FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Dempsey: Sequestration is 'Absolutely Crazy'
By Lisa Ferdinando
DoD News, Defense Media Activity
WASHINGTON, Jan. 26, 2015 – Sequestration is "absolutely crazy," will hurt national security and make it "impossible" for the United States to meet its global commitments, according to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The world has changed dramatically since sequestration was passed into law in the Budget Control Act of 2011, Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey said.
Dempsey spoke Thursday, in an interview aboard his plane as he returned to Washington following a European trip focusing on threats to the continent.
"The combination of the Budget Control Act and the sequestration mechanism will make it impossible for us to meet our global responsibilities," he said.
The sequestration mechanism forces across-the-board government spending cuts, a "mechanical withdrawal" that "doesn't allow you to balance your books," Dempsey said.
"The readiness hole is still the readiness hole. The global security environment is more dangerous and sequestration is still on the books as the law. It's absolutely crazy for this country," the top general said.
A More Dangerous World
The changes in the global environment since 2011 include the emergence of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Russia's fueling of instability in Ukraine, and a "host of security issues," he said.
"ISIL hadn’t manifested itself as a trans-regional threat," the chairman said. "Russia had not annexed Crimea and violated the sovereignty of Ukraine, and in so doing, by the way, stirred up nationalism and ethnicity in Europe in a very unhelpful way."
In addition, the United States is now engaged in trying to reduce sources of instability in Africa, including the mission supporting the fight against Ebola.
In those years since the law was passed, the world has also seen provocations by North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, Dempsey said.
"All those things require consideration of forward presence, readiness, resourcing, countering technological advances by some of our potential adversaries, and that's changed a great deal," the chairman said. "We're trying to encourage everyone to understand that change."
Sequestration Hurts National Defense
Military leaders in 2010 were predicting that even if the United States withdrew from Iraq and Afghanistan, he said, the military would need three or four years to recover its readiness.
"Because for 10 years we've been focused very narrowly on the counter-insurgency, counter-terror threat and we've lost some of our training edge," Dempsey said.
The United States deferred maintenance on some of its high-end capabilities because of sequestration, he said, including ships, submarines and airplanes.
In a separate interview with DoD News while in Europe last week, the chairman said he would like to have a "conversation with Congress" about reversing the effects of sequestration.
"If they're not reversed, they're going to be imposed in 2016, and they will negatively affect our national security interests," he said.
The chairman added, "Collaboratively we shouldn't allow that to happen."
Showing posts with label BUDGET CONTROL ACT OF 2011. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BUDGET CONTROL ACT OF 2011. Show all posts
Monday, January 26, 2015
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
DEFENSE OFFICIAL SAYS MILITARY COMPENSATION GROWTH RATE MUST BE SLOWED
 |
| DOD photo by Erin A. Kirk-Cuomo. |
FROM: DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Fox Says DOD Must Slow Growth of Military Compensation
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Jan. 28, 2014 – The Defense Department must slow the rate of growth in military pay and compensation or the organization will not be able to fight and win the nation’s wars, Acting Deputy Defense Secretary Christine H. Fox said here today.
Fox, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, said DOD must get a handle on pay and benefits or risk sending service members into harm’s way unprepared.
The deputy thanked the senators for supporting the Bipartisan Budget Act, which she said mitigates the worst of the problems DOD faces under the Budget Control Act of 2011. Still, she added, it only goes through the next two years, and this is a long-term problem.
“Beyond those two years, the BCA remains the law of the land,” she said. “If sequestration is allowed to persist, our analysis shows that it will lead to a force that is too small, inadequately equipped and insufficiently trained to fully defend the nation’s interests.”
Given this budgetary background, DOD civilian and military leaders have said time and again that the one-third of the defense budget consumed by military compensation cannot be exempt as an area of defense savings. “We must find ways to slow the rate of growth,” Fox told the committee.
Inflation-adjusted pay and benefit costs are 40 percent higher than in 2001, even though the active force today is just slightly larger. Defense health care costs alone have grown from less than $20 billion in 2001 to nearly $50 billion in 2013. Payments for housing costs also have increased faster than inflation.
“If this department is going to maintain a future force that is properly sized, modern and ready, we clearly cannot maintain the last decade’s rate of military compensation growth,” Fox said.
Military service is about more than just a paycheck. The jobs and service military personnel perform are as important. If the department doesn’t have money to maintain equipment, or supply the latest technology, or get service members the latest and best training “then they are being done a disservice,” the deputy said.
“When they’re sent into harm’s way, this disservice can quickly transition into a breach of trust,” Fox said. “Here I am referring to our collective, sacred obligation to provide our troops with the finest training and equipment possible, so that they can deploy to combat able to accomplish their mission and return to their families.”
The department does have recommendations for slowing the growth of compensation fairly and effectively, Fox said. “Most notably, just this year, Congress accepted a 1 percent basic pay raise, even though the employment cost index called for an increase of 1.8 percent. We are currently reviewing all military pays and benefits, and may offer further proposals.”
Fox spoke directly to the “COLA-minus-one” or “CPI-minus-one” provision included as part of the Bipartisan Budget Act. The provision required capping cost-of-living raises in retirement pay for working-age military retirees at 1 percent below inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index.
“To my knowledge, no DOD officials were consulted on the details of the BBA, including the CPI-minus-one provision,” she said. “The department fully supported the changes made to the provision to exempt military disability retirement and survivors.”
The department does support a comprehensive review of this provision, the acting deputy defense secretary said, including its effect on retirees not currently exempted. “If the Congress decides to retain the CPI-minus-one approach, we strongly recommend it be modified to include ‘grandfathering,’” she said.
Fox called on Congress to refrain from changing military retirement until the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission presents its final report in February 2015.
“There are many ways we might change military retirement, including more fundamental reforms,” she said. “Because the CPI-minus-one provision does not go into effect until December 2015, there is ample time for such a careful review, including waiting for the commission to provide its input.”
Sunday, September 22, 2013
DETAILS OF 2014 SEQUESTRATION PRESENTED BEFORE HOUSE PANEL
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Service Chiefs Detail 2014 Sequestration Effects
By Cheryl Pellerin
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Sept. 19, 2013 - One after another yesterday in a hearing before a House panel, the nation's service chiefs described how severe budget cuts required by law in fiscal year 2014 would slash their forces, capabilities and readiness and raise security risks to the American people.
The House Armed Services Committee heard testimony on planning for sequestration in fiscal 2014 from Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Welsh III and Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James F. Amos.
Sequestration is the name for a decade-long series of severe budget cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011 that amount to $470 billion taken from defense spending in addition to an equivalent cut that already was planned.
In fiscal 2013 the cuts, implemented only in the last half of the year and leading to six furlough days for DOD civilian employees, were $37 billion. In fiscal 2014 they are estimated to be $52 billion.
It is imperative to preserve the range of strategic options for the commander in chief, the secretary of defense, and Congress, Odierno told the panel.
"Together," the general said, "we must ensure our Army can deliver a trained and ready force that deters conflict but when necessary has the capability and capacity to execute a sustained successful major combat operation. The Budget Control Act with sequestration simply does not allow us to do this."
If Congress does not act to mitigate the magnitude and speed of reductions with sequestration, Odierno said, the Army will not be able to fully execute requirements of the defense strategic guidance issued in 2012.
By the end of fiscal 2014, the Army will have significantly degraded readiness, as 85 percent of active and reserve brigade combat teams will be unprepared for contingency requirements, he said.
From fiscal 2014 to fiscal 2017, as the Army continues to draw down and is restructured into a smaller force, its readiness will continue to degrade and modernization programs will experience extensive shortfalls, the general added.
"We'll be required to end, restructure or delay over 100 acquisition programs, putting at risk the ground combat vehicle program, the armed aerial scout, the production and modernization of our other aviation programs, system upgrades for unmanned aerial vehicles, and the modernization of air defense command-and-control systems, just to name a few," Odierno told the panel.
Only in fiscal 2018 to fiscal 2023 will the Army begin to rebalance readiness and remodernization, the general said, but this will come at the expense of significant reductions in the Army's number of soldiers and its force structure.
The Army will be forced to take further cuts from a wartime high of 570,000 soldiers in the active Army, 358,000 in the Army National Guard and 205,000 in the Army Reserve to no more than 420,000 in the active Army, 315,000 in the Army National Guard and 185,000 in the Army Reserve, the general said.
This represents a total Army end-strength reduction of more than 18 percent over seven years, a 26 percent reduction in the active Army, a 12 percent reduction in the Army National Guard and a 9 percent reduction in the Army Reserve, he explained, adding that it also will cause a 45-percent reduction in active Army brigade combat teams.
"In my view, these reductions will put at substantial risk our ability to conduct even one sustained major combat operation," Odierno said.
Today's international environment and its emerging threats require a joint force with a ground component that has the capability and the capacity to deter and compel adversaries who threaten our national security interests," he said. "Sequestration severely threatens our ability to do this."
The Army is increasing its investment in the cyber domain, however, the general said, adding at least 1,800 people to that effort.. And noting that the Army provides intelligence not only for the Army, but also for the broader strategic and operational force -- he said Army officials are reviewing how they do that, but that the primacy of what it does in the intelligence community will not change.
In his comments to the panel, Greenert said sequestration also would reduce readiness in the Navy's preparations for fiscal 2014, its impacts realized mainly in operations and maintenance and in investments.
"There are several operational impacts, but the most concerning to me is that reductions in operations and maintenance accounts are going to result in having only one nondeployed carrier strike group and one amphibious ready group trained and ready for surge operations," Greenert said.
"We have a covenant with the global combatant commanders and the national command authority," he told the panel. "We provide carrier strike groups forward ready on deployment, and that's generally two. We have two to three, generally three, ready to respond within about 14 days. And then we have about three within 60 to 90 days. That's what we've signed up to. That's called the fleet response plan. That has to change now."
The Navy also will be forced to cancel maintenance, inevitably leading to reduced life for ships and aircraft, he said, adding that the service will conduct only safety-essential renovation of facilities, further increasing the maintenance backlog.
The Navy probably will be compelled to keep a hiring freeze in place for most of its civilian positions, Greenert added, affecting the spectrum and balance of the civilian force.
Because the Navy will not be able to use prior-year funds to mitigate sequestration cuts in its investment accounts as it could in fiscal 2013, without congressional action it will lose at least a Virginia-class submarine, a littoral combat ship, and an afloat forward-staging base, the admiral said.
"We will be forced to delay the delivery of the next aircraft carrier, the Ford, and will delay the mid-life overhaul of the George Washington aircraft carrier. Also we'll cancel procurement of 11 tactical aircraft," he noted.
Greenert said the Navy needs to transfer $1 billion into its operations and maintenance account by January and $1 billion into its procurement accounts post-sequestration to get shipbuilding back on track and to meet its essential needs.
"Other deliveries of programs and weapon systems may be delayed regardless," he added, "depending on the authority that we are granted to reapportion funds between accounts."
On the topics of nuclear deterrence and cyber, Greenert said, "My job is to provide strategic nuclear deterrence, safe and credible, No. 1. Right behind that is cyber. ... We are staying the course on our cyber warrior plan that we've briefed in here. Through any budget scenario ... we have got to maintain that."
In his remarks, Welsh told the panel that if sequestration stays in place in fiscal 2014, the Air Force will be forced to cut flying hours by up to 15 percent.
"Within three to four months, many of our flying units will be unable to maintain mission readiness," he said. "We'll cancel or significantly curtail major exercises again, and we'll reduce our initial pilot production targets."
Over the long term, sequestration will significantly affect the service's force structure, readiness and modernization, Welsh said, adding that over the next five years the service could be forced to cut up to 25,000 total force airmen, or about 4 percent of its people.
"We also will probably have to cut up to 550 aircraft, about 9 percent of our inventory," the general said. "And to achieve the necessary savings in aircraft force structure, we'll be forced to divest entire fleets of aircraft."
To determine the proper force structure, the Air Force will prioritize global, long-range capabilities and multirole platforms needed to operate in a highly contested environment. Other platforms will be at risk, the general said.
"We plan to protect readiness to the maximum extent possible [and to] prioritize full-spectrum training, because if we're not ready for all possible scenarios, we'll be forced to accept what I believe is unnecessary risk, which means we may not get there in time, it may take the joint team longer to win, and our people will be placed at greater risk," Welsh added.
Air Force modernization and recapitalization forecasts will be bleak if sequestration continues, he said, affecting every program.
"We will favor recapitalization over modernization whenever that decision is required," he said. "That's why our top three acquisition priorities will remain the KC-46, the F-35, and the long-range strike bomber."
The U.S. Air Force is the best in the world and a vital piece of the world's best military team, the general said, "but the impacts are going to be significant, and the risk occurs from readiness in the ways it impacts our airmen."
In his remarks to the panel, Amos said that for the Marine Corps to meet requirements of the defense strategic guidance it needs 186,800 active-duty Marines to meet steady-state requirements, go to war, and preserve a 1-to-3 ratio of deployed time to home-station time for Marines.
"Our share of the 2011 Budget Control Act's $487 billion reduction cut our end strength to 182,000," he said. "Based on sequestration, I simply cannot afford a force that size." Sequestration will force the Marines to plow through scarce resources, funding old equipment and weapon systems to try to keep them functional, the general said.
The Marines will be forced to reduce or cancel modernization programs and infrastructure investments to maintain readiness for deployed and next-to-deploy units, he said. Money that should be available for procuring new equipment will be rerouted to maintenance and spare accounts for legacy equipment, including a 42-year-old Nixon-era amphibious assault vehicle, he added.
In February, the Marines initiated a parallel study to the Defense Department's Strategic Choices and Management Review, Amos said.
"Our exhaustive research, backed by independent analysis, determined that a force of 174,000 Marines is the smallest force that can meet mission requirements. This is a force with levels of risk that are minimally acceptable," he said.
"For instance," he added, "assuming that global requirements for Marine forces remain the same over the foreseeable future, a force of 174,000 will drive the Marine Corps to a 1-to-2 dwell –[ratio] for virtually all Marine units -- gone six months, home 12 months, gone six months."
A force of that size accepts risk when the nation commits itself to the next major theater war, Amos said. The Marines would have 11 fewer combat arms battalions and 14 fewer aircraft squadrons.
"This is a single Marine major contingency operation force that would deploy and fight until the war's end," the general said. "In other words, we would come home when the war was over."
Marines who joined the corps during that period likely would go from drill field to battlefield, he added. Across the joint force, America would start to see shortfalls in the military's ability to accomplish its national strategy.
"Today we are seeing only the tip of the iceberg," Amos said. "Tomorrow's Marines will face violent extremism, battles for influence and natural disasters. Developing states and nonstate actors will acquire new technology and advanced conventional weapons that will challenge our ability to project power and gain access."
To be effective in the new environment, he said, Marines must maintain their forward influence, strategic mobility, power projection, and rapid response capabilities they are known for today.
Service Chiefs Detail 2014 Sequestration Effects
By Cheryl Pellerin
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Sept. 19, 2013 - One after another yesterday in a hearing before a House panel, the nation's service chiefs described how severe budget cuts required by law in fiscal year 2014 would slash their forces, capabilities and readiness and raise security risks to the American people.
The House Armed Services Committee heard testimony on planning for sequestration in fiscal 2014 from Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Welsh III and Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James F. Amos.
Sequestration is the name for a decade-long series of severe budget cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011 that amount to $470 billion taken from defense spending in addition to an equivalent cut that already was planned.
In fiscal 2013 the cuts, implemented only in the last half of the year and leading to six furlough days for DOD civilian employees, were $37 billion. In fiscal 2014 they are estimated to be $52 billion.
It is imperative to preserve the range of strategic options for the commander in chief, the secretary of defense, and Congress, Odierno told the panel.
"Together," the general said, "we must ensure our Army can deliver a trained and ready force that deters conflict but when necessary has the capability and capacity to execute a sustained successful major combat operation. The Budget Control Act with sequestration simply does not allow us to do this."
If Congress does not act to mitigate the magnitude and speed of reductions with sequestration, Odierno said, the Army will not be able to fully execute requirements of the defense strategic guidance issued in 2012.
By the end of fiscal 2014, the Army will have significantly degraded readiness, as 85 percent of active and reserve brigade combat teams will be unprepared for contingency requirements, he said.
From fiscal 2014 to fiscal 2017, as the Army continues to draw down and is restructured into a smaller force, its readiness will continue to degrade and modernization programs will experience extensive shortfalls, the general added.
"We'll be required to end, restructure or delay over 100 acquisition programs, putting at risk the ground combat vehicle program, the armed aerial scout, the production and modernization of our other aviation programs, system upgrades for unmanned aerial vehicles, and the modernization of air defense command-and-control systems, just to name a few," Odierno told the panel.
Only in fiscal 2018 to fiscal 2023 will the Army begin to rebalance readiness and remodernization, the general said, but this will come at the expense of significant reductions in the Army's number of soldiers and its force structure.
The Army will be forced to take further cuts from a wartime high of 570,000 soldiers in the active Army, 358,000 in the Army National Guard and 205,000 in the Army Reserve to no more than 420,000 in the active Army, 315,000 in the Army National Guard and 185,000 in the Army Reserve, the general said.
This represents a total Army end-strength reduction of more than 18 percent over seven years, a 26 percent reduction in the active Army, a 12 percent reduction in the Army National Guard and a 9 percent reduction in the Army Reserve, he explained, adding that it also will cause a 45-percent reduction in active Army brigade combat teams.
"In my view, these reductions will put at substantial risk our ability to conduct even one sustained major combat operation," Odierno said.
Today's international environment and its emerging threats require a joint force with a ground component that has the capability and the capacity to deter and compel adversaries who threaten our national security interests," he said. "Sequestration severely threatens our ability to do this."
The Army is increasing its investment in the cyber domain, however, the general said, adding at least 1,800 people to that effort.. And noting that the Army provides intelligence not only for the Army, but also for the broader strategic and operational force -- he said Army officials are reviewing how they do that, but that the primacy of what it does in the intelligence community will not change.
In his comments to the panel, Greenert said sequestration also would reduce readiness in the Navy's preparations for fiscal 2014, its impacts realized mainly in operations and maintenance and in investments.
"There are several operational impacts, but the most concerning to me is that reductions in operations and maintenance accounts are going to result in having only one nondeployed carrier strike group and one amphibious ready group trained and ready for surge operations," Greenert said.
"We have a covenant with the global combatant commanders and the national command authority," he told the panel. "We provide carrier strike groups forward ready on deployment, and that's generally two. We have two to three, generally three, ready to respond within about 14 days. And then we have about three within 60 to 90 days. That's what we've signed up to. That's called the fleet response plan. That has to change now."
The Navy also will be forced to cancel maintenance, inevitably leading to reduced life for ships and aircraft, he said, adding that the service will conduct only safety-essential renovation of facilities, further increasing the maintenance backlog.
The Navy probably will be compelled to keep a hiring freeze in place for most of its civilian positions, Greenert added, affecting the spectrum and balance of the civilian force.
Because the Navy will not be able to use prior-year funds to mitigate sequestration cuts in its investment accounts as it could in fiscal 2013, without congressional action it will lose at least a Virginia-class submarine, a littoral combat ship, and an afloat forward-staging base, the admiral said.
"We will be forced to delay the delivery of the next aircraft carrier, the Ford, and will delay the mid-life overhaul of the George Washington aircraft carrier. Also we'll cancel procurement of 11 tactical aircraft," he noted.
Greenert said the Navy needs to transfer $1 billion into its operations and maintenance account by January and $1 billion into its procurement accounts post-sequestration to get shipbuilding back on track and to meet its essential needs.
"Other deliveries of programs and weapon systems may be delayed regardless," he added, "depending on the authority that we are granted to reapportion funds between accounts."
On the topics of nuclear deterrence and cyber, Greenert said, "My job is to provide strategic nuclear deterrence, safe and credible, No. 1. Right behind that is cyber. ... We are staying the course on our cyber warrior plan that we've briefed in here. Through any budget scenario ... we have got to maintain that."
In his remarks, Welsh told the panel that if sequestration stays in place in fiscal 2014, the Air Force will be forced to cut flying hours by up to 15 percent.
"Within three to four months, many of our flying units will be unable to maintain mission readiness," he said. "We'll cancel or significantly curtail major exercises again, and we'll reduce our initial pilot production targets."
Over the long term, sequestration will significantly affect the service's force structure, readiness and modernization, Welsh said, adding that over the next five years the service could be forced to cut up to 25,000 total force airmen, or about 4 percent of its people.
"We also will probably have to cut up to 550 aircraft, about 9 percent of our inventory," the general said. "And to achieve the necessary savings in aircraft force structure, we'll be forced to divest entire fleets of aircraft."
To determine the proper force structure, the Air Force will prioritize global, long-range capabilities and multirole platforms needed to operate in a highly contested environment. Other platforms will be at risk, the general said.
"We plan to protect readiness to the maximum extent possible [and to] prioritize full-spectrum training, because if we're not ready for all possible scenarios, we'll be forced to accept what I believe is unnecessary risk, which means we may not get there in time, it may take the joint team longer to win, and our people will be placed at greater risk," Welsh added.
Air Force modernization and recapitalization forecasts will be bleak if sequestration continues, he said, affecting every program.
"We will favor recapitalization over modernization whenever that decision is required," he said. "That's why our top three acquisition priorities will remain the KC-46, the F-35, and the long-range strike bomber."
The U.S. Air Force is the best in the world and a vital piece of the world's best military team, the general said, "but the impacts are going to be significant, and the risk occurs from readiness in the ways it impacts our airmen."
In his remarks to the panel, Amos said that for the Marine Corps to meet requirements of the defense strategic guidance it needs 186,800 active-duty Marines to meet steady-state requirements, go to war, and preserve a 1-to-3 ratio of deployed time to home-station time for Marines.
"Our share of the 2011 Budget Control Act's $487 billion reduction cut our end strength to 182,000," he said. "Based on sequestration, I simply cannot afford a force that size." Sequestration will force the Marines to plow through scarce resources, funding old equipment and weapon systems to try to keep them functional, the general said.
The Marines will be forced to reduce or cancel modernization programs and infrastructure investments to maintain readiness for deployed and next-to-deploy units, he said. Money that should be available for procuring new equipment will be rerouted to maintenance and spare accounts for legacy equipment, including a 42-year-old Nixon-era amphibious assault vehicle, he added.
In February, the Marines initiated a parallel study to the Defense Department's Strategic Choices and Management Review, Amos said.
"Our exhaustive research, backed by independent analysis, determined that a force of 174,000 Marines is the smallest force that can meet mission requirements. This is a force with levels of risk that are minimally acceptable," he said.
"For instance," he added, "assuming that global requirements for Marine forces remain the same over the foreseeable future, a force of 174,000 will drive the Marine Corps to a 1-to-2 dwell –[ratio] for virtually all Marine units -- gone six months, home 12 months, gone six months."
A force of that size accepts risk when the nation commits itself to the next major theater war, Amos said. The Marines would have 11 fewer combat arms battalions and 14 fewer aircraft squadrons.
"This is a single Marine major contingency operation force that would deploy and fight until the war's end," the general said. "In other words, we would come home when the war was over."
Marines who joined the corps during that period likely would go from drill field to battlefield, he added. Across the joint force, America would start to see shortfalls in the military's ability to accomplish its national strategy.
"Today we are seeing only the tip of the iceberg," Amos said. "Tomorrow's Marines will face violent extremism, battles for influence and natural disasters. Developing states and nonstate actors will acquire new technology and advanced conventional weapons that will challenge our ability to project power and gain access."
To be effective in the new environment, he said, Marines must maintain their forward influence, strategic mobility, power projection, and rapid response capabilities they are known for today.
Friday, October 12, 2012
ARMY GENERAL MARTIN E. DEMPSEY SAYS ROLES OF SERVICES CHANGING
Land, Sea Roles Changing, Dempsey Says
By Claudette Roulo
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Oct. 10, 2012 - While the Navy's aircraft carrier fleet is sized correctly to carry out its mission, land forces are facing "significant changes," Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said here today.
"At this point in time, I believe we've got what we need," Dempsey said in response to questions following his speech at a National Press Club luncheon.
After the Budget Control Act of 2011 imposed about $500 billion in defense spending cuts over 10 years, he said, the Defense Department had to examine its strategic positions.
"Strategy that's not sensitive to resources is nothing more than rhetoric," he said. "There's always this balance between ends, ways and means. So the means changed. We had to take a look at the ends and the ways."
Part of that strategy includes a rebalancing of forces in the Asia-Pacific region, he said.
The Pacific is largely a maritime domain, the chairman said. "You've got to go a long way before you find anything with dirt on it," he noted. This makes the Navy and its capabilities crucial to the region, he said, at the same time they're doing a "remarkable" job of meeting defense needs in the Gulf.
In addition, the Navy has successfully balanced that mission with the maintenance requirements inherent to a nuclear fleet, he continued, but there's always the question of what's next.
"Is it something smaller? ... Is it something submersible?" he asked, noting the Navy's asymmetric advantage under the sea.
As U.S. strategy evolves, the Defense Department will attempt to answer those questions while continuing to examine the makeup of the fleet, he said, but at least until 2020, he believes the carrier fleet is what the United States needs.
As the chairman of the joint force, Dempsey said, he likes having four different service chiefs around the table. The Navy's role in the future force, he added, is just one part of a larger picture.
The idea that land forces are no longer necessary is a bad one, the chairman said. "I'm not in the camp that says, 'You know, you'll never fight another significantly big land conflict,'" he added, noting that the nature of land combat is changing.
When he entered the Army during the Cold War, Dempsey said, it was built by assembling the large organizations first -- the corps and divisions. "And then we said to ourselves, 'If we need something less than that, we'll disaggregate it,'" he said.
"I think that the era we're entering now requires us to think exactly the opposite," Dempsey said. "That is to say, we need to think about empowering the squad -- the 10-man group of individuals with everything we can empower them with -- and then figure out how to grow it from the bottom up."
That will take land forces in a different direction, he said, not just in the way they're designed, but also in the way they're equipped and trained.
"There are some significant changes coming ... in the way we think about building our land component," Dempsey said. "And I would suggest it's not from the top down, but rather from the bottom up."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)