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."..
"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."
As Bush seeks $190B more for war, Dems signal protracted battle looms:
As the Bush administration took its case to Congress Wednesday for an additional $190 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Democratic leaders downplayed calls for swift action on the massive spending package, foreshadowing a protracted battle over new funding for the U.S. military involvement in Iraq.
At a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, which was repeatedly disrupted by raucous anti-war protesters, Democrats were skeptical of comments made by Defense Secretary Robert Gates that Congress should pass the fiscal 2008 supplemental spending bill "as quickly as possible and without excessive and counterproductive restrictions."
When asked before the hearing whether there was a sense of urgency in taking up the supplemental funding package, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told The Hill, "Not for me, there isn't."
If Congressional leaders truly believe that the military is overstretched, shouldn't it be a priority to fund ongoing conflicts, rather than allow them to further deplete current inventories?
And while we're on the topic, it would be entirely appropriate to consider legislation to expand the army:
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said yesterday that he intends to approve a $2.8 billion plan to accelerate the Army's growth by 74,000 soldiers over the next four years, even as the Army's top official suggested that the need for support troops in Iraq could grow -- rather than decrease -- as limited drawdowns of combat forces begin.
"The issue is, if the brigades come down, will the soldiers outside the brigades go up? If so, how much?" Army Secretary Pete Geren told defense reporters yesterday. "As the mission shifts more to training, more to supporting, what will be the requirements in those areas?"
Several Democratic presidential candidates--including Senators Obama and Clinton--support an expansion of the army. Hopefully Geren's initiative will get a warm welcome on the Hill.
