Julian Barnes:Army Chief Calls for Rethink of Cuts: Rising Global Strife, Terror Threats and Ebola Crisis Put Pressure on Shrinking Military Ground Forces
http://online.wsj.com/articles/army-chief-calls-for-rethink-of-cuts-1411168293?mod=U.S._newsreel_7
WASHINGTON—The Army’s highest-ranking officer on Friday said the rapid spread of threats around the world and growing demands on the U.S. military should prompt a review of deep cuts scheduled in the size of America’s ground forces.
Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army chief of staff, said he had “grave concern about the size of the military,” particularly in light of a wave of new international problems, including Russian aggression in Europe, the rise of militancy in Iraq and the Ebola threat in Africa.
“Threats are increasing—they aren’t decreasing—and we have to make sure we are making the right decisions,” Gen. Odierno said.
Defense officials earlier this year made plans to shrink the U.S. Army to its smallest size since World War II, incorporating deep spending cuts that resulted from a bitter budget standoff between the administration and Congress.
The active-duty Army still has 510,000 service members. But the Army is due to shrink to 490,000 by the end of next year. Pentagon leaders are planning to cut the Army further, to 450,000 by the end of 2017 and potentially to 420,000 by the end of the decade.
“We have to look when enough is enough, and it is time to have that debate,” Gen. Odierno said.
In response to recent crises, the Army has been asked to send headquarters units to Europe and to deploy soldiers to Iraq and Liberia.
Gen. Odierno’s position is backed by many lawmakers and military advocates who consider the planned cuts untenable. But defense officials said that no reconsideration of the reduction currently is under way. Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, said the Pentagon is not now planning a review of its decisions on reducing the size of the Army.
“There is no intent right now to reconsider the manpower and end-strength requirements we laid before the Congress when we submitted the ’15 budget,” Adm. Kirby said.
Thomas Donnelly, a defense analyst at the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, said it could be a good time to review the decisions to cut the Army. Gen. Odierno’s arguments that demands on the Army were remaining high were “irrefutable,” Mr. Donnelly said. He added that political climate may be shifting enough to allow Congress to repeal the across-the-board spending cuts.
“The political climate is clearly different than it was a couple of months ago,” Mr. Donnelly said. “Is it different enough to force people to spend some money, particularly after the election? Maybe so.”
Jerry Hendrix, a defense analyst at the more liberal Center for a New American Security, said there are other military investments that could be more urgent than maintaining a large and very expensive land force.
While Mr. Hendrix, a retired Navy captain, doesn’t support cutting the Army to levels of 450,000 service members, he said the military needs to have money to buy things like directed-energy weapons and a new long-range bomber.
“We need to free up resources in the budget to make significant investments elsewhere,” he said. “To be able to free up those resources we need to draw down on things like the Army.”
Defense officials said high-level discussions of the next Pentagon budget submission, for the fiscal year 2016, haven’t yet begun. But many officials said neither the Ebola crisis in Africa nor the military campaign in Iraq is likely to put a long-term strain on the Army.
The one crisis that could shift Pentagon thinking is the effort to reassure allies in Europe, officials said.
The military has spent the years since the end of the Cold War trying to shrink its presence in Europe, bringing home Army units and closing European bases.
But the Ukraine crisis has forced the Army to increase its exercises and rotate additional units to Eastern European allies.
Officials said it isn’t clear if the new requirement will last for just a year or so, or if it will be a new long-term requirement for the Army to meet.
Comments are closed.
