The Army is transitioning from its active and focused roles in Afghanistan and Iraq toward an increasingly complex world with a broader range of missions and has already taken steps toward that uncertain future, according to its chief of staff.
“I want an Army that is capable of many missions, at many speeds, many sizes, under many different conditions and (with) the capability to operate in any environment,” Gen. Raymond Odierno said yesterday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
To that end, the Joint Readiness Training Center in Louisiana and National Training Center in California now have “what we believe we might look at in the future,” he said.
That would be an environment where training forces find a world that is joint, intergovernmental and multinational, perhaps requiring some combined arms maneuver. But also with “a touch” of terrorism, criminality, and destabilizing opportunists–all identified as emerging threat trends.
This training environment also incorporates hard won lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan.
This future world would be a complex battle space that might require some level of combat operations one minute and the next minute might require leaders to adapt and understand the socio-economic conditions that they’re operating in, and how to integrate the interagency, multinational actors in a very small area. “That’s important to us,” Odierno said.
That environment now exists, and forces are being trained with it. For senior Army leadership, the work informs them on what type of Army is needed, what capabilities it needs and the modernization programs needed, he said.
Another change is moving the Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) cycle away from its focus and optimization on producing forces for Iraq and Afghanistan. Toward the future, the first step is moving to regionally aligned forces, adjusting ARFORGEN to train and make available to geographical commanders forces of any size–from platoon to brigade, and with different specialties to help those commanders develop the capability to build better partnerships with other nations.
For example, the 162nd Brigade at Ft. Polk, La., was established several years ago to build and train the teams that are training forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, he said. As forces move out of Afghanistan, the command will be adjusted to look worldwide at building partnership capacity and will become the training center to do that.
“It’s just one of the subtle adjustments that we’re making,” Odierno said.
In another example, he said the 2nd Brigade 1st Infantry Division is aligned to U.S. Africa Command. AFRICOM has already given the brigade “96 missions over the next 12 months to execute,” he said.
To continue the close cooperation of special operations forces and conventional forces, the Army continues to work closely with U.S. Special Operations Command on how to work together in the future. “We are standing up an Office of Strategic Landpower with Army and Marines to look at future conflict and what it means to ground forces and what capabilities and characteristics are desired,” he said.
Another unit moving into the future is I Corp, Ft. Lewis, Wash., which just returned from Afghanistan, Odierno said. First Corps is now working with U.S. Pacific Command and is going to undergo a PACOM-sponsored certification exercise this year. The unit is engaged in planning efforts with PACOM for war plans, security cooperation, bilateral and multilateral exercises. Also, it will provide options for security force assistance, humanitarian assistance, and disaster relief in the Pacific Command’s area of responsibility.
Moving from an Army organized and trained for Afghanistan and Iraq to an army aimed at future mission-tailored forces is a transition that is based on implementing the Defense Department’s strategic guidance, he said at the CSIS Military Strategy Forum: The future of the United States Army, Critical Questions for a Period of Transition.
However, he added, while the nature of conflict changes, the fundamental nature of war remains the same–a “struggle for key terrain, populations and government.”