[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: A Concerned Citizen
Date: 10 Nov 2000
Time: 08:49:19
This is a good example of how members of the Congressional Staff can serve as useful checks and balances in our system of government. Elaine Grossman of Inside the Pentagon reports on a response to a staff trip report that has also been posted on this website -- see it in the "Readiness" section of the "People" Page (http://d-n-i.net/FCS_Folder/readiness.htm). Rather than relying on information fed by the Pentagon's propaganda machine or lazy newspaper reporters regurgitating press releases, this staffer decided to earn his pay to going to field and examining problems first had.
Concerned citizens should read this trip report and judge for themselves whether or not the Rep. John McHugh's (R-NY) request for a General Accounting Office study by is warranted. This is what makes the American government great, for all its evident flaws.
Citizen X
Inside the Pentagon
November 9, 2000
LAWMAKER 'DEEPLY TROUBLED' BY READINESS REPORT FROM FORT DRUM
GAO to renew study on Army preparedness
Rep. John McHugh (R-NY), chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee on military morale, welfare and recreation, has told Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Hugh Shelton he is "deeply troubled" by repeated reports of lagging military readiness, particularly following a congressional trip report on such challenges at Fort Drum, in his own district.
In an Oct. 2 letter, McHugh said he found the Senate staffer's "report criticizing the readiness of the 10th Mountain Division disconcerting, particularly after receiving assurances that the division is trained, ready and fully manned."
The staffer's report, circulated on condition of anonymity and reported Oct. 2 by InsideDefense.com, contended the Army light infantry division at Fort Drum suffers from serious readiness deficiencies in training, manning, equipment and other measures, despite the Pentagon's official "ready" rating for the unit (Inside the Pentagon, Oct. 5, p5).
Eleven days later, McHugh joined House Armed Services Committee Chairman Floyd Spence (R-SC) in requesting that the General Accounting Office launch a follow-up review on the Army's late-deploying divisions, which GAO last reported on in 1998. The new assessment, McHugh and Spence wrote in a separate Oct. 13 letter, "should include an updated assessment of the personnel and materiel situation of these divisions, as well as the impact of ongoing peacekeeping operations on the ability to train for combat."
They explained that in response to personnel shortfalls GAO documented two years ago, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki undertook an initiative to fully man each of the Army's divisions. But the two lawmakers are curious "whether Gen. Shinseki's efforts are making any improvements in these units."
McHugh and Spence also asked GAO to study another initiative launched by Shinseki this fall that teams all Army Guard divisions with active divisions, in an attempt to ease the strain on active and Guard units serving in the Balkans. As described in the letter, "Shinseki outlined a number of missions the Army Guard units will be able to conduct including augmentation, rotation, backfill and reinforcement of the active divisions. In return, the active units will be [expected] to provide greater assistance to Army Guard units as they train to perform tasks across the full spectrum of military operations."
McHugh and Spence tell GAO they are "interested in how this initiative will impact the readiness of these later deploying units and whether this additional tasking will further stress the active divisions."
An aide to McHugh told ITP the lawmaker is "interested in getting a fair assessment of readiness concerns raised not just by this [Senate staffer's] report" but also by the multiple operations around the globe to which U.S. forces are deployed. The military's readiness to undertake current operations as well as fight and win two overlapping major theater wars -- the Pentagon's worst-case scenario -- is in question, the staffer said late last month.
In his earlier letter to Shelton, McHugh laid out what he believes to be the challenge. "Our armed services are at a critical juncture," he wrote. "Clearly, there are a number of challenges facing our nation's military planners and policymakers in determining the future of America's forces. Thus far, our men and women in uniform have performed superbly, particularly in light of the increase in the number of their missions coupled with constraints on resources. Accordingly, we appear to be faced with a decision to either reduce our nation's military commitments abroad, or provide additional resources to ensure that our soldiers, sailors and airmen have the necessary tools to carry out their missions." -- Elaine M. Grossman
Copyright 2000, Inside Washington Publishers. This article may not be reproduced or redistributed, in part or in whole, without express permission of the publisher