THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY

Recommendations

Info

FISCAL CHALLENGES fell by 15 percent across DoD during that same period, and by 35 percent in the Army. There is some relatively good news. Though the Congress has funded DoD’s base budget more than 3 percent below Presidential Budget requests since fiscal year 2012, it has provided more money in defense spending than the levels initially set by the BCA (which would have resulted in an almost 15 percent cut). The Army also has received substantial levels of funding from the OCO account and has used some of that to meet readiness and other key needs. In the fiscal year 2016 budget, the Administration and the Congress permitted the Army to use OCO funding to pay for some activities that had at least some relation to contingency operations but would normally have been in the non-OCO or base budget. Despite the use of OCO funding, no satisfactory longterm funding approach provides DoD and the Army the funds needed to build and maintain military readiness, invest in modernization, and ensure the health of the force. In this constrained budget environment, the Army prioritized manpower numbers and force readiness to hedge against nearterm demands, accepting substantial risk in modernization. The Commission finds this solution regrettable but understandable, given the persistence of challenges to the United States and the ongoing strain those challenges are putting on ground forces, especially Regular Army combat formations and Army National Guard and Army Reserve enablers. Nevertheless, as discussed in the next chapter, these risks to modernization cannot be sustained if the Army is to protect the mission readiness of the force in the long term. The current fiscal environment also complicates the Commission’s task to examine Army trends well into the future. In order to carry out this mandate, the Commission first considered a range of potential future levels of budgetary resources that could be available to the Army. The Commission also considered the effects these alternative resource levels would have on the Army’s ability to meet current and anticipated mission requirements at acceptable levels of risk. With this information in mind, the Commission made assumptions about future resource levels that guided its assessment of changes in Army programs. The Commission did not attempt to create or recommend specific alternative Army budgets; rather it developed general assumptions about available resources to use in assessing alternatives. Photo on page 39 Members of the Maryland Army National Guard’s 290th Military Police Company return after nearly a yearlong deployment to Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan. “At the Defense Department, we are forced to make hasty reductions when choices should be considered carefully and strategically.” The Honorable Ashton Carter, Secretary of Defense, in Wall Street Journal Op-Ed article, October 20, 2015. ALTERNATIVE RESOURCE LEVELS AND <strong>THE</strong>IR EFFECTS Sequester-Level Funding The Army might only receive the funding permitted by the Budget Control Act of 2011, as amended. That act and its amendments specify the total funding available for national security activities; the Administration and eventually the Congress then allocate funding to the Army. Under the Act and its amendments, Army budget authority has fallen during each of the past five years from $140 billion in fiscal year 2010 to $121 billion in fiscal year 2015. Under last year’s budget agreement, the Army will receive roughly $127 billion in fiscal year 2016 (including some OCO funding) and may decline below that level in fiscal year 2017. This funding profile will likely leave the Army budget for fiscal year 2017 about 10 percent below its fiscal year 2010 level. In the years beyond fiscal year 2017 DoD and the Army will be constrained by the BCA, a profile that is often called “sequester-level” funding. The 2014 DoD report, Estimated Impacts of Sequestration-Level Funding, suggests that funding growth in the years immediately beyond fiscal year 2017 would likely be insufficient to keep pace with anticipated inflation. There may be some offsetting increases in the OCO portion of the defense budget, but those increases are uncertain. If it is faced with a continuation of sequester-level funding and limited OCO funding, the Army has stated that it would need to reduce its total force to 920,000 soldiers: 420,000 in the Regular Army with the remainder in the Army National Guard and Army Reserve. This compares to a total size of 980,000 soldiers in the President’s Budget for fiscal year 2016 (PB16). During testimony before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee in March 2015, the Army Secretary and Chief of Staff stated that sequester-level budgets had already had a detrimental impact on Army readiness and modernization. They concluded that continuation of sequester-level funding creates significant risk to the Army’s ability to fulfill its 40 National Commission on the Future of the Army
FISCAL CHALLENGES Figure 8 BUDGET UNCERTAINTY OVER TIME DOD BASE BUDGET IN <strong>THE</strong>N-YEAR DOLLARS IN BILLIONS $675 $650 Dotted line: bills that were not signed into law Solid line: bills that were signed into law PB12 (Last budget prior to BCA) $625 $600 $575 $550 $525 $500 $475 Secretary Gates Efficiencies Actual $ Spent First BCA Cut ($487 billion) Defense Strategy Guidance Released Second BCA Cut ($455 billion) Budget requested by DOD Quadrennial Defense Review Released American Taxpayer Relief Act Bipartisan Budget Act Strategic Choices Management Review (SCMR) Projected Spending FY16–20 BCA Cut to PB16 ($154 billion) 2012 BCA PB14 PB16 BCA Caps $450 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 Source: Joint Chiefs of Staff national security requirements as specified in the current Defense Strategic Guidance and the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). Based on its own experiences and discussions with leaders and troops, the Commission concurs with these concerns: the size of the force would not meet national security requirements, readiness would suffer, and funding for modernization, already low, would reach levels that would leave the nation too exposed to risk. Funding Planned in Fiscal Year 2016 Request Rather than sequester-level funding, the Army might receive the dollars proposed in the PB16, which would have provided $127 billion to the Army in fiscal year 2016, rising to $129 billion in fiscal year 2017. Growth in the years beyond fiscal year 2017 would amount to a few percent a year, probably only enough to offset the effects of inflation. Last year’s budget agreement chipped away at the President’s plan for Army funding in National Commission on the Future of the Army 41
Page 1: NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE FUTURE O
Page 4 and 5: TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 7 and 8: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY “Not later than
Page 9 and 10: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Developing One Ar
Page 11 and 12: U.S. Army National Guard photo by S
Page 13 and 14: WHY THE NATION NEEDS AN ARMY CIVILI
Page 15 and 16: WHY THE NATION NEEDS AN ARMY Figure
Page 17 and 18: WHY THE NATION NEEDS AN ARMY “The
Page 19 and 20: National Commission on the Future o
Page 21 and 22: THE COMMISSION’S MISSION AND METH
Page 33 and 34: U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Richard W.
Page 35 and 36: FUTURE CHALLENGES Figure 7 ARMY IN
Page 37 and 38: FUTURE CHALLENGES Iran poses a mult
Page 39 and 40: FUTURE CHALLENGES terrorists or oth
Page 41 and 42: FUTURE CHALLENGES anti-Americanism,
Page 43 and 44: FUTURE CHALLENGES to prevent the So
Page 45: U.S. Army photo. “The Commission
Page 49 and 50: FISCAL CHALLENGES if the Army is to
Page 51 and 52: FISCAL CHALLENGES MEASURING COSTS A
Page 53 and 54: “The Commission shall…make reco
Page 55 and 56: THE ARMY FOR THE FUTURE A WORD ABOU
Page 57 and 58: THE ARMY FOR THE FUTURE Recommendat
Page 59 and 60: THE ARMY FOR THE FUTURE Bradley Fig
Page 61 and 62: THE ARMY FOR THE FUTURE Recommendat
Page 63 and 64: THE ARMY FOR THE FUTURE POSSIBLE ST
Page 65 and 66: U.S. Army photo by Sgt. 1st Class B
Page 67 and 68: DEVELOPING ONE ARMY Figure 9 ARMY F
Page 69 and 70: DEVELOPING ONE ARMY Operational emp
Page 71 and 72: DEVELOPING ONE ARMY integration of
Page 73 and 74: DEVELOPING ONE ARMY Furthermore, th
Page 75 and 76: DEVELOPING ONE ARMY authorities wit
Page 77 and 78: DEVELOPING ONE ARMY Reserve). The I
Page 79 and 80: DEVELOPING ONE ARMY unity of effort
Page 81 and 82: DEVELOPING ONE ARMY across all Army
Page 83 and 84: DEVELOPING ONE ARMY Due to much sho
Page 85 and 86: DEVELOPING ONE ARMY “When you joi
Page 87 and 88: Photo by Capt. Jesse Paulsboe “Th
Page 89 and 90: APACHE TRANSFERS AND RELATED ISSUES
Page 97 and 98:
APACHE TRANSFERS AND RELATED ISSUES
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
National Commission on the Future o
Page 105 and 106:
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD ALLOCATION Figu
Page 107 and 108:
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD ALLOCATION Nati
Page 109 and 110:
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD ALLOCATION proc
Page 111 and 112:
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD ALLOCATION the
Page 113 and 114:
APPENDIX A: ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CO
Page 115 and 116:
APPENDIX A: ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CO
Page 117 and 118:
APPENDIX B: RECOMMENDATIONS BY RESP
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
APPENDIX C: OFFSITE AGREEMENT Natio
Page 127 and 128:
APPENDIX D: ARMY BUDGET AND END STR
Page 129 and 130:
APPENDIX D: ARMY BUDGET AND END STR
Page 131 and 132:
APPENDIX F: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AA
Page 133 and 134:
APPENDIX F: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS PD
Page 135 and 136:
APPENDIX G: TESTIMONIES AND COMMENT
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
APPENDIX H: COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
APPENDIX I: SUBCOMMITTEES OPERATION
Page 193 and 194:
APPENDIX I: SUBCOMMITTEES FORCE GEN
Page 195 and 196:
APPENDIX I: SUBCOMMITTEES DRAFTING
Page 197 and 198:
APPENDIX J: SOURCES CONSULTED Defen
Page 199 and 200:
APPENDIX J: SOURCES CONSULTED Pippi
Page 201 and 202:
APPENDIX J: SOURCES CONSULTED U.S.
Page 203 and 204:
APPENDIX J: SOURCES CONSULTED U.S.
show all

THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?