Vice Chiefs Detail Consequences of Budget Cuts

WASHINGTON, Oct. 27, 2011 — The vice chiefs of the ser­vices told Con­gress mem­bers today that they fear bud­get cuts could cause a hol­low force.

The men said they under­stand that the ser­vices face a lean time, but they asked the House Armed Ser­vices Committee’s readi­ness sub­com­mit­tee to be judi­cious about cuts.

Gen. Peter W. Chiarel­li, the Army’s vice chief of staff, asked the rep­re­sen­ta­tives to remem­ber that the ser­vices have fought a 10-year war, with an all-vol­un­teer force.

“That force is amaz­ing­ly resilient, but at the same time, it is strained,” he said. “Its equip­ment is strained, sol­diers are strained, fam­i­lies are strained. But they’ve been absolute­ly amaz­ing over these 10 years at war.”

Chiarel­li said he under­stands bud­get cuts and cor­re­spond­ing force reduc­tions have to be made. “How­ev­er, we must make them respon­si­bly so that we do not end up with either a hol­lowed out force … or an unbal­anced force,” he said.

The Army con­tin­ues to look for effi­cien­cies, the gen­er­al said. “When we appeared before the com­mit­tee in July, we were look­ing at cuts in the vicin­i­ty of $450 bil­lion over 10 years,” he said. If the Army’s por­tion of that is about 26 per­cent, as it his­tor­i­cal­ly has been, he said, that will be “tough, but … doable.”

Any­thing more would be dif­fi­cult for the ser­vice, he added.

The Army was cut too much in the draw­downs after World War I, World War II and the Viet­nam War, Chiarel­li said.

“I lived through an Army that came out of Viet­nam … and for 10 to 12 years, we had to rebuild that Army,” he said. “These ques­tions, these deci­sions have been made before, and there’s just a ten­den­cy to believe at the end of a war that we’ll nev­er need ground forces again. Well, I tell you that we’ve nev­er got that right. We have always required them. We just don’t have the imag­i­na­tion to always be able to pre­dict exact­ly when that will be.”

The Navy is equal­ly wor­ried, Vice Chief of Naval Oper­a­tions Adm. Mark Fer­gu­son said. “In an era of declin­ing bud­gets, we are ever mind­ful of the lessons of the past, when we assessed force readi­ness,” he told the com­mit­tee. “Tak­en in sum or in parts, low per­son­nel qual­i­ty, aging equip­ment, degra­da­tion of mate­r­i­al readi­ness and reduced train­ing will inevitably lead to declin­ing readi­ness of the force.”

The Navy must main­tain bal­ance to remain the world’s best naval force, Fer­gu­son said. Mil­i­tary readi­ness is com­pli­cat­ed.

“Our objec­tive and chal­lenge in this peri­od of aus­ter­i­ty will be to keep the fund­ing for cur­rent and future readi­ness in bal­ance, and hold­ing accept­able lev­el of risk in the capac­i­ty of those forces to meet the require­ments of the com­bat­ant com­man­ders,” he said.

The Navy will take a mea­sured approach and look for effi­cien­cies in over­head, infra­struc­ture, per­son­nel costs, force struc­ture and mod­ern­iza­tion, he said.

The Marine Corps will take the strat­e­gy, fig­ure what needs to be done to make it work, then take the avail­able resources and build the most capa­ble force they can, Gen. Joseph Dun­ford, the assis­tant com­man­dant of the Marine Corps, said.

“As Defense Sec­re­tary [Leon] Panet­ta refines the strat­e­gy, the com­man­dant is going to use what we learned dur­ing the force-struc­ture review effort to make rec­om­men­da­tions,” Dun­ford told the pan­el. “With regard to bal­ance, we don’t want to make cuts in a man­ner that would cre­ate a hol­low force.”

The Marine Corps is com­mit­ted to the propo­si­tion that no mat­ter what their size, “every unit that’s in the Unit­ed States Marine Corps will be ready to respond to today’s cri­sis today,” he said.

Asked what would hap­pen if bud­get con­straints caused the Corps to shrink to 150,000, Dun­ford said the Corps came up with a size of an 186,800-member Marine Corps dur­ing the last force struc­ture review.

“That is a sin­gle, major con­tin­gency oper­a­tion force,” he said. “So that force can respond to only one major con­tin­gency. A hun­dred and fifty thou­sand would put us below the lev­el that’s nec­es­sary to sup­port a sin­gle con­tin­gency.”

The Marines also are busy han­dling human­i­tar­i­an, coun­ter­pira­cy, and dis­as­ter relief in many parts of the world, Dun­ford not­ed.

“Quite frankly, at 150,000 Marines, we’re going to have to make some deci­sions,” he said. “We will not be able to do those kinds of things on a day-to-day basis. We will not be able to meet the com­bat­ant com­man­ders’ require­ments for for­ward-delayed, for­ward-engaged forces. We will not be there to deter our poten­tial adver­saries. We won’t be there to assure our poten­tial friends or to assure our allies. And we cer­tain­ly won’t be there to con­tain small crises before they become major con­fla­gra­tions.”

Air Force Gen. Phillip Breedlove, the ser­vice vice chief, said the Air Force is stressed. “These are chal­leng­ing times, and the ops tem­po is exac­er­bat­ed, I think, by the fact that our Air Force since the open­ing of the Gulf War, has 34 per­cent few­er air­craft than we start­ed that war with and about 26 per­cent few­er peo­ple,” he said.

Breedlove said he does not fore­see a change in oper­a­tional tem­po and this will lead to a “slow, but steady decline in our unit readi­ness.”

The ser­vice also has picked up new mis­sions includ­ing sup­port­ing the joint team with intel­li­gence, sur­veil­lance and recon­nais­sance. “We’ve also been asked to build an increased capac­i­ty in spe­cial oper­a­tions,” the gen­er­al said.

The Air Force is fly­ing the old­est fleet in its his­to­ry, “and we do need to des­per­ate­ly get to recap­i­tal­iza­tion dur­ing this age of fis­cal aus­ter­i­ty,” he said.

“Many of the chal­lenges we see will come … on the backs of our peo­ple,” he said. “As we get small­er and as we expect that the task­ing does not change, the deploy-to-dwell times and the op tem­po on our air­men will only increase, and more impor­tant­ly, I think the op tem­po on our proud reserve com­po­nent … will have to increase because they will become ever more impor­tant in a dimin­ish­ing force.”

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 →