| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Army to Slow Growth and Cut 6 National Guard Combat Brigades |
| 2006-01-19 |
| The Army announced yesterday that it will cut six National Guard combat brigades -- or up to 24,000 infantry and other combat troops -- as part of an effort to ease budgetary pressures and shift manpower into homeland defense missions. In addition to scaling back the guard's combat brigades to 28 from 34, the active-duty Army will add one fewer combat brigade than it had planned, ending up with 42 instead of 43, Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey told a Pentagon news briefing yesterday. As a result, the Army in coming years will grow to 70 instead of the anticipated 77 active-duty and National Guard combat brigades to respond to overseas and domestic contingencies, Harvey said. In 2003, the Army had 67 combat brigades, Army officials said. "This force structure we think is appropriate to the threat," Harvey said, explaining that the change resulted from a broad review of Pentagon strategy and resources that will be made public next month with the new defense budget. The changes suggest that budgetary pressures are exerting limits on the expensive manpower increases that the Army initiated in recent years in its struggle to meet demands in Iraq and Afghanistan. They also reflect recruiting difficulties, as well as a greater National Guard emphasis on homeland missions in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The six National Guard combat brigades -- 3,500-to-4,000-troop infantry and armor units at the core of the Army's war-fighting force -- will be replaced by brigades made up of engineers, military police, civil affairs soldiers, and other support troops "very appropriate for homeland defense missions," Harvey said. Still, some National Guard leaders strenuously objected to the cut in Guard combat forces, as well as an Army decision announced by Harvey yesterday to fund the National Guard at its current troop level -- 333,000 -- rather than the congressionally approved strength of 350,000. "The adjutants general all agree that we need to be at 350,000 . . . and indications are that this year we can get there again, so in our view that has to be funded up front," said Maj. Gen. Roger P. Lempke, president of the Adjutants General Association of the United States. Harvey said if the National Guard manages to recruit more members, the Army will fund them, but he did not indicate where the money would come from -- and Lempke and other Guard officials worry it would come from their existing budget. Curbing the growth in Army combat brigades could give troops less time than officials had hoped between war-zone rotations, officials said. The reduction of combat brigades "will put strain on the Guard even greater than it is today, because we will have to rotate more frequently," said retired Brig. Gen. Stephen M. Koper, president of the National Guard Association in Washington. Harvey said the Army has not yet been able to achieve its rotational goal for active-duty brigades of spending one year in a war zone and two years at home; instead units are spending 15 to 22 months at home, he said. On recruiting, Harvey said "the future looks promising" for meeting the enlistment target in 2006 after the Army fell short by about 7,000 soldiers last year. Yesterday, the Army said it is raising the age limit for active-duty enlistees from 35 to 40, and doubling the maximum cash enlistment bonus to $40,000 for active-duty recruits who choose a high-priority skill and will serve at least four years. |
| Posted by:lotp |
| #7 OP, with respect, the Army officers I talk with do not want the Army to expand rapidly, for several reasons. First and foremost in the short run is the training load that would entail - it would bleed dry our experienced NCOs from operations just when we need them the most in the field. I know that you and Cyber Sarge and others here know just how crucial our NCOs are to our operational success. Expanding the size of the Army right now would also have a retrograde effect on plans for Army transformation, because it would result in equipping the army, at great expense, with old technologies - necessary, because you have to train the newcomers in existing doctrine and equip them accordingly. That works against the rapid progress being made to transform both the equipment and the doctrine of the Army to face other-than-force-on-force operations. The Army's plan is to augment a highly professional force of soldiers at the current strength with sophisticated technologies that are true force multipliers. The UAVs we are currently using are the smallest tip of that iceberg. I occasionally get to see what the existing prototypes for other stuff looks like and can do, and it's truly a huge leap ahead of today's systems. Boots on the ground matter - a lot, sometimes - but ultimately it is not our numbers in uniform alone that are or will be our strategic advantage in the conflicts we face and are likely to face for the next decade or two. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-01-19 15:18 |
| #6 Patriot: They f***ed the dough away and continue to f*** it away on Katrina and Mayor Neeeegins chocolate sector. We can't even handle our affairs here at home. Not sure why we diddle in everyone elses stuff. Should walk softly and keep nukes ready and airborne at all times if we wish to survive our society through the 21st Century. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-01-19 14:27 |
| #5 This is a damned stupid beancounter proposal that's going to cause problems in the future. Whoever put this forward has never served in combat, and is nothing but a glorified accountant with mush for brains. We are going to need a much larger army - 60 to 70 brigades - to deal with the war against islamonazis, not a smaller one. The people in Washington don't want to spend money on the military - they'd much prefer wasting it on idiotic social programs, funding for all kinds of idiotic "research" and giving it away to people that will waste it worse than Washington can. This will do NOTHING to secure our borders or make us better able to react to another terrorist attack. All it will do is grease the palms of a bunch of criminals in the Washington "gimme" corps. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2006-01-19 14:21 |
| #4 S'okay. NaziFarkus is so tough he can enlist and cover, lh. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-01-19 12:05 |
| #3 the shift in the NG looks logical to me - having so many NG deployed in Iraq has NOT been good for the sustainability of that mission. OTOH, im not so sure about reducing the goal for active brigades from 43 to 42. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-01-19 11:31 |
| #2 No sympathy here Besoeker. Back in 1993 the active duty watched as pols in Washington cut their strength from over 750K to 482K. The lobbying work of the National Guard Bureau which is nearly autonomous, kept significant cuts from the force structure of the ANG. While funding kept flowing the guard was not improved in training and professionalism that the active force went through. Yep there are some that can keep up, but there are many who can not. The Guard has had to play real world these past couple of years and as a consequence is the one element that is really having a problem keeping its force structure manned. They've had to play cause their cuts which didn't happen had to be carried by the active force. The budget is pie chart. If you can't decrease one part of it, some other part pays. BTW, state duty and disaster relief seldom require infantry, armor, or artillery. What the governors really need is military police, transportation, engineers, medical, and other support skills. Those currently are in the Army Reserve rather than the National Guard structures. The NGB has spent a lot of political capital to keep the combat arms formations in house. The NGB looks out for its own interests. The history of that goes back to the early 20th century. On recruiting, Harvey said "the future looks promising" for meeting the enlistment target in 2006 after the Army fell short by about 7,000 soldiers last year. Again, lets remember that the Active Army ended fiscal year 2004 with 482,000 personnel, which was its Congressionally mandated limit, and fiscal year 2005 with 492,000 personnel. The 'difference' was the increase that Congress finally got around to authorizing three years after 9/11. You don't absorb 20,000 or more bodies in one year without having to take people out of the line to support the training base. |
| Posted by: Omereper Gravinter6631 2006-01-19 09:08 |
| #1 Harvey said the Army has not yet been able to achieve its rotational goal for active-duty brigades of spending one year in a war zone and two years at home; instead units are spending 15 to 22 months at home, he said. So, let me get this straight. The Harvey solution is to cut the number of available AC and RC deployers? Cutting the National Guard end strength, (which has the primary mission of state and local disaster relief.....) to increase the number of "brigades made up of engineers, MP's and CA soldiers, and other support troops very appropriate for homeland defense missions...?" I guess an 11B could never be trained to become an MP or a MRE tossing CA weenie. What was I thinking? Looks like a New Orleans and Iraqi billpayer to me. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-01-19 07:42 |