Conway unhappy with nondeployed troops' readiness

[thedrifter]

Conway unhappy with nondeployed troops' readiness
By Kimberly Johnson - Staff writer
Posted : February 26, 2007

Top commanders for the Marine Corps and Army aren't satisfied with their nondeployed troop readiness levels, they told members of Congress on Feb. 13.

Commandant Gen. James Conway and Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker outlined how repeated combat tours threatened training levels of nondeployed troops before members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who said they were also troubled by the trend.

"We are particularly concerned that, in order to sustain the necessary higher readiness levels in our deployed forces, the readiness of our nondeployed forces has steadily declined," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the committee. "Simply stated, our ground forces are stretched thin and equipment is wearing out faster than planned and is not being replaced in a timely manner, which raises questions about the nation's readiness to deal with other contingencies in a world which has many dangers and uncertainties."

"I am not satisfied with the readiness of our forces," Schoomaker said of nondeployed troops, adding that "a couple of operations we are now committed to further aggravates that."

The Army chief would not publicly quantify how much of the nondeployed force remains unsatisfactory, but said the pressure has increased with the tempo of combat operations. Troops sent forward, however, have all the gear and training necessary for missions. "I have no concern for the forces we deploy," he said.

While the readiness of nondeployed Marines is at an acceptable level, it's "not on par with the deployed forces," Conway said. The status of equipment pushed out to deployed Marines is "pretty good," he said. "My largest concern has to do with training. When we're home those seven, eight, nine months, our focus is going back to Iraq. Therefore, we're not doing amphibious training, we're not doing mountain warfare training."

Expanding end strength and fully funding equipment reset requests would go a long way toward reversing the trend, the commanders told the Senate panel. The Army has asked Congress to increase its permanent ranks by 65,000 positions; the Corps wants to add 22,000 by 2011 plus the 5,000 troops it has carried through supplemental budgets for the past few years.

Conway downplayed concerns that the two Marine infantry battalions participating in the buildup of 21,500 U.S. troops in Iraq were pushed to the front without adequate training and essential equipment. "The additional Marines going into the al-Anbar province have indeed had their training schedules adjusted, but those schedules include all five phases of our pre-deployment training," he said.

However, the battalions do lack the latest generation sniper and spotter scopes because of manufacturing delays, he said.

And units left behind are also going without. Battalions moving forward in combat rotation cycles will take equipment from their home stations with them. "This has resulted in some home station shortfalls and has hindered some stateside units' ability to train for other missions and contingencies," Conway said in his testimony.

Maintaining readiness is a long-haul issue, Schoomaker said. "This asymmetric component of warfare is going to continue to be part of warfare in the future and we've got to fix this force - the Marine Corps, Army, Navy and Air Force - in such a fashion that it is prepared for the 21st century."

[thedrifter]

Conway: Despite funds, equipment reset lags
By Kimberly Johnson - Staff writer
Posted : February 26, 2007

Despite billions of dollars given to it by Congress to replace war-ravaged equipment stocks, the Marine Corps has yet to see major reset gains, its top commander has told Congress.

"Extended combat operations have severely tested our materiel," Commandant Gen. James Conway told members of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee Feb. 13.

Congress has appropriated $10.2 billion toward the Corps' reset effort during the past two fiscal years. Yet Marines have not seen "a significant increase in our equipment readiness," Conway said. The money to pay for new gear didn't start coming in until about four years after combat began, he said.

"Added to the delay in appropriating the required funding are significant delays in production of major equipment," he said, explaining that those two elements stretch out the reset process several years.

Almost one-third of the Corps' ground equipment and about one-quarter of its aviation assets are engaged overseas, Conway said.

"These percentages will increase during the ongoing plus-up operations in Iraq," he added, referring to the deployment extensions of 4,000 Marines as part of a proposed buildup of 21,500 troops.

War costs have climbed steadily each year for the Corps, which asked for $9.7 billion for fiscal 2007 alone to cover expenses ranging from combat-related operations to pre-deployment training. Costs are steep, Conway explained, because the Corps is asking not only for replacement capabilities but also next-generation capabilities to replace its older vehicles and aircraft, such as mine-resistant vehicles with V-shaped hulls that surpass armored Humvees in roadside bomb protection.

The Corps has spent only 40 percent of the $5.1 billion emergency wartime funding Congress provided in the fiscal 2007 budget, Conway said. The rest of the money will be spent by the end of the third quarter, he added.

Pentagon officials have asked for another $93.4 billion in emergency funding for fiscal 2007 for all the services.

The Corps says it will need another $4.9 billion this year for war costs. That request was made Feb. 5 as the Pentagon submitted its $481.4 billion base-line defense budget for next year, along with a $141.7 emergency wartime bill to pay for combat through the end of fiscal 2008.