thedrifter
02-20-07, 08:36 AM
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."
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."