At the end of last year, Congress ordered up a new commission to study the Army's future. We now know who will serve on that eight-member study panel.
T he decisions the Army has made or proposed as part of its required drawdown from 570,000 active duty soldiers to 450,000 (and potentially 420,000) have caused a considerable degree of heartburn on Capitol Hill and strained relationships between the active and reserve components. So, at the end of last year, Congress ordered the Army to freeze some of those proposals and ordered up a new commission to study the Army’s future. We now know who will serve on that eight- member study panel.
The legislation gave four picks each to the President and Congress. On Wednesday, the White House named:
The four Congressional appointments fell to the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate armed services committees, each of whom got one pick. They are:
The new panel, which will report back by February 2016, has a broad mandate: “a comprehensive study of the structure of the Army and policy assumptions related to the size and force mixture of the Army.” But in creating the panel, Congress also instructed it to pay special attention to the “fully-burdened costs” of reservists compared to active soldiers, and explicitly ordered Army officials to freeze a key aspect of its aviation restructuring initiative that some members perceived as a weakening of the role of the Army National Guard.
That plan, which the Army first proposed last year, would transfer the reserve components’ Apache attack helicopters to the regular Army in exchange for Blackhawk helicopters, which Army officials argue are a better fit for disaster response and other missions the National Guard fulfills in its non- federal role. Those transfers are barred entirely until October. After that, they are limited to 48 helicopters until the commission issues its report.
In light of some of that Guard-friendly language in the authorization bill, Gus Hargett, the president of the National Guard Association of the United States, said he was disappointed that no retired guard officials were appointed to the panel, but that most of the officials appeared to him to have “open minds” about future Army structure.
“The ultimate objective here is a blueprint for Congress to use to raise the Army of the future,” Hargett said. “I believe lawmakers seek, and our nation needs, a force that features integrated components — active, Guard and Reserve — with interchangeable units, one that can truly respond quickly but also has a significant surge capacity. Army National Guard experience, capabilities and cost- effectiveness have much to contribute to that force.”
Copyright © 2024 Federal News Network. All rights reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.
Jared Serbu is deputy editor of Federal News Network and reports on the Defense Department’s contracting, legislative, workforce and IT issues.
Follow @jserbuWFED