Chiefs voice concerns over readiness of U.S.-based forces

The chiefs of the Army and Marine Corps on Tuesday reiterated their concerns about the readiness levels of their non-deployed combat units, stating that equipment shortfalls affect their ability to train and respond to any new threats.

The White House's plan to send 21,500 additional troops into Iraq will put additional pressure on units in the United States, they said.

"We are in a dangerous, uncertain and unpredictable time," Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker said during a House Armed Services Committee hearing. "As we continue to face our worldwide mission and prepare to increase our commitment in Iraq, we face challenges that exceed the level of demand envisioned in the recent quadrennial review of defense strategy."

Their statements Tuesday are likely to help House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha, D-Pa., who is considering imposing limits on the president's war options.

Murtha has been weighing the inclusion of language in the next wartime supplemental spending bill that would make any additional troop deployments to Iraq contingent on the readiness levels of U.S.-based ground forces. Such a restriction would effectively prevent less-than-ready units from being sent on combat missions overseas.

But in their testimony, Schoomaker and Marine Corps Commandant James Conway emphasized that they support the White House's so-called surge plan, which is intended to quell escalating violence in Baghdad and Anbar province. They also said that widely supported plans to significantly increase the overall size of the two services will help alleviate some of the pressures on the force.

"The recent decisions ... will help to establish the balance required to meet and sustain high levels of strategic demand for Army forces by providing additional means," Schoomaker said. Conway added that increasing Marine Corps end strength -- its authorized total personnel level -- will "go a long way" to decreasing the operational strains on his force.

The widely popular proposal for a permanent enlargement of the Army and Marine Corps comes with a hefty price tag -- estimated at $70 billion between fiscal 2009 and fiscal 2013 for the Army alone -- Lt. Gen. Stephen Speakes, the Army's deputy chief of staff for programs, told reporters at a breakfast meeting Tuesday.

The figure includes $18 billion to pay for equipment for the six new combat brigades the Army plans to add to its force over the next five years, as well as additional infrastructure and personnel costs. The Army plans to leverage war funding accounts to pay for those additional troops for the remainder of this fiscal year and fiscal 2008, before wrapping those continuing costs into the base budget in fiscal 2009, Speakes said.

The Army chief, who will retire soon, also chided Congress for failing last year to pass the fiscal 2006 emergency wartime supplemental on time.

"We will require access to supplemental funding for fiscal year 2007 by April, and possibly sooner, to sustain the Army," Schoomaker said. "We cannot repeat last year's near disastrous 'cash flow' experience and meet the increased operational demands facing us."

Last year, the Army received $36 billion out of a supplemental appropriations bill covering the last several months of fiscal 2006 in June, weeks after the service actually needed it to pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Pentagon will send a fiscal 2007 supplemental spending request to Capitol Hill next month.