TOPICS
TOPICS
Ex-Clinton officials warn of declining military readiness
Former top Clinton administration officials on Wednesday joined a growing chorus concerned that operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are straining U.S. ground forces and hindering the military's ability to recruit.
Former Defense Secretary William Perry and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright warned in a 15-page report that the Army and Marine Corps cannot sustain the current operational tempo without "doing real damage to their forces."
Speaking at a news conference to release the study, Albright said she is "very troubled" the military will not be able to meet demands abroad. Perry warned that the strain, "if not relieved, can have highly corrosive and long-term effects on the military."
Their conclusions diverged from recent statements about military readiness by Pentagon leaders and Army officials.
But Albright and Perry echoed many of the findings in a Pentagon-requested study conducted by retired Army Col. Andrew Krepinevich, executive director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Krepinevich concluded in his study, first reported by the Associated Press Tuesday, that the Army is overextended and cannot sustain large deployments to Iraq well into the foreseeable future.
The Perry/Albright report specifically recommends enlarging the Army's active-duty force by 30,000 troops and creating 48 combat brigades -- six more than the service now plans. The former officials recognize that, given the Army's failure to meet recruiting goals in 2005, substantially increasing the size of the force will take time.
It would come with a hefty price tag: about $1.5 billion to stand up and equip each new brigade, according to the study. Army leaders have opposed efforts in Congress to authorize a much larger force, arguing that doing so would jeopardize their high-priced plans to transform the service technologically.
To save money, Army leaders have requested funding for 333,000 National Guard troops in fiscal 2007 -- 17,000 less than the Guard's authorized end-strength. While that will not result in any immediate cuts in the force, which has fallen to 333,000 troops, it already has sparked a flurry of opposition from state and federal lawmakers.
"When you have oversized missions, undersizing your force doesn't make sense," Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., said Wednesday.
Aside from personnel, the Albright/Perry study estimates that rehabilitating worn-out equipment would cost $40 billion over the next four year at the same time the military is trying to modernize and replace aging technology and equipment. The study calls for full funding for all so-called reset programs, and warns that anticipated equipment rehabilitation costs may be required well after the last supplemental appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Congress must ensure that even when supplemental funding ends, adequate funding for resetting the force continues," the study said. "Without this, neither service will be able to 'get well' in the wake of Iraq."
COMMENTS
- Coincidentally, today GovExec.com has an article saying that the Navy wants to build 30 more ships in the next five years, to go to a total of 315 from the current 285 (which is even lower than the figure I quoted previously from 2001!). 315 is still a far cry from the 600 ship Navy advocated by Ronald Reagan, but it's better than what we currently have. Hopefully, Congress will listen, and do the right thing. anonymous Posted February 8, 2006 4:02 PM
- Taxpayer: Just do an internet search using any search engine, and you'll see that China is modernizing and expanding its Navy (although as a land-locked nation, it has no real need to do so, other than projecting power and maybe grabbing Taiwan!). Iran has purchased ex-Soviet subs as Russia conducts a fire sale of its once mighty military forces, and North Korea is still infiltrating spies and assassins into South Korea, via submarines and other vessels. Our Navy is used to defend this country and its interests overseas. If we need to use force against an enemy, and there are no land bases in friendly nations near the danger zone, that's when aircraft carriers come in handy. If we need to send troops somewhere, that's when amphibious assault and supply vessels come in handy (in the Gulf War and even the War on Terror, we had to charter foreign flag vessels to carry our tanks and supplies. Not very reliable if the foreign owners don't want to help us out!). Our cruisers, destroyers and submarines ensure control of the seas for our commerce, and freedom of the seas benefits all nations. Take all this into account, as well as required maintenance of vessels and keeping crews at sea for prolonged periods away from home, and you can see that our Navy is stretched thin, and barely adequate for the many missions it has. And unlike WW II, when we geared up and built thousands of ships in a couple of years, we could not do that today, due to the shrinking industrial base (only a couple of shipyards left capable of naval construction). How many ships are enough? I don't claim to know the answer, but I'm sure it's more than we now have! GovExec.com reader Posted February 8, 2006 3:54 PM
- I find the Navy numbers very interesting. Could you also supply similar numbers for those that may be our enemies against which we would use this Navy? For example, China, North Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan? Also, what are the similar numbers for friends such as the NATO alliance? I think our 30 ship Navy is probably far greater than any enemy we might face but I do not know. Maybe we could go to a 200 ship Navy and still be the best. Taxpayer Posted February 8, 2006 7:48 AM
PROMO RIGHT: GBC
Advancing the business of government through analysis, insight and the sharing of best practices.
SPONSORED RESEARCH
Achieving a Greener Federal Government IBM
Federal Cybersecurity: Securing the Nation's Information IBM
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: New Requirements for Tracking and Reporting Federal Workforce Data Kronos
Managing the Stimulus: A Candid Survey of Federal Program Managers Accenture and Microsoft
Improving Collaboration and Productivity in 21st Century Government: The Role of Communication for Government Executives Cisco









