Federal News Service Transcript - Lessons Learned During Operations in Afghanistan and Iraq

Federal News Service

July 9, 2003 Wednesday

HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
 
SUBJECT: LESSONS LEARNED DURING OPERATIONS IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ
 
CHAIRED BY: SENATOR JOHN WARNER (R-VA)
 
LOCATION: 218 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.

SEN. JACK REED (D-RI): Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First, General Franks, let me add my commendation for an extraordinary career in the Army and service to the nation. And I think you know that we're all sincerely appreciative, but I think you also know that the appreciation of the soldiers that you've served with, their respect is much more, I think, gratifying to you, and it should be. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Secretary, I had the privilege to go with Chairman Warner and Senator Levin to Iraq, and I had a chance to meet lots of soldiers. And I would agree with General Franks, they are proud of what they're doing, they will do it as long as we ask them to do it. But they had one question of me I couldn't answer, particularly the troops of my home state, the 115th Military Police Company, the 119th Military Police Company, the 118th Military Police Battalion: When are we coming home?

The answer to that question relies upon having troops available to replace these troops, because as you've both indicated, our footprint in Iraq will be significant. This burden falls particularly with impact upon the Army. Today, the Army has 370,000 troops in 120 countries. In Iraq, the footprint has the 3rd ID, the 4th ID, the 1st Armored Division, the 101st Airborne, the 173rd Airborne Brigade, the 2nd Brigade of the 82nd, the 2nd Light Cavalry Squadron and the 3rd Armored Cavalry Squadron; in addition, five National Guard enhanced battalions in Iraq and two in Kuwait. That's a significant footprint. In Afghanistan, shortly, we'll have almost two full brigades of the 10th Mountain Division to take the mission. In the Balkans, we have the 34th National Guard Division from Kansas. In Kosovo, we have the 1st Infantry Division, which will be replaced by the 28th Pennsylvania National Guard Division. We have forces in Korea, the 2nd ID. We have contingency force in the United States and there are other areas in the world that are dangerous.

In addition to that, the normal doctrine years ago when I was serving was for every deployed unit, you had to have a three-to-one ratio. That, I think, has changed to five to one now, because we also have preparation exercise phases, training center missions, reintegration and then the actual mission. We are dangerously stretched thin in the Army and other services, also.

I know the answer to this will be multinational forces will take the place of these troops in Iraq, but so far, we've been unsuccessful in arranging those forces. And it seems to me that we have to be prepared to increase our Army, the number of brigades in our Army, or to activate National Guard divisions, and we have to make that decision soon, because of the training of these troops we'll need before they deploy.

So Mr. Secretary, are you planning or prepared to increase the size of the Army to meet these commitments?

SEC. RUMSFELD: The—first, I would say that I talked to General Abizaid this morning. And he is sensitive to the importance of troops knowing what the rotation plan will be, so they have some degree of certainty in their lives. And he's sensitive to the importance of the quality of their lives, whether they get mail and those types of things, and is determined to continue the fine work that General Franks has done, and now that we've completed major combat operation in Iraq, begin to get greater clarity as to exactly how that rotation will take place.

It would be incorrect to say that we expect that international forces will replace all of U.S. forces. We don't anticipate that. We're going to have to replace U.S. forces with U.S. forces, in large measure, and we understand that. And the joint staff and the services have been asked to make a presentation to me—the request went back many, many weeks, and they have been working in the tank with the services, and they expect to bring that forward sometime this month, in which case they'll get clarity as to what people can expect in terms of their circumstances.

Then the question comes, do you need to increase force levels, particularly in the Army or Marines, the ground forces, I would add. And that answer—the question (sic) to that is if we believe that's the case, obviously we would come to the Congress and make that request.

At the moment, we are attempting to bring down our force commitments in a number of countries in the world. We have proposals with respect to what's taking place in Bosnia and Kosovo, which are through NATO; in together and out together, as you're familiar. We have been working to try to reduce our force in the Sinai. We have discussions going on with Korea as to how we can have our footprint there arranged. We have discussions taking place in Europe.

We also have, I'm told by Dr. Chu—and I don't know if we've ever gotten the exact list—but something in the neighborhood of 300,000 men and women in uniform doing jobs that aren't for men and women in uniform. They're doing civilian functions, and they shouldn't be doing civilian functions. So we've got to continue to try to manage the department in a way that we make the best use of people who serve in the armed services.

If at some point it looks as though what you suggest might be the case, turns out to be the case, clearly, we will come to Congress and ask for an increase. But at the moment, we do not see that that's the case.

SEN. REED: Let me address the question a different way. Since September 11th, 42,000 National Guard troops have been on active duty. That's before Operation Iraqi Freedom. Doesn't that suggest to you that there is a need for increase in active forces?

SEC. RUMSFELD: The—first, I don't have the number at my fingertip, and I regret that. But there are a very large number of Guard and Reserve that have been on duty that are volunteers. They are individuals who were not called up, they're not required; but a non-trivial fraction of the total have been individuals who were asked, "Would you like to come on and serve on active service for a period," and they have said yes. So it is—it is—you're right, except that within that mix of numbers of Reserve and Guard, a lot of them are there because they want to be, not because they're being forced to be.

SEN. REED: Well, you need them, Mr. Secretary --

SEC. RUMSFELD: You bet we need them.

SEN. REED: -- even though they want to. And the question goes, if you need that many National Guardsmen over an extended period of time stretching back over a year, doesn't that suggest that the active forces have to be increased?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, of course, we have increased the active forces. We have a provision the Congress passed, and the president has taken advantage of the 2 percent-plus. And under an emergency, even the 2 percent ceiling is not a requirement for us, and we are in some cases above the 2 percent. So the force levels have increased during this period; you're quite right.

SEN. REED: Well, Mr. Secretary, my time has expired. But I think this issue of the size of our forces is rapidly approaching a decision point. And from what I've seen, from the extended deployment of our Army, particularly, and I agree the Marine Corps also, and I suspect the Navy and the Air Force can make similar cases, is that we're reaching the point where we have to go ahead and bite the bullet and put more forces in our force structure so we can rotate those troops who are doing so well and serving so proudly out of Iraq.

Thank you.