bobdina
07-01-2009, 01:47 PM
Personnel costs may trigger another drawdown
By Rick Maze
rmaze@militarytimes.com
A key lawmaker warns that cuts in the size of the active-duty force are inevitable, possibly beginning as soon as the last U.S. combat troops are withdrawn from Iraq at the end of 2011.
Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House appropriations defense subcommittee that is responsible for funding military programs, said he is a great supporter of U.S. military personnel and their families and has tried to stop them from being overworked and overstressed — but he sees a large active-duty force as a mistake for the future.
“Personnel costs are eating us alive,” Murtha said in a June 24 breakfast meeting with defense reporters. “We will have to cut troop strength. There is no doubt about it.” In the short term, Murtha said he supports, and will find money for, a temporary increase of 20,000 to 30,000 active-duty soldiers, which Army officials say they need if they are going to cancel the use of stop-loss orders and cut deployment lengths.
But once combat deployments to Iraq end, Murtha said the Defense Department needs to reduce the number of people on active duty because there are pressing military modernization needs and little chance of getting extra money for defense.
Murtha’s views about the future buck the current trend. The House and Senate armed services committees are preparing a 2010 defense budget that includes a one-year increase of 40,000 active duty personnel, which adds $31 billion to defense budget costs over the next five years.
The 40,000 people are divided among the services: 15,000 for the Army, 14,700 for the Air Force, 8,100 for the Marine Corps and 2,500 for the Navy.
The added costs include direct pay and benefits plus support costs, according to a cost estimate prepared by the nonpartisan Con gressional Budget Office.
An increase of 30,000 soldiers would cost the Army an additional $2 billion a year'.
By Rick Maze
rmaze@militarytimes.com
A key lawmaker warns that cuts in the size of the active-duty force are inevitable, possibly beginning as soon as the last U.S. combat troops are withdrawn from Iraq at the end of 2011.
Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House appropriations defense subcommittee that is responsible for funding military programs, said he is a great supporter of U.S. military personnel and their families and has tried to stop them from being overworked and overstressed — but he sees a large active-duty force as a mistake for the future.
“Personnel costs are eating us alive,” Murtha said in a June 24 breakfast meeting with defense reporters. “We will have to cut troop strength. There is no doubt about it.” In the short term, Murtha said he supports, and will find money for, a temporary increase of 20,000 to 30,000 active-duty soldiers, which Army officials say they need if they are going to cancel the use of stop-loss orders and cut deployment lengths.
But once combat deployments to Iraq end, Murtha said the Defense Department needs to reduce the number of people on active duty because there are pressing military modernization needs and little chance of getting extra money for defense.
Murtha’s views about the future buck the current trend. The House and Senate armed services committees are preparing a 2010 defense budget that includes a one-year increase of 40,000 active duty personnel, which adds $31 billion to defense budget costs over the next five years.
The 40,000 people are divided among the services: 15,000 for the Army, 14,700 for the Air Force, 8,100 for the Marine Corps and 2,500 for the Navy.
The added costs include direct pay and benefits plus support costs, according to a cost estimate prepared by the nonpartisan Con gressional Budget Office.
An increase of 30,000 soldiers would cost the Army an additional $2 billion a year'.