As a major provider of services to the joint force, cuts to Army end strength will have second-order effects on the capabilities of its sister services, the National Commission on the Future of the Army (NCFA) heard Aug. 18.
General officers from the Army, Navy and Marine Corps listed for the commission the support services and combat enablers the Army provides to the joint force–the wartime strategy in which the military services are mutually supportive without substantially duplicating capabilities.
Director of Marine Staff Lt. Gen. James Laster, said at least 10,000 Marines are trained annually at Army installations. In combat, the services enjoy a “symbiotic relationship” that has been strengthened and honed by 14 years of war, he said.
“The Army provides the Marine Corps with capabilities and depth,” Laster said. During long-term theater operations, after the initial Marine Corps forcible entry assault, the Army provides a sustaining occupational force and infrastructure that enables theater operations, he added.
Maj. Gen. Scott Vander Hamm, Air Force assistant deputy chief of staff for operations, said his service was equally interdependent with the Army. Soldiers provide airmen with integrated air defenses against enemy missiles, wide-are security for bases and airfields and engineering services. The Army also has responsibility for intratheater helicopter transport of troops and fuel and soldiers provide targeting for air strikes, he said.
“In the Air Force, we do not have the excess capacity to take on those core enablers that are organic to the United States Army,” Vander Hamm said.
Stateside, the Navy uses Army facilities for inland ammunition storage and relies on Army logisticians to deliver that ammo to ports for loading on ships and aircraft, said Rear Adm. Lawrence Jackson, Deputy Director of the Navy Reserve. He also mentioned that the Army is in charge of the military’s strategic blood reserve, a morbid example of a joint-force enabler, but absolutely necessary in time of conflict.
But those and similar “enablers” that the Army has provided to other services under the joint-force construct are threatened by impending troop cuts as a result of the post-war downturn in defense spending.
The Army is set to reduce its end strength by an additional 40,000 troops over the next two years, including the elimination of 17,000 civilian employees. That will leave the service at 450,000 soldiers, the absolute minimum Army uniformed and civilian leadership claim is necessary to fulfill the National Security Strategy of fighting one major war while responding to other contingencies.
Those cuts are on top of the 80,000 soldiers the Army already has jettisoned since 2012, which cost 13 brigade combat teams, the basic unit of deployable Army forces.
The possibility of sequestration snapping back into effect in fiscal year 2016 would further reduce Army end strength to 420,000 or fewer. At those levels, the Army’s contributions to joint operations would be severely degraded if not eliminated, the service representatives told the NCFA.
Marine Maj. Gen. Herman Clardy, deputy director for force management, application and support with the Joint Staff J-8, pointed out that the 40,000 troop reduction has not yet been made, so the overall prognosis is hard to determine.
“The indication at this point is that the near-term cuts that have been identified will not have a significant impact,” Clardy said. “Further cuts, however…we’re on the edge, so further cuts we anticipate will have an impact as we go forward.”
Laster said the Marine Corps is not yet seeing the negative effects of Army troop cuts, “but I believe it is coming.”
“We’re on the verge of it becoming unacceptable,” he said of the service’s ability to train together effectively in large units. “It would be a shame to lose the experience we’ve gained over the last decade with interoperability, working together across all of the services, but particularly with the Army.”
Jackson said, “We haven’t lost [the ability to train and fight jointly] yet, but we are on a downward path, undoubtedly. From the Navy perspective, we’re worried about the lack of reset, lack of resources.”