History > 2014 > USA > Pentagon (I)
Pentagon
Plans to Shrink Army
to
Pre-World War II Level
FEB. 23,
2014
The New York Times
By THOM SHANKER
and HELENE COOPER
WASHINGTON
— Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel plans to shrink the United States Army to its
smallest force since before the World War II buildup and eliminate an entire
class of Air Force attack jets in a new spending proposal that officials
describe as the first Pentagon budget to aggressively push the military off the
war footing adopted after the terror attacks of 2001.
The proposal, released on Monday, takes into account the fiscal reality of
government austerity and the political reality of a president who pledged to end
two costly and exhausting land wars. A result, the officials argue, will be a
military capable of defeating any adversary, but too small for protracted
foreign occupations.
Officials who saw an early draft of the announcement acknowledge that budget
cuts will impose greater risk on the armed forces if they are again ordered to
carry out two large-scale military actions at the same time: Success would take
longer, they say, and there would be a larger number of casualties. Officials
also say that a smaller military could invite adventurism by adversaries.
“You have to always keep your institution prepared, but you can’t carry a large
land-war Defense Department when there is no large land war,” a senior Pentagon
official said.
Outlines of some of the budget initiatives, which are subject to congressional
approval, have surfaced, an indication that even in advance of its release the
budget is certain to come under political attack.
For example, some members of Congress, given advance notice of plans to retire
air wings, have vowed legislative action to block the move, and the National
Guard Association, an advocacy group for those part-time military personnel, is
circulating talking points urging Congress to reject anticipated cuts. State
governors are certain to weigh in, as well. And defense-industry officials and
members of Congress in those port communities can be expected to oppose any
initiatives to slow Navy shipbuilding.
Even so, officials said that despite budget reductions, the military would have
the money to remain the most capable in the world and that Mr. Hagel’s proposals
have the endorsement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Money saved by reducing the
number of personnel, they said, would assure that those remaining in uniform
would be well trained and supplied with the best weaponry.
The new American way of war will be underscored in Mr. Hagel’s budget, which
protects money for Special Operations forces and cyberwarfare. And in an
indication of the priority given to overseas military presence that does not
require a land force, the proposal will — at least for one year — maintain the
current number of aircraft carriers at 11.
Over all, Mr. Hagel’s proposal, the officials said, is designed to allow the
American military to fulfill President Obama’s national security directives: to
defend American territory and the nation’s interests overseas and to deter
aggression — and to win decisively if again ordered to war.
“We’re still going to have a very significant-sized Army,” the official said.
“But it’s going to be agile. It will be capable. It will be modern. It will be
trained.”
Mr. Hagel’s plan would most significantly reshape America’s land forces —
active-duty soldiers as well as those in the National Guard and Reserve.
The Army, which took on the brunt of the fighting and the casualties in
Afghanistan and Iraq, already was scheduled to drop to 490,000 troops from a
post-9/11 peak of 570,000. Under Mr. Hagel’s proposals, the Army would drop over
the coming years to between 440,000 and 450,000.
That would be the smallest United States Army since 1940. For years, and
especially during the Cold War, the Pentagon argued that it needed a military
large enough to fight two wars simultaneously — say, in Europe and Asia. In more
recent budget and strategy documents, the military has been ordered to be
prepared to decisively win one conflict while holding off an adversary’s
aspirations in a second until sufficient forces could be mobilized and
redeployed to win there.
The Guard and Reserves, which proved capable in their wartime deployments
although costly to train to meet the standards of their full-time counterparts,
would face smaller reductions. But the Guard would see its arsenal reshaped.
The Guard’s Apache attack helicopters would be transferred to the active-duty
Army, which would transfer its Black Hawk helicopters to the Guard. The
rationale is that Guard units have less peacetime need for the bristling array
of weapons on the Apache and would put the Black Hawk — a workhorse transport
helicopter — to use in domestic disaster relief.
The cuts proposed by Mr. Hagel fit the Bipartisan Budget Act reached by Mr.
Obama and Congress in December to impose a military spending cap of about $496
billion for fiscal year 2015. If steeper spending reductions kick in again in
2016 under the sequestration law, however, then even more significant cuts would
be required in later years.
The budget is the first sweeping initiative that bears Mr. Hagel’s full imprint.
Although Mr. Hagel has been in office one year, most of his efforts in that time
have focused on initiatives and problems that he inherited. In many ways his
budget provides an opportunity for him to begin anew.
The proposals are certain to face resistance from interest groups like veterans’
organizations, which oppose efforts to rein in personnel costs; arms
manufacturers that want to reverse weapons cuts; and some members of Congress
who will seek to block base closings in their districts.
Mr. Hagel will take some first steps to deal with the controversial issue of pay
and compensation, as the proposed budget would impose a one-year salary freeze
for general and flag officers; basic pay for military personnel would rise by 1
percent. After the 2015 fiscal year, raises in pay will be similarly restrained,
Pentagon officials say.
The fiscal 2015 budget also calls for slowing the growth of tax-free housing
allowances for military personnel and would reduce the $1.4 billion direct
subsidy provided to military commissaries, which would most likely make goods
purchased at those commissaries more expensive for soldiers.
The budget also proposes an increase in health insurance deductibles and some
co-pays for some military retirees and for some family members of active
servicemen. But Mr. Hagel’s proposals do not include any changes to retirement
benefits for those currently serving.
Under Mr. Hagel’s proposals, the entire fleet of Air Force A-10 attack aircraft
would be eliminated. The aircraft was designed to destroy Soviet tanks in case
of an invasion of Western Europe, and the capabilities are deemed less relevant
today. The budget plan does sustain money for the controversial F-35 warplane,
which has been extremely expensive and has run into costly delays.
In addition, the budget proposal calls for retiring the famed U-2 spy plane in
favor of the remotely piloted Global Hawk.
The Navy would be allowed to purchase two destroyers and two attack submarines
every year. But 11 cruisers will be ordered into reduced operating status during
modernization.
Although consideration was given to retiring an aircraft carrier, the Navy will
keep its fleet of 11 — for now. The George Washington would be brought in for
overhaul and nuclear refueling — a lengthy process that could be terminated in
future years under tighter budgets.
A version of
this article appears in print on February 24, 2014,
on page A1 of
the New York edition with the headline:
Pentagon Plans
to Shrink Army to Prewar Level.
Pentagon Plans to Shrink Army to Pre-World War II Level,
NYT, 23.2.2014,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/us/
politics/pentagon-plans-to-shrink-army-to-pre-world-war-ii-level.html
|