Lawmakers deplore 'frightening' state of Army readiness

Members of the House Armed Services Committee expressed concern Wednesday that the sustained combat in Iraq and Afghanistan has reduced the Army's ability to respond to any new conflict.

"The Army has degraded to an intolerable point," Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo., said. Recalling the so-called "hollow Army" that came out of 10 years of war in Vietnam, he said, "The parallels are alarming. We cannot afford to break the Army again."

Similar fears were voiced by members from both parties, including House Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee ranking member John McHugh, R-N.Y., who said the prepared remarks of the committee's lead witness, Army Chief of Staff George Casey, were "just downright frightening."

House Armed Services ranking member Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., conceded that the war is "wearing on our forces," but said that was no reason "to throw up our hands and give up."

Nonetheless, the overriding concerns of lawmakers were validated by Casey and Army Secretary Pete Geren, who told the panel the Army could not respond to another conflict as fast or as well as they would like.

"Today's Army is out of balance," said Casey, a four-star general. "The current demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply."

Although he believes "the next several decades will be ones of persistent conflict" and the Army cannot accurately predict when and where the next war will occur, Casey said, "we are consumed with meeting the demands of the current fight and are unable to provide ready forces as rapidly as necessary for other potential contingencies."

The general cited the "stress and strain" on soldiers, their families and Army support systems and said equipment is "wearing out at a far greater pace than expected."

He noted that the Army Reserve and National Guard "are performing an operational role for which they were neither originally designed nor resourced."

"Overall, our readiness is being consumed as fast as we can build it," Casey said.

And because combat forces returning from Iraq or Afghanistan must be prepared quickly for more counterinsurgency deployments and cannot train for a wider conflict, Geren said, "We could not, at the present time, respond to a full-spectrum conflict."

Despite the current readiness problems, the Army is prepared to restore the force's capability "with your help," Casey told the committee.

He described four "imperatives" that the Army is pursuing to do that: improving the way it sustains soldiers and their families, preparing the troops "to succeed in the current conflict," resetting the force by replacing or repairing worn-out equipment and giving the troops more rest between deployments and continuing to transform the force.

The transformation requires new methods of training, increasing the Army and reorganizing it into more mobile and flexible "modular" units and modernizing it with the Future Combat Systems' array of new weapons, he said.

While thanking the panel for efforts to boost funding to help meet the Army's needs, Casey and Geren urged lawmakers to ensure that the continuing resolution that Congress expects to pass soon has enough money to support the Army's current operations and procurement needs.