Big decisions, uncertain times - Army News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Army Times

Big decisions, uncertain times

The Army needs to add tens of thousands to its ranks, beef up its combat brigades and change the way it approaches future conflicts, a panel of military experts told Congress recently.

The three panelists — Tom Donnelly of the American Enterprise Institute, Andrew Krepinevich of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and Peter Mansoor, former adviser to Gen. David Petraeus — testified before the Senate Armed Services airland subcommittee at a March 26 hearing that focused on the future size, structure and equipping needs of the Army.

This was the first of two hearings Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., will hold on the issue as lawmakers prepare to deal with what could be dramatic cuts to military spending in President Barack Obama’s fiscal year 2010 budget.

“There is no question that the administration’s budget will confront us with some big decisions about how we will equip” and size the Army, Lieberman said.

No Army officials attended the hearing and it was unclear if any will attend the next hearing.

One of programs most likely to face cuts is the Army’s Future Combat Systems, a $200 billion effort to equip the future combat forces with a fleet of manned and unmanned vehicles all connected by a sophisticated communications network.

The Army is slated to begin fielding pieces of FCS technology, such as tiny unmanned aerial vehicles, by 2011. The Army plans to have the first FCS-equipped unit ready by 2015.

Despite the threat of budget cuts, all three experts agreed the Army’s active force should continue to grow beyond its current authorized end-strength of 547,400.

Donnelly proposed returning to a Cold War-era-size force of “a little bit less than 800,000” soldiers and about 200,000 Marines. He reasoned that the Pentagon needs a force that large to better handle its heavy deployment demands, give troops more time at home and deal with any unforeseen threats in the future.

Krepinevich and Mansoor proposed more conservative increases to bring the Army up to about 600,000 soldiers.

Adding more than 200,000 additional soldiers could mean a cost of about $30 billion per year on top of the $15 billion the Pentagon is paying each year to maintain the 91,000 increase to the Army and Marines.

“Our advantage does not lie in creating an ever-bigger Army and at ever-greater expense,” Krepinevich said.

Instead, the Army should focus on building its ability to train, advise and equip friendly forces of other nations to deal with problems in their own regions.

“That is our strong suit,” he said. “We should get the manpower of other countries involved, not our own.”

All the panelists recommended adding more combat forces to the current modular brigade combat team structure, starting with restoring the third infantry battalion each brigade combat team lost as part of the restructuring effort.

“They don’t have enough troops,” Mansoor said. “They lack the third maneuver unit, which almost every historical study would indicate is needed. “I think the Army made a good decision going to modular brigades and then designed them incorrectly.”

Both Mansoor and Krepinevich agreed that the Army needs to rethink its “expensive” FCS effort and to determine if such a sophisticated undertaking is even needed for current and future operational environments.

“It’s designed for high-end combat that no one at this table thinks is going to happen in the next two decades,” Krepinevich said.

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Ok., said he was skeptical of predictions outlining the type of fights America will find itself in future years since many have been wrong in the past.

“I don’t have faith in the accuracy of our crystal ball,” he said.