Gen. Odierno says the Army is 'dangerously close' to being cut too deep. Do you agree with his assessment?

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:11:39 -0400

If this is how he feels, than why is he stressing this point now and not sooner?
--
As the Army prepares to cut 40,000 more soldiers in order to fit into a shrinking budget, the service is in danger of becoming too small for an increasingly dangerous world, the Army’s top officer said, and that may embolden our enemies to act.

“If we get small enough where some of these [world] leaders don’t believe the Army can respond or deter them, if you can’t ... deter them from believing they can accomplish something ... that increases the threats and danger to the United States,” Odierno said in an exclusive sit-down with Army Times. “And I don’t know what that level is, but I think we’re getting dangerously close to that level now.”

Since 2012, the Army has cut 80,000 soldiers and shut down 13 brigade combat teams, including two in Germany and one in South Korea, to reach an end-strength of 490,000.

The service will cut 40,000 more soldiers for an end-strength of 450,000 by the end of fiscal year 2018; another 30,000 soldiers could be forced to go if sequestration returns in fiscal 2016, which begins Oct. 1.

“There are a lot of things boiling in a lot of different places,” Odierno said. “What you don’t know is when something boils over. You have to have the capability to respond, and that’s the issue.”

More than 177,000 soldiers were deployed, forward stationed or assigned to more than 150 countries on at least five of the world's continents as of the end of July.

The Army is engaged around the world, including in places that just a couple years ago were not part of the immediate, overall plan, Odierno said.

“There wasn’t much discussion about Russia. In fact, nobody talked about going back to Iraq. There was no ISIL,” he said. “We’re trying to work all these issues simultaneously, and you have to have enough size to respond when something goes bad. That’s the concern.”

Odierno, who on Aug. 14 will complete his tenure as the chief of staff and retire after almost 40 years in uniform, highlighted a rather lengthy list of security concerns during the interview.

Some on his list are expected: the “new, aggressive Russia,” where the Army has dedicated about 2,500 troops to Operation Atlantic Resolve, an ongoing series of training exercises to assure and work with NATO allies in the region; the growing threat in China; and that unpredictable dictator in North Korea.

But the Army also is dealing with the Middle East, where the threat is not just confined to the Islamic State, Odierno said.

“You have the underlying Sunni-Shia fight that really is the underlying factor that’s driving this,” he said, adding that centuries-old divide spans Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, Bahrain and elsewhere.

“There’s this conflict that boiling underneath that’s a concern in the Middle East,” he said.

Just this week, Yemen's al-Qaida branch captured three towns near the southern port city of Aden where pro-government forces have been advancing against Shiite rebels, the Associated Press reported. Yemen's armed forces have splintered over the conflict with the Shiite rebels, creating a security vacuum in some parts of the impoverished country, the AP reported.

In Syria, clashes between members of al-Qaida's branch there and a rebel faction in the country's north believed to have been trained by the U.S. government have stopped after the rebels abandoned their headquarters, the AP reported. The Nusra Front has released video showing one of the captured rebels, and it comes just days after the U.S. and Turkey announced the outlines of a deal to help rebels push the Islamic State back from a strip of territory it controls along the Syrian-Turkish border, according to the AP.

More than 2,900 soldiers are deployed to Iraq, Jordan and elsewhere in the region to bolster the fight against the Islamic State, including training and advising Iraqi troops as well as moderate Syrian rebels.

On Aug. 5, the Army announced it would send the III Corps headquarters to Kuwait to oversee the fight there as part of Operation Inherent Resolve.

There’s also Afghanistan and the Taliban, which just confirmed the death of its longtime leader Mullah Mohammad Omar and appointed his successor as a new round of peace talks was postponed amid concerns over how committed the new leadership is to ending the militant group's 14-year insurgency, the AP reported.

The selection of Mullah Akhtar Mansoor, who was Mullah Omar's deputy, as the Taliban's new leader has already reportedly caused a rift within the group, especially between fighters who favor negotiations with the Afghan government and those who want to continue an insurgency, according to the AP.

The U.S. Army has more than 7,500 soldiers supporting the Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan; another 13,000 or so are deployed to support Operation Spartan Shield, which includes Kuwait, Qatar and Jordan.

There also are hot spots in Africa to include Libya and terrorist elements in central Africa, Odierno said.

“I am deeply worried about Libya because I believe that you’re starting to see a migration across the Egyptian desert into Libya, connected, potentially, to Syria and Iraq, and now you start to see this big connection,” he said. “It’s something we have to be concerned with. The work that’s going on in Africa is very important.”

Libya has plunged into chaos since the 2011 overthrow and death of dictator Moammar Gadhafi, leaving the country with two parliaments and two governments, along with rival militaries and militias, according to the Associated Press. The power struggle and fierce fighting has paved the way for the Islamic State group to expand in Libya. In 2012, an attack on the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi killed four Americans, including U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens.

In Africa, more than 1,700 soldiers are working with countries such as Ghana, Cameroon, Zambia, Ethiopia, Chad, Niger and Morocco on theater security cooperation events, exercises and other events.

The Army also has troops in South America, including the long-standing Joint Task Force-Bravo in Honduras, and troops conducting exercises and training in places such as Guatemala and El Salvador.

The issues facing Southern Command also are a concern, Odierno said.

“Nobody ever talks about SOUTHCOM, but I worry about the networks that have been established over the years,” he said. “Most of these networks have been established to move drugs into North America, but, frankly, they can traffic just about anything, and that’s of great concern to us.”

These challenges around the world are all difficult problems to face, Odierno said.

“I worry about our capability to meet all these different challenges as we move forward,” he said. “And I worry about the long-term impact increased requirements and reduced resources are going to have our soldiers. The op-tempo will continue, but I always worry if they are going to be trained to the levels that we expect them to be trained.”

'The budget is going down'

This is why the Army must make sure the force it has is the “best Army possible,” Odierno said.

“One that’s incredibly capable and able to move quickly and work with our allies and partners to shoulder these problems around the world,” he said. “Whether we like it or not, the budget is going down.”

The Army has been in transition ever since Odierno became the chief in September 2011.

“We were coming out of two wars, Iraq completely and Afghanistan significantly reduced, and the Army was in the process of transitioning itself with budget reductions and other things in terms of reducing the size of the Army,” Odierno said. “Then we really had to reorient ourselves with what we want the Army to look like in the future.”

Despite that backdrop, the Army was able to sustain and meet its commitments, Odierno said.

“And frankly, those commitments have started to grow because of the continued increase in instability that we’re seeing around the world,” he said. “But the Army has continued to be able to respond and ensure that our soldiers are prepared to do what we ask them to do.”

The Army also reorganized itself in a massive effort not seen since World War II, reworking everything from its brigade combat teams and sustainment structure to its divisions and fires capabilities.

It also has produced an Army Operating Concept that forms the framework of what the Army should look like and how it should fight in the future, Odierno said.

This includes developing a new leader development strategy that has allowed the Army to grow smart, flexible noncommissioned officers and officers, and creating a modernization program that identifies gaps and seams to better help leaders understand where they should invest time and money.

“We’re going to have to fight in a multinational, interagency way, and we have to be a more flexible, adaptable, capable Army, and we have to be able to tailor and scale our capabilities to deploy simultaneously,” he said. “In the past 20 to 30 years, we’ve focused on one specific enemy, whether it be the Soviet Union, then it kind of became Iraq, al-Qaida. With the way the world is today, the way it’s moving, we have to be able to do many different things at one time.”

A dose of optimism

Despite the many challenges, Odierno said the Army should be excited about its future.

“We’ve been able to meet our current commitments, we’ve done it under budget constraints and with an Army that has downsized 80,000 soldiers and getting ready to [lose] 40,000 more, and we’ve been able to look to the future and really establish a way ahead that’s really solid,” Odierno said.

A large reason for that success is soldiers’ ability to adapt, Odierno said.

“We’re in the process of really starting to develop an Army that’s capable of facing what we call a hybrid threat, one that’s got some counter-insurgency and what we call high-end threats,” he said. “It really gives me a lot of faith and confidence in the leaders we have. They’re continuing to perform superbly across a broad range of missions.”

New leadership

Gen. Mark Milley, commander of Forces Command, will succeed Odierno. The Senate confirmed Milley’s nomination on Aug. 5.

A series of challenges awaits Milley in his new role.

“Unfortunately, none of the issues have gone away,” Odierno said. “Sequestration is not yet resolved, and I’m not seeing much progress right now in that being resolved, but our missions are increasing. I think that’s the biggest challenge Gen. Milley will have going forward. The requirements are going up, but the dollars are going down.”

As threats grow and resources diminish, “very difficult decisions have to be made,” Odierno said, adding that he had hoped to be able to resolve the Army’s drawdown before he retired.

“I was disappointed,” he said. “I thought maybe I would be able to resolve this, and we would know where we are and we could start focusing on capabilities we want our Army to have instead of what size the Army should be. But I think that’s going to continue for the next several years.”

As for his next step, Odierno and his wife plan to move to Pinehurst, North Carolina.

“It’s a small, relaxing community, then I’ll decide what I’m going to do,” he said. “I’m not going to retire, retire, but I have not decided yet what I’m going to do.”

He has loved every job he’s had in the Army, including as the Army's top general, Odierno said.

“I have felt so honored the last four years to be chief of staff, because every day I’m just taken by the sacrifice and the commitment of our soldiers and their families, and how much they’ve given, and how much they continue to give, and how much they care about each other and care about the mission,” he said. “That’s what makes this job worthwhile.”

Odierno said he’ll “never forget” the troops he served with and alongside, especially during his multiple deployments to Iraq.

“The Army is about soldiers, it’s about people, and those interactions and the sacrifice they make, those are things we’ll never forget,” Odierno said. “It’s been a distinct honor.”

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/08/10/odierno-army-dangerously-close-being-cut-too-deep/31226803/

Odierno: Army 'dangerously close' to being cut too deep

As the Army cuts 40,000 soldiers, the service is in danger of becoming too small for an increasingly volatile world, the Army's top officer said.

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Aug 10 at 2015 9:14 AM

SGT Ben Keen — Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:14:23 -0400

I think he held his tongue publicly until he felt the need to do so. While I don't have the overall numbers, I would agree with him that the Army may have limited it's numbers or is getting to the point of doing so, that could result in some harsh conditions when it comes to maintaining the war-fighter strength and personnel management numbers.

Response by Sgt David G Duchesneau made Aug 10 at 2015 9:30 AM

Sgt David G Duchesneau — Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:30:03 -0400

The General is absolutely right. And don't think for one minute that our enemies like ISIS don't know this. And everyone is worried about ISIS striking us here at home? No wonder with all of this information out there in the media. This really sucks! All I can say is WTF-Over!

Response by SGT Kristjan Rahe made Aug 10 at 2015 9:31 AM

SGT Kristjan Rahe — Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:31:29 -0400

The Army as all the DoD, has been stressed and stretched to the breaking point. We have leaders that believe everything can be solved by pushing a button. The threats have not lessened, just changed. We may not have needed a military of such size but to pusue pretty WWI size cannot be pursued ever again if we wish to maintain our standing in the world.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Aug 10 at 2015 9:38 AM

SSG Warren Swan — Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:38:44 -0400

He's right, but in the same breath, could we make due with what we have yes. I'll base that on the fact that after every war there is a serious drawdown and it always looks dire, but we survive just fine. Now in todays world, there seems to be a crisis every time we turn on the tv and someone in DC wants to deploy the troops there for some odd reason or another. Now if the military and the US are so cash strapped, wouldn't allowing some of these conflicts to be resolved by the local nation with support of their surrounding nations help us? Is America's foreign policy to get into every single mess, because someone's distant cousin is affected, and we need to send a BCT there to show our support? And what about the defense industry? How many billions did the F35 cost in overruns, and that's a big B in front of billions? How much more can we bleed into useless and overrun pet projects that could be better served reinvesting that money into the services themselves? Technology is a beautiful thing, but if there's no chance it's going to be used remotely in the next 20 years, why are we funding it now? Land Warrior, the robotic mule, that get up from Aliens, all looked cool, but no application now...well except the get up from Aliens. They had a paralyzed vet wearing something like it to help him walk. Reinvest in ourselves for a change. The money's there. Leave others alone and let them sort it out.

Response by SrA Daniel Hunter made Aug 10 at 2015 9:38 AM

SrA Daniel Hunter — Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:38:45 -0400

I think given the broad political divisions in the world right now, making any cuts in manpower is foolish. Fighting battles on two fronts (Afghanistan/Syria), attempting to avert war on three others (Europe-Ukraine-Russia/NK/China-Japan-Philippines) is hardly the time to draw down. Not to mention the likelihood that the battle in Yemen is likely to spread.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 10 at 2015 9:53 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:53:38 -0400

Billions have been wasted on things like the Future Combat Systems, which never bore any fruit; and the powers-that-be want to replace functional weapons systems with untried new "good idea fairy" concepts instead of improving what we have. Now, they want to replace the HUMVEE because it can't be a fast-attack/convoy defense vehicle like the M-1117. But why not buy more M-1117s and keep the HUMVEE, since we'll need a light utility truck regardless... and the M-1117 is perfectly capable. The HUMVEE was never meant to be a combat car, it was mis-applied and when it didn't work in the mis-applied role, they decided to scrap it while ignoring the proper vehicle.

Meanwhile, our enemies don't exactly have anti-gravity hovertanks that we need to worry about; even the best-equipped militaries we may be tasked to fight (China, Russia) are armed with one or two "showcase" divisions of high-tech stuff, but 90% of their equipment is 1970's-era stuff that's been constantly tinkered with. To defeat these people, we need lots of troops, rugged and capable vehicles, and good training. We don't need uber-high-tech sci-fi stuff, even if it does look cool.

So I don't think the problem is "cuts" or "the budget", it's how the money is being spent and where it is going. Our leaders are terrified that our 1990's technology won't be enough to overcome the enemy's... 1970's technology? Seriously?

Response by LTC John Shaw made Aug 10 at 2015 9:53 AM

LTC John Shaw — Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:53:50 -0400

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member Why the point is being made now is, there is a hope that in the budget cuts due to sequestration may be 'relieved' to get a deal between the Obama Administration and the Congress. The Congress is trying to hold to a budget and President Obama wants more domestic spending and is threating to veto the negotiated Defense budget to get it.
Perhaps the military leaders are doing this to give members of Congress cover to relax the spending 'cuts'.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Aug 10 at 2015 9:55 AM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:55:23 -0400

We have a nearly hollow force. Similar to the early 1980s. I doubt the current force size can accomplish the stated missions of the Army.

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 10 at 2015 10:50 AM

1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 10 Aug 2015 10:50:24 -0400

I am seeing the late 70's again for all services. It took a decade to fix the issues. The Marine Corps was extremely hard hit.

Response by 1SG Adais Garcia made Aug 10 at 2015 2:01 PM

1SG Adais Garcia — Mon, 10 Aug 2015 14:01:14 -0400

HOORAH I Concur with the General

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Aug 10 at 2015 3:13 PM

COL Vincent Stoneking — Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:13:01 -0400

Are you the Army during a drawdown? You cut too deep. It's what you do. Apologies to AllState.

Response by 1SG Michael Farrell made Aug 11 at 2015 1:13 AM

1SG Michael Farrell — Tue, 11 Aug 2015 01:13:42 -0400

Places where you can reasonably substitute technology for human beings are congressional and policy wonk favorites to build on. The big government contractors can get really rich that way, with r&d costs and overruns and increases and change orders. People, well, once you outfit them there's a real limited upside for increased cash flow and thus for profit. Unfortunately, human beings fight wars, not robots. We're learned the limits of air power and technology repeatedly; they enable you to use air power and technology better, but until some grunt is standing there with a rifle and the bad guys have decided to put down their weapons and surrender, the war doesn't end. Iraq didn't end by knocking down a statue or capturing Saddam; Afghanistan didn't end with the death of bin Laden nor with the death of Mullah Omar.

My own belief is relatively simple; the United States needs a force capable of deterring war or winning it quickly if one occurs. For 50 years we planned to fight two and a half wars, and then someone said we wouldn't have to do that again. Name was Cheney, I think. So, we are currently being forced by events and the blood lust of various chicken hawks to increase the war fighting capability in Iraq and perhaps put lots of troops on the ground to sort out Syria. We have a lobby pushing for war with Iran; we have North Korea being wonderful as usual. We have troops engaged in Africa, we have troops -- under-gunned and undermanned with allies of questionable strength and will in Europe -- with lots of commitments to lots of players in the worst tension there since the early 60s. We haven't paid attention to South America lately, and there are lots of problems there, just waiting to explode.

Now, the Pentagon screwed up the Army because they couldn't figure out how to fight 2 1/2 wars with an Army configured to fight 1 1/4. I have no idea how to get there from here, with enlistments and re-enlistments down in the middle of a draw down, but the Chief of Staff is right. The cupboard is bare. But someone needs to stop selling woof tickets and ask the bastards demanding military action to either fund it and man it or shut the hell up. In addition, in order to win, we need the robust economy, strong infrastructure, high quality education and continuous government conducted and financed scientific (natural and social) science research we had in 50s and 60s. That will take money, which means higher marginal tax rates. The Senate Democrats have introduced legislation to stop calling countries that have moved jobs overseas American companies with significant penalties for doing so...it's called making decisions about policy that benefit the country. Wanna guess which party is utterly opposed?

Response by SGT Charlie Steward made Aug 11 at 2015 2:48 PM

SGT Charlie Steward — Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:48:01 -0400

While I agree with Big O, they are cutting the wrong people. They need to start at the top with these Senior NCOs and Officers that have been coasting toward that sweet, sweet retirement in made up positions.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Aug 11 at 2015 3:33 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:33:42 -0400

Yes based on potential threats of China and Russia.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 23 at 2015 5:05 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 23 Sep 2015 17:05:23 -0400

CW3 Tiaqunia (TJ) Hayes, Yes, sir, I do.

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Sep 23 at 2015 6:17 PM

SGT Jerrold Pesz — Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:17:45 -0400

Yes. I agree.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Sep 23 at 2015 6:55 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:55:12 -0400

It is convenient and safe to discuss matters of Army size after the decisions of cut backs are already made.