Today the U.S. Army has a total force of more than 1 million soldiers. Yet the vast majority are not currently deployed. Approximately 123,000, less than 12 percent of the total force, support operations in Iraq or Afghanistan. 123,000 members of the 350,000 Army National Guard force have not been called up.
Overall, 270,000 soldiers are forward deployed in more than 120 countries, but with a total force in excess of 1 million, this should not tax the Army’s resources. Yet, it does. The strain on the force is caused by an infrastructure that was built for the Cold War. The solution to the problem is to create the right number of deployable soldiers with the right skills in the right component.
And so today, the Army is in the midst of the most widespread restructuring since World War II to significantly increase the number of deployable soldiers and units available around the world.
There will be three components involved in the restructure process. First, will be the restructuring of the force into modular formations with the appropriate capabilities for the Army’s current and future security environment. This restructuring will increase the number of active-duty combat brigades from 33 to 43 or more, using a combination of new recruits and soldiers drawn from other parts of the Army. The goal is an Army with more cohesive and combat-ready formations.
The second step is the stabilization of the force with initiatives that will eventually allow most soldiers to remain based at a single installation for longer periods of time. Stabilization will yield a more predictable lifestyle for soldiers and their families.
Third, is the rebalancing of the force between the active component of the Army, the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve. This will give our Army more troops available with the skills we need to fight the global war on terror.
The Department of Defense is already expanding the active army without sacrificing its standards or quality. The plan is to increase the active Army by 30,000 troops over the next three years. It is important to distinguish the difference between increasing the Army’s size as a temporary emergency measure granted in order to deal with the global war on terror, paid for with supplemental dollars verses increasing the permanent active Army.
The permanent increase in strength means that the U.S. Army would by law be required to keep troops on the payroll. This funding for this would come from the Army’s core budget. If the increase were mandated to be permanent it would take away dollars needed for current and future programs and could threaten the ultimate restructuring of the Army.
The Army is already increasing in number as rapidly as it can. It takes time to develop a highly skilled and well-trained force. This intentional growth will allow the Army to restructure in a way that will be of long-range benefit and relieve the stress on the force without sacrificing the Army’s future.
Currently the recruiting efforts of the Army are yielding good results. Retention of quality personnel is also strong. The restructuring of the Army will hopefully increase the retention ration even more.
Fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as other foreign theaters has presented a unique challenge for Army leadership as well as its soldiers. The Army is restructuring while fighting a war. It would be easier were the Army not at war but that is a luxury it doesn’t have and a challenge the Army will rise to meet. The convergence of the Army’s current momentum, its focus and the increased resources provided by Congress, over the Army’s core budget, in this time of war provide an opportunity for change that the Army cannot let pass.
The Army faces a monumental task. It is at War…and keeping the Peace…and Deterring Aggression…and Providing Humanitarian Assistance around the globe. The all-volunteer Army, the Reserve, and National Guard will pull together combining their skill and courage. They will meet the challenge and remain attentive to today while preparing for the future.
