Posted on Jul 26, 2015
What are your thoughts on what the next CSA has to say about our way-ahead?
4.07K
2
5
2
2
0
As General Milley prepares to take over as CSA, these are his thoughts and comments. What are your thoughts?
Milley’s concerns about the size of the Army didn’t surprise the Senate committee. Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, the committee chairman, shared the concern. “We are not cutting the Army because the world has become safer or threats to our security have been reduced. In fact, the opposite is true,” McCain said. “I believe there is no strategic rationale for the Army’s strength to fall below its pre-9/11 level of 490,000 troops.”
On key issues, Milley said:
The National Guard makes some good points in opposition to the Army’s aviation restructuring initiative. He still favors the shift but pledged to listen to recommendations from the ongoing Commission on the Future of the Army. That panel, headed by retired Army Gen. Carter F. Ham, will complete its work early next year.
Milley said he has worked closely with the National Guard and Army Reserve, and he doesn’t see a degeneration of working relationships between active and reserve component soldiers but he understands there has been tension in Washington, D.C. “From a personal perspective, there is one Army. That is what is says on our chest,” he said.
The issue about women serving in combat has been decided, he said. “There is no doubt in my mind women can engage in ground combat with the enemy,” he said, but he wants to make certain Army standards are not lowered to allow women into ground combat jobs.
Russia is the greatest threat to the U.S., not because of its intentions but because of its capabilities, he said. “Russia right now is the number one threat,” he said.
http://www.ausa.org/news/2015/Pages/MilleyArmyForcedtoCutSizetoCutRisk.aspx
Milley’s concerns about the size of the Army didn’t surprise the Senate committee. Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, the committee chairman, shared the concern. “We are not cutting the Army because the world has become safer or threats to our security have been reduced. In fact, the opposite is true,” McCain said. “I believe there is no strategic rationale for the Army’s strength to fall below its pre-9/11 level of 490,000 troops.”
On key issues, Milley said:
The National Guard makes some good points in opposition to the Army’s aviation restructuring initiative. He still favors the shift but pledged to listen to recommendations from the ongoing Commission on the Future of the Army. That panel, headed by retired Army Gen. Carter F. Ham, will complete its work early next year.
Milley said he has worked closely with the National Guard and Army Reserve, and he doesn’t see a degeneration of working relationships between active and reserve component soldiers but he understands there has been tension in Washington, D.C. “From a personal perspective, there is one Army. That is what is says on our chest,” he said.
The issue about women serving in combat has been decided, he said. “There is no doubt in my mind women can engage in ground combat with the enemy,” he said, but he wants to make certain Army standards are not lowered to allow women into ground combat jobs.
Russia is the greatest threat to the U.S., not because of its intentions but because of its capabilities, he said. “Russia right now is the number one threat,” he said.
http://www.ausa.org/news/2015/Pages/MilleyArmyForcedtoCutSizetoCutRisk.aspx
Army
Pentagon
Sequestration
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
0
0
0
I concur with CSA Milley's quoted statements; and I concur with Senator John McCain's quoted statements.
There is no strategic rationale for the U.S. Army to be reduced to below 9/11 personnel strength levels.
There are tensions between Army components (Active, Reserve, NG); and those tensions are inherent by design.
Yes, Russia is clearly one of, if not the, greatest threats to the U.S., using the simple and classic definition that threat is a combination of capabilities and intent.
However, the Army (as well as the other military services and broadly across the Defense Department) also needs to aggressively reign in its costs. Modernization, training, equipping, and personnel costs encompass most of the costs; within each category, there remains wasteful spending that require curbing. The costs to equip each soldier have gotten out of wack; replacing equipment, vehicles, weapons that remain very functional for their original intended uses (and primarily designed during a time of a primary Russian threat) is questionable. Professional and technically qualified acquisition and contracting officials are required (and regarding personnel costs, they can't be developed overnight).
Cutting the Army personnel end strength below 9/11 levels is cutting personnel levels too far. My first duty assignment, back in 1980 in a Cold War environment in the FRG, was to an ALO-8 unit, performing an ALO-1 mission. That was ridiculous, and hazardous, handling way too many munitions in questionable conditions, one example of the post-Viet Nam Army cutting personnel strength way too deep while building/rebuilding up to confront a Soviet threat. I sincerely hope similar situations do not recur in the Army of 2020.
There is no strategic rationale for the U.S. Army to be reduced to below 9/11 personnel strength levels.
There are tensions between Army components (Active, Reserve, NG); and those tensions are inherent by design.
Yes, Russia is clearly one of, if not the, greatest threats to the U.S., using the simple and classic definition that threat is a combination of capabilities and intent.
However, the Army (as well as the other military services and broadly across the Defense Department) also needs to aggressively reign in its costs. Modernization, training, equipping, and personnel costs encompass most of the costs; within each category, there remains wasteful spending that require curbing. The costs to equip each soldier have gotten out of wack; replacing equipment, vehicles, weapons that remain very functional for their original intended uses (and primarily designed during a time of a primary Russian threat) is questionable. Professional and technically qualified acquisition and contracting officials are required (and regarding personnel costs, they can't be developed overnight).
Cutting the Army personnel end strength below 9/11 levels is cutting personnel levels too far. My first duty assignment, back in 1980 in a Cold War environment in the FRG, was to an ALO-8 unit, performing an ALO-1 mission. That was ridiculous, and hazardous, handling way too many munitions in questionable conditions, one example of the post-Viet Nam Army cutting personnel strength way too deep while building/rebuilding up to confront a Soviet threat. I sincerely hope similar situations do not recur in the Army of 2020.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
No one said threats were reduced. In fact GEN Milley stated he is opposed to a smaller force but has to move in that direction in order keep the remnant forces relevant in capabilities (in Modernization, equipping, and in training) in order to have a force focused on readiness. Milley stated that having a smaller force costs lives and would victory would still arrive but gave the impression that it would come painstakingly.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google