GovernmentExecutive.com

The Army estimates it will need $12 billion annually in its baseline budget beginning in fiscal 2007 and extending through fiscal 2011 to pay for transformation initiatives aimed at reducing the current strain on active and reserve soldiers in Iraq, Army officials said Wednesday.

Meanwhile, the Army will request $12 billion for transformation -- known as "modularity" in Army vernacular -- as part of the Bush administration's forthcoming fiscal 2005 supplemental spending request to be delivered to lawmakers next week. Army officials estimate another $12 billion allotment will be requested in a second supplemental spending package expected to come later this year.

Modularity refers to the Army's plan to shift from a structure based on divisions into one based on smaller, flexible brigades. No modularity funding was included in the 2006 budget submitted Monday by President Bush.

During testimony before the House Armed Services Committee Tuesday, Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker said equipment for the modularity effort would run $5 billion annually through 2011. This money will fund weapons, tracked vehicles and other equipment required by the Army's new brigade structure.

Schoomaker said the service also will need $3 billion in modularity costs associated with personnel to man the new brigades. This includes $1.5 billion for personnel pay, as well as money to cover recruitment, training, housing and health care.

Finally, the Army estimates it will need close to $4 billion to reset forces returning from Iraq and other locations overseas.

Army Secretary Francis Harvey, who testified during the hearing, said immediate costs associated with resetting the force are split between the Pentagon's 2006 baseline budget and the forthcoming 2005 supplemental request. Army officials said $7.4 billion needed to reset peacetime forces was included in the Army's baseline 2006 budget request.

Combined, the cost of resetting, manning and equipping the new brigade structure adds up to roughly $12 billion annually over the next six years, although the estimated $4 billion projected for resetting the force could fluctuate, Army officials said. In addition, Schoomaker said the Army would need to rely on supplemental funds for two years following the end of the conflict in Iraq.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., said the costs of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are rightly funded through supplemental appropriations, although many Democrats on the panel chastised Schoomaker and Harvey for failing to build some predictability into their baseline budget.

Still, members were largely supportive of the Army's effort to transform while fighting a war. "Congress and the Army must work together to fund this critical transformation," said Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas.

COMMENTS

• WE should be looking at the ineffective, overweight, and expensive Stryker for removal from the US Army inventory. The limited use and even more limited capability is not worth the expense. The Army is trying to get a purse out of a sow's ear. We have an even worse case than the Sgt York. The money spent to over test and fake validation is not worth the money. The money saved from this vehicles removal would be then used for the needed upgrades to the legacy fleet until a GOOD vehicle can be developed at the contractors expense. That is my two cents from an individual in the US Army Quality Assurance for the last twenty years. Thank you for listening. Bob GovExec.com reader Posted February 17, 2005 6:25 AM
• I find the rationale in this story mind boggling. Yes, the Army needs money to replace that lost/worn out in Iraq, and to increase strength. To base this need on costs to restructure is absurd. Most of the cost would be for some clerks to change unit names on the paperwork. Oh, I forgot, one must retrain the thinking of upper level officers. Everyone else will be doing their job as usual. GovExec.com reader Posted February 10, 2005 6:21 PM