­ent than it does now, and with the draw­downs in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army can han­dle the chal­lenge of end-strength reduc­tions, he said.

“But what is crit­i­cal­ly impor­tant is that no mat­ter what the force ulti­mate­ly looks like, we have suf­fi­cient time to ramp down to ensure we do it in a bal­anced way, and that we have what is nec­es­sary for train­ing and equip­ment and reset,” McHugh said.

Anoth­er con­cern, he said, are sug­ges­tions that some of the ser­vices recov­er at the sac­ri­fices of oth­ers and that the Unit­ed States prob­a­bly does­n’t need a strong and deci­sive stand­ing Army. In that point of view, the future resem­bles the motion pic­ture “Trans­form­ers” more than it does the film “Sav­ing Pri­vate Ryan,” McHugh told the audi­ence. “His­to­ry looms before us once again,” he added.

McHugh said that while air pow­er and tech­nol­o­gy are crit­i­cal, America’s ene­mies often don’t fight the way Amer­i­cans pre­dicts they will. Boots on the ground, he said, are crit­i­cal for the nation’s defense.

“No major con­flict has ever been won with­out boots on the ground,” he said. “And accord­ing­ly, our nation­al inter­ests demand that while we set about the task of reshap­ing this Army for the years ahead, we remain stead­fast and con­tin­ue to sup­port this, the great­est land force the world has ever known.”

Efforts to help the Army find ways to save mon­ey and absorb loom­ing bud­get cuts already are under way, McHugh said.

For exam­ple, he said, the ser­vice is remov­ing redun­dan­cies and over­lap in research. Addi­tion­al­ly, McHugh said, he has asked that the Army look into the mul­ti­ple and expen­sive tem­po­rary task forces that have become “per­ma­nent.”

Also under way, he added, are efforts to stream­line the require­ments process, to reform the Instal­la­tion Man­age­ment Com­mand, and to make “sweep­ing changes” to human cap­i­tal man­age­ment.

McHugh said changes will be made to find cost sav­ings with­in the Army Ser­vice Acqui­si­tion pro­gram, where $243 bil­lion was spent in 2010 — includ­ing $140 bil­lion on con­tracts, more than half of that on ser­vices.

A McHugh-issued direc­tive will cre­ate a new gov­ern­ment struc­ture that will con­sol­i­date about 45 per­cent of ser­vice oblig­a­tions into six port­fo­lio man­age­ment cen­ters, he said. Those include facil­i­ty sup­port ser­vices, med­ical ser­vices, trans­porta­tion ser­vices, elec­tron­ics and com­mu­ni­ca­tions, equip­ment relat­ed ser­vices, and knowl­edge-based ser­vices.

“This will, I believe, improve over­sight effec­tive­ness, while help­ing us tai­lor and apply and mon­i­tor the results of bet­ter buy­ing prac­tices for improved acqui­si­tion, as well as lever­ag­ing port­fo­lio demand for bet­ter prices,” he said. Those types of actions, he said, will help the Army deal with the bud­gets that will be made for the ser­vice by oth­ers.

McHugh said he will help to guide the Army through the bud­get cri­sis, and will keep sol­diers in mind when doing so.

“We can, we must — and I promise you — we will do bet­ter,” he said.

Source:
U.S. Depart­ment of Defense
Office of the Assis­tant Sec­re­tary of Defense (Pub­lic Affairs)

Team GlobDef

Team GlobDef

Seit 2001 ist GlobalDefence.net im Internet unterwegs, um mit eigenen Analysen, interessanten Kooperationen und umfassenden Informationen für einen spannenden Überblick der Weltlage zu sorgen. GlobalDefenc.net war dabei die erste deutschsprachige Internetseite, die mit dem Schwerpunkt Sicherheitspolitik außerhalb von Hochschulen oder Instituten aufgetreten ist.

Alle Beiträge ansehen von Team GlobDef →