USA — Casey Says Army Needs Counterinsurgency Capabilities

WASHINGTON, May 7, 2010 — Gen. George W. Casey Jr. said it is unfair that the press has por­trayed Defense Sec­re­tary Robert M. Gates as hav­ing to pres­sure the Army and its lead­ers to adopt coun­terin­sur­gency as a nec­es­sary capa­bil­i­ty.

“I spent 32 months in Iraq,” Casey said here yes­ter­day dur­ing a Defense Writ­ers’ Group break­fast. “I get it.”
The chief said that when he served as com­man­der of the 1st Armored Divi­sion in 1999 to 2001, he thought that if a divi­sion could han­dle con­ven­tion­al war it could han­dle any­thing below it on the scale of conflict. 

“After 32 months in Iraq, I don’t believe that any­more,” the Army Chief of Staff said. Casey said he now believes the Army has to pos­ture itself and train to oper­ate across the spectrum. 

In 2008, he said, the Army came out with a new full-spec­trum doc­trine that said Army for­ma­tions will simul­ta­ne­ous­ly “apply offense, defense and sta­bil­i­ty oper­a­tions to seize the ini­tia­tive and achieve the desired results.” 

“It is not an easy intel­lec­tu­al shift to move away from the idea that the Army is sup­posed to fight oth­er armies,” Casey said. “It takes a decade to ful­ly ingrain a doc­trine in an orga­ni­za­tion the size of the Army.” 

But, no one in the Army appears to be argu­ing with the need. “I don’t find there are a lot of dinosaurs out there that say, ‘We got­ta go defeat the 8th Guards Tank Army [a major unit of the Red Army dur­ing the Sovi­et years],’ ” Casey said. “Most of the four-star gen­er­als in the Army have served in Iraq or Afghanistan. We under­stand it.” Still, some crit­ics say the Army is con­cen­trat­ing too much on coun­terin­sur­gency doc­trine and is not pay­ing atten­tion to con­ven­tion­al war­fare. Casey said that this is because the time between deploy­ments for sol­diers is still too short. 

If sol­diers get two years between deploy­ments, they will get the chance to train for all aspects of con­flict. Right now, it is impor­tant that they train for the mis­sions that con­front them now. 

In the future, the sce­nar­ios will be even more different. 

“They still won’t be your reg­u­lar force-on-force sce­nar­ios like we had back when I was a brigade com­man­der going to the Nation­al Train­ing Cen­ter,” Casey said. “They will be hybrid threats. They will look more like south­ern Lebanon in 2006 than large armored for­ma­tions. They will be a mix of con­ven­tion­al, irreg­u­lar, [anti-]terrorist and [anti-]criminal capa­bil­i­ties. That’s the change.” 

The next big push for the Army will not be orga­ni­za­tion­al, but insti­tu­tion­al, Casey said. 

“We will be adapt­ing all of our Army units to sup­port an Army on a rota­tion­al cycle like the Navy and Marine Corps,” he said. “Before 2001, we were large­ly a gar­ri­son-based Army that lived to train, and the Guard and Reserve were a strate­gic reserve to be called on only for the Big One.” 

But this decade has seen a huge change, he said. This is exem­pli­fied by the fact that half the sol­diers in the Army Nation­al Guard and Army Reserve are com­bat vet­er­ans and those units are ful­ly incor­po­rat­ed into the rota­tion­al model. 

“We’re going back and we’re look­ing at each of the warfight­ing func­tions,” he said. “We’re look­ing at the mix of our force that’s avail­able, the design of the forces and whether we have the right active component/reserve com­po­nent mix in those func­tion­al areas. This is continuous.” 

The Army will con­tin­ue to work with the effects of the reor­ga­ni­za­tion. “We con­vert­ed all 300-plus brigades in the Army to a mod­u­lar con­fig­u­ra­tion,” he said. “That’s a lot of change. You don’t under­take some­thing that sweep­ing with­out hav­ing these effects.” 

Mod­u­lar­i­ty is designed to allow the Army to put togeth­er divi­sion­al force pack­ages to meet the needs of the com­man­der on the ground, he said. A divi­sion may have four infantry brigades, but the mis­sion it goes on may require a mix of two infantry brigades, a Stryk­er brigade and a heavy brigade. 

Casey said that on the com­bat ser­vice sup­port side of mod­u­lar­iza­tion, the ser­vice did go too far. 

“We have de-aggre­gat­ed our com­bat ser­vice sup­port units to the point that it makes it very dif­fi­cult for the bat­tal­ion com­man­ders to con­trol those small units,” he said. “We’ve got to go back and reac­ti­vate that.” 

A reporter asked the chief if the Army – even with plus-ups – is big enough. “We’re not big enough today to meet the demands at a sus­tain­able deploy­ment regime,” Casey replied.

The Army today has moved from a deploy­ment cycle of one year deployed to one year at home sta­tion, to one year deployed to about 18 months home. “That’s not good enough to get the force where it needs to be,” he said. 

As the draw­down con­tin­ues in Iraq, the force will be large enough to meet a sus­tained demand of one corps, five divi­sions, 20 brigade com­bat teams and about 90,000 enabling forces – a total of about 160,000, the chief said. “We can do that on a sus­tained lev­el of one year out, two years back,” he said. 

The dwell time is impor­tant. “We just recent­ly fin­ished a study that told us what we intu­itive­ly knew: that it takes two to three years to ful­ly recov­er from a one year com­bat deploy­ment – it just does,” Casey said. 

“I believe two years at home is an inter­im step,” he said. “We ulti­mate­ly have to get to one and three, not one and two. As demand con­tin­ues to come down I think we can get there.” 

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

Team GlobDef

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

Alle Beiträge ansehen von Team GlobDef →