thedrifter
12-07-06, 08:53 PM
December 07, 2006
House report: Military capabilities, weaponry eroding
Transformation not the answer, group says
By Rick Maze
Staff writer
Twenty-three Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee issued a report late Wednesday that flatly declares the Defense Department lacks the capabilities and capacity to meet 21st-century challenges.
The report, a committee version of the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review, is an indictment of Bush administration defense policy because it concludes there are neither enough people nor enough weapons available to meet current needs and that transformation is not the answer.
It also sets a difficult benchmark for Democrats who will take control of Congress in January and face questions about what they are going to do about the perceived gaps, even though Republicans have controlled the White House and Congress for the past six years during which the situation outlined in the report has grown steadily worse.
When the armed services committee launched its independent review of the threats facing the U.S. and the capabilities of the military to meet those threats, the effort was bipartisan. Special panels with Republican and Democratic co-chairmen were formed to study different aspects of national security policy.
But about two months ago, before the November general elections, Democrats pulled out of the effort, according to committee aides. In the end, only Republicans signed the report and recommendations, although Josh Holley, a spokesman for Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., the committee chairman, insisted that the conclusions and recommendations were formed in a bipartisan process.
A bigger force structure is one of the major recommendations of the report, which said increases are needed to conduct the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and to be prepared to respond to two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts, which had been the basis for defense force structure for the 15 years leading up to the start of the current wars. Having enough force structure — people and equipment — to carry out two conflicts in the midst of current operations “is critical to deterring aggression by any potential state adversary,” the report said.
Specifically, the report recommends having 78 Army brigade combat teams; 43 Marine infantry battalions and prepositioned stocks for four Marine squadrons; 55 amphibious ships; 15 aircraft carrier strike groups and air wings; 55 to 68 attack submarines and 15 Air Force air expeditionary wings.
On weapons programs, the report said capability is decreasing because the military is not replacing things as fast as they are wearing out, and calls for one-for-one replacements.
A declining number of weapons platforms “reduces strategic depth and flexibility, forces higher use of existing equipment and thus wears it out faster, weakens the industrial base, and limits the ability for the U.S. to engage in or threaten to engage in a long conflict, the report said.
In addition to more procurement, the report said current systems should not be retired until there are proven and deployable replacements.
Holley said there is no cost estimates associated with any of the recommendations because the whole idea was to look at defense issues without budgetary constraints.
“I don’t think there is a price tag in there,” he said.
Ellie
House report: Military capabilities, weaponry eroding
Transformation not the answer, group says
By Rick Maze
Staff writer
Twenty-three Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee issued a report late Wednesday that flatly declares the Defense Department lacks the capabilities and capacity to meet 21st-century challenges.
The report, a committee version of the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review, is an indictment of Bush administration defense policy because it concludes there are neither enough people nor enough weapons available to meet current needs and that transformation is not the answer.
It also sets a difficult benchmark for Democrats who will take control of Congress in January and face questions about what they are going to do about the perceived gaps, even though Republicans have controlled the White House and Congress for the past six years during which the situation outlined in the report has grown steadily worse.
When the armed services committee launched its independent review of the threats facing the U.S. and the capabilities of the military to meet those threats, the effort was bipartisan. Special panels with Republican and Democratic co-chairmen were formed to study different aspects of national security policy.
But about two months ago, before the November general elections, Democrats pulled out of the effort, according to committee aides. In the end, only Republicans signed the report and recommendations, although Josh Holley, a spokesman for Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., the committee chairman, insisted that the conclusions and recommendations were formed in a bipartisan process.
A bigger force structure is one of the major recommendations of the report, which said increases are needed to conduct the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and to be prepared to respond to two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts, which had been the basis for defense force structure for the 15 years leading up to the start of the current wars. Having enough force structure — people and equipment — to carry out two conflicts in the midst of current operations “is critical to deterring aggression by any potential state adversary,” the report said.
Specifically, the report recommends having 78 Army brigade combat teams; 43 Marine infantry battalions and prepositioned stocks for four Marine squadrons; 55 amphibious ships; 15 aircraft carrier strike groups and air wings; 55 to 68 attack submarines and 15 Air Force air expeditionary wings.
On weapons programs, the report said capability is decreasing because the military is not replacing things as fast as they are wearing out, and calls for one-for-one replacements.
A declining number of weapons platforms “reduces strategic depth and flexibility, forces higher use of existing equipment and thus wears it out faster, weakens the industrial base, and limits the ability for the U.S. to engage in or threaten to engage in a long conflict, the report said.
In addition to more procurement, the report said current systems should not be retired until there are proven and deployable replacements.
Holley said there is no cost estimates associated with any of the recommendations because the whole idea was to look at defense issues without budgetary constraints.
“I don’t think there is a price tag in there,” he said.
Ellie