GovernmentExecutive.com

The Army may add as many as 30,000 soldiers to its ranks temporarily as it struggles to reconcile commitments around the globe with plans to become a lighter, more agile force, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker said Wednesday.

"There is no question that the Army is stressed," Schoomaker told lawmakers at a House Armed Services Committee hearing.

Schoomaker said increasing the size of the Army by up to 30,000 troops on a temporary basis would fill a gap until the service completes a transformation effort. But he said the Army can't afford to permanently add more troops at a cost of $1.2 billion per 10,000 soldiers.

The Army is already operating at about 11,000 soldiers above its allotted active-duty size of 480,000 troops. Army leaders can temporarily increase the size of the force by issuing stop-loss orders preventing personnel from leaving the ranks for up to 90 days before or after a deployment. Since the Vietnam War, the Army has invoked such orders to handle unforeseen operations and address shortfalls in specialized fields.

Schoomaker said the Army ultimately should be able to scale back as it becomes more efficient through restructuring. For example, he said, by converting 10,000 military support jobs to civilian positions, the service would free up slots for positions in areas that are chronically understaffed, such as civil affairs, military police and transportation units.

Additionally, Schoomaker said, revamping the Army Reserve by reducing the number of headquarters positions would allow for better use of reserve personnel in combat and combat support positions.

Schoomaker told lawmakers that permanently adding uniformed personnel is too expensive and would divert resources from transformation efforts, which include billions of dollars in spending for buying new, more lethal fighting vehicles.

Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., who has introduced legislation to increase the size of the Army, Marine Corps and Air Force by 8 percent, said stop-loss orders are "masking" the fact that the military does not have enough troops to meet its commitments. She argued that the Defense Department could scale back some of its weapons programs, such as development of a national missile defense system, to pay for more troops.

COMMENTS

• I though Rummy said he needed to revamp federal employees' role in the government because we couldn't recruit and train enough people soon enough? More lies from the liars who tell them. First, tell the public the federal employess don't work hard enough so you can change the system, then try to bring on 30,000 more troops you just said we can't afford. When will people realize that not only does the king have no clothes, he has no ethics, morals, or brains? GovExec.com reader Posted February 2, 2004 11:19 AM
• I once heard the quote, "Young men die for the wars of older men". I'm not sure who said it. Our administration says that we will never ask for permission to defend ourselves. Okay, that's fair, but this was not defending ourselves, we initiated this war as a pre-emptive strike. We started it. The 30,000 new troops, not to mention the ones already in IRAQ, and the troops who have paid the ultimate price already, deserve honesty from our current administration. The world being a "safer place”, is not enough justification to fairly account for so many young lives. The world is not safer for them, and based on US alert levels, is not safer for us either. So, what was the prize from the decision to remove Saddam? Politicos are enriching their contractor friends (Halliburton, KBR), the economy of the US is being gutted for the long term, the National Deficit is spiraling out of control, and the middle class is slowly fading away. Where is congressional oversight when we need it? GovExec.com reader Posted January 30, 2004 10:54 AM
• When King George was running for President he said "help is on the way", unfortunately he never explained what that meant. Now we know, it meant nothing. All services are short of personnel. But we keep saying we don't need a draft. How do you plan on increasing your numbers permanently by 30,000 people without a draft? The youth of our time is not willing to put their life on the line knowing we average a death a day in Iraq and that is the country all of the new blood will be going to. The DOD has a severe problem and they don't want to face up to their shortcomings. Tell the truth, it will set you free. GovExec.com reader Posted January 29, 2004 7:59 AM