The Army’s plans to transition from conflict to the future force of 2020 could be face disarray if automatic budget cuts of some $500 billion known as sequestration kick in.
If the cuts go ahead, “It will fundamentally change how we do business,” Odierno told the audience at the AUSA Winter Symposium in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., Feb. 24.
The roughly $500 billion in defense cuts would be in addition to a $487 billion reduction to the Pentagon’s 10-year spending plans already approved by the law. That $487 billion reduction is reflected in the 2013-2017 program objective memorandum (POM) or future year’s budget.
It wasn’t easy to put the budget together and make the cuts, Odierno said, “We’re on the razor’s edge.”
Under the Budget Control Act of 2011, the failure of a super committee of lawmakers to craft a plan last year to cut the federal deficit triggered $1.2 trillion in long-term cuts starting in January 2013. About half the cuts will come from the Pentagon.
Odierno was clear that his job is maintaining a constant balance among the number of soldiers in the service, or end strength, readiness and modernization.
By the end of fiscal year 2017, the service will see the force draw down to 490,000 from the current 570,000 in the active force, reducing the troops added from the surge and using attrition to meet the numbers. The reduction has been expected since the end of conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan came into view.
Automatic sequestration could mean a reduction of another 100,000 people, he said, reiterating what he said earlier in the week. Of those troops, 40,000 to 50,000 would come from the active force, another 40,000 to 50,000 from the guard and reserves.
That reduction could affect what other Army officers discussed during the symposium–what the organization would look like in the future.
Odierno said Army Training and Doctrine Command has put in some 6,500 hours of simulation into what future brigades would look like. How many brigades and what they consist of could be changed by that further drop in manpower.
Additionally, funds would not be there to be able to train that smaller force properly, Odierno said.
Sequestration cuts also would mean stretching modernization programs by making them take longer and be less efficient, Odierno said.
That could call into question the Army’s often- repeated priority future plans in support of a network, new ground combat vehicle, joint light tactical vehicle and soldier systems.
“Everyone agrees [sequestration] shouldn’t happen, but nobody’s told me how they’re going to fix it,” Odierno said.