Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
CQ Today
February 25, 2008 By John M. Donnelly, CQ Staff
FORT RICHARDSON, Alaska — When Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff, testifies before Congress this week, he will tell lawmakers about a military frayed from years of extended deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
He may also warn lawmakers that the Army could suffer a major blow if it were unable to retain its mid-career officers.
In interviews during a trip to this and other U.S. Army bases last week, Casey said he hoped the planned July end of President Bush’s “surge” of U.S. forces in Iraq will mark the beginning of the Army’s recovery from the severe strains of fighting two wars.
He also raised concerns that any quick withdrawal from Iraq would have a “catastrophic effect” on the morale of Army soldiers, who could conclude that they and their brothers-in-arms had sacrificed in vain. In meetings with soldiers in Mississippi, Texas and Alaska last week, Casey tried to assure concerned soldiers that their civilian leaders “would do the right thing.”
But he candidly expressed his own worries about the impact of repeated combat deployments on the Army’s soldiers, its equipment and its retention rates for junior officers whose families have had enough of the war’s toll.
“The question is, when does stretch turn to break?” Casey said.
After months of relative quiet on the issue, the war will return to Congress’ agenda this week with Casey’s appearance on Capitol Hill and a pair of Senate votes on the conduct of the war.
Casey is scheduled to testify Tuesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee, with additional appearances on Capitol Hill during the week. Some congressional leaders have cited Casey’s concerns to add a measure of military gravitas to their own opposition to the Iraq War.
“Gen. Casey’s comments are another reminder that the Iraq War continues to strain our armed forces and is diminishing our military readiness,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a Feb. 20 statement, after Casey outlined some of his worries about the Army to reporters that day.
“Americans are rightly concerned about how much longer our nation must continue to sacrifice our security for the sake of an Iraqi government that is unwilling or unable to secure its own future,” Pelosi said.
One of Casey’s most serious concerns is the state of the Army’s readiness, which he described as unacceptable. Other lawmakers have been outspoken on the readiness issue, including Democrat Jim Webb of Virginia, who is a former Navy secretary and now a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Democrat John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, the chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.
The extent of the readiness problem began to emerge in 2006, as unclassified reports revealed that all of the Army’s combat brigades — except those that were deployed — were unready. These also included units that were slated to be deployed next.
Without going into the details, which are classified, Casey said the situation is unchanged.
“The levels of readiness of the next-to-deploy forces is about the same as it was last year,” he said. “We’re consuming our readiness as fast as we build it. It’s going to take three or four years to put ourselves back in balance.”
The Army could still respond to another major conflict on top of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he cautioned that its response will not be as rapid as he would like.
Losing Experienced Officers
As for recruitment, Casey said the Army has hit its targets for boosting active and reserve components by 74,000 soldiers by fiscal 2010. Although the Army has accepted more soldiers without high school diplomas or with criminal records, Casey said those soldiers are performing well.
The biggest personnel problem, he said, was the potential loss of mid-career officers and non-commissioned officers. In a sign of the Army’s challenge, a push in September to retain 14,000 of the Army’s captains by offering them lavish incentives — from getting their choice of assignments to paying for graduate school — still failed to sway 1,350 of them to stay, Army officials said.
The full impact that the 2007 troop buildup in Iraq has had on overall Army readiness has yet to be felt, officials said. The surge lengthened tours of duty from one year to 15 months, and many of those soldiers have not come home yet. Nor has the cumulative effect of soldiers serving three or four tours in Iraq become evident.
“We’re kind of in uncharted territory here with respect to how long an all-volunteer force can sustain this tempo,” Casey said.
By July, Bush plans to bring U.S. forces in Iraq down to the 130,000 level that existed prior to the 2007 buildup. Any further reductions, the president said, will have to wait until Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, has judged whether more troops can be withdrawn without jeopardizing Iraq’s security. Petraeus has said he will call for a pause in troop reductions when he testifies before Congress later this spring.
For the Army, that means 15 active combat brigades will remain deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, instead of the 20 at the height of the Iraq buildup. With the size of the Army growing during the same time frame, Casey said tour lengths are expected after July to come down to a year.
What is not clear is how long the Army can continue to maintain 15 brigades in Iraq and Afghanistan without pushing soldiers to their breaking point.
“I honestly can’t tell you how long we can sustain 15 brigades,” Casey said.
Senate to Vote on War-Related Bills
Also Tuesday, the Senate will vote on whether to consider two measures intended to force changes in war policies.
The two bills are intended “to end the president’s failed strategy in Iraq,” said Democrat Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, the sponsor of the measures. One of them (S 2633) would bar the use of funds for Iraq deployments 120 days after its enactment, with some exceptions for anti-terrorism missions, training Iraqi security forces and protecting U.S. forces.
That bill is not expected draw the 60 votes necessary for cloture. Four similar measures failed last year; most recently, a Feingold amendment to an omnibus spending measure failed by a vote of 24-71 on Dec. 18.
The other Feingold bill (S 2634) slated for a cloture vote Tuesday would require the Bush administration to submit a report to Congress within 60 days that would outline “the global strategy of the United States to combat and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates.”
Republicans have not publicly stated whether they would support the bill, but a GOP leadership aide called it a politically motivated “messaging” measure.
Patrick Yoest contributed to this story.
February 25, 2008 By John M. Donnelly, CQ Staff
FORT RICHARDSON, Alaska — When Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff, testifies before Congress this week, he will tell lawmakers about a military frayed from years of extended deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
He may also warn lawmakers that the Army could suffer a major blow if it were unable to retain its mid-career officers.
In interviews during a trip to this and other U.S. Army bases last week, Casey said he hoped the planned July end of President Bush’s “surge” of U.S. forces in Iraq will mark the beginning of the Army’s recovery from the severe strains of fighting two wars.
He also raised concerns that any quick withdrawal from Iraq would have a “catastrophic effect” on the morale of Army soldiers, who could conclude that they and their brothers-in-arms had sacrificed in vain. In meetings with soldiers in Mississippi, Texas and Alaska last week, Casey tried to assure concerned soldiers that their civilian leaders “would do the right thing.”
But he candidly expressed his own worries about the impact of repeated combat deployments on the Army’s soldiers, its equipment and its retention rates for junior officers whose families have had enough of the war’s toll.
“The question is, when does stretch turn to break?” Casey said.
After months of relative quiet on the issue, the war will return to Congress’ agenda this week with Casey’s appearance on Capitol Hill and a pair of Senate votes on the conduct of the war.
Casey is scheduled to testify Tuesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee, with additional appearances on Capitol Hill during the week. Some congressional leaders have cited Casey’s concerns to add a measure of military gravitas to their own opposition to the Iraq War.
“Gen. Casey’s comments are another reminder that the Iraq War continues to strain our armed forces and is diminishing our military readiness,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a Feb. 20 statement, after Casey outlined some of his worries about the Army to reporters that day.
“Americans are rightly concerned about how much longer our nation must continue to sacrifice our security for the sake of an Iraqi government that is unwilling or unable to secure its own future,” Pelosi said.
One of Casey’s most serious concerns is the state of the Army’s readiness, which he described as unacceptable. Other lawmakers have been outspoken on the readiness issue, including Democrat Jim Webb of Virginia, who is a former Navy secretary and now a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Democrat John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, the chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.
The extent of the readiness problem began to emerge in 2006, as unclassified reports revealed that all of the Army’s combat brigades — except those that were deployed — were unready. These also included units that were slated to be deployed next.
Without going into the details, which are classified, Casey said the situation is unchanged.
“The levels of readiness of the next-to-deploy forces is about the same as it was last year,” he said. “We’re consuming our readiness as fast as we build it. It’s going to take three or four years to put ourselves back in balance.”
The Army could still respond to another major conflict on top of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he cautioned that its response will not be as rapid as he would like.
Losing Experienced Officers
As for recruitment, Casey said the Army has hit its targets for boosting active and reserve components by 74,000 soldiers by fiscal 2010. Although the Army has accepted more soldiers without high school diplomas or with criminal records, Casey said those soldiers are performing well.
The biggest personnel problem, he said, was the potential loss of mid-career officers and non-commissioned officers. In a sign of the Army’s challenge, a push in September to retain 14,000 of the Army’s captains by offering them lavish incentives — from getting their choice of assignments to paying for graduate school — still failed to sway 1,350 of them to stay, Army officials said.
The full impact that the 2007 troop buildup in Iraq has had on overall Army readiness has yet to be felt, officials said. The surge lengthened tours of duty from one year to 15 months, and many of those soldiers have not come home yet. Nor has the cumulative effect of soldiers serving three or four tours in Iraq become evident.
“We’re kind of in uncharted territory here with respect to how long an all-volunteer force can sustain this tempo,” Casey said.
By July, Bush plans to bring U.S. forces in Iraq down to the 130,000 level that existed prior to the 2007 buildup. Any further reductions, the president said, will have to wait until Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, has judged whether more troops can be withdrawn without jeopardizing Iraq’s security. Petraeus has said he will call for a pause in troop reductions when he testifies before Congress later this spring.
For the Army, that means 15 active combat brigades will remain deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, instead of the 20 at the height of the Iraq buildup. With the size of the Army growing during the same time frame, Casey said tour lengths are expected after July to come down to a year.
What is not clear is how long the Army can continue to maintain 15 brigades in Iraq and Afghanistan without pushing soldiers to their breaking point.
“I honestly can’t tell you how long we can sustain 15 brigades,” Casey said.
Senate to Vote on War-Related Bills
Also Tuesday, the Senate will vote on whether to consider two measures intended to force changes in war policies.
The two bills are intended “to end the president’s failed strategy in Iraq,” said Democrat Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, the sponsor of the measures. One of them (S 2633) would bar the use of funds for Iraq deployments 120 days after its enactment, with some exceptions for anti-terrorism missions, training Iraqi security forces and protecting U.S. forces.
That bill is not expected draw the 60 votes necessary for cloture. Four similar measures failed last year; most recently, a Feingold amendment to an omnibus spending measure failed by a vote of 24-71 on Dec. 18.
The other Feingold bill (S 2634) slated for a cloture vote Tuesday would require the Bush administration to submit a report to Congress within 60 days that would outline “the global strategy of the United States to combat and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates.”
Republicans have not publicly stated whether they would support the bill, but a GOP leadership aide called it a politically motivated “messaging” measure.
Patrick Yoest contributed to this story.