Washington D.C. - U.S. Senator Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii), questioned Army Secretary Pete Geren and Army Chief of Staff General George Casey at an Armed Services Committee hearing on the Army Defense Authorization Request for FY 2009, chaired by Carl Levin (D-Michigan).

A transcript appears below:

SEN. AKAKA (D-HI): Secretary, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness, I am especially concerned about the amount of time our soldiers are getting at home in between deployments, both to take care of themselves and their families, but also to receive the necessary training. And this really is about resetting, as is being mentioned -- even the increase in Army's end-strength. I'm concerned that the operations tempo facing our soldiers will impact their ability to be trained and prepared for missions across the spectrum of conflict.

My question to you, Secretary, what are the biggest obstacles for the Army to overcome if another crisis erupts that demands U.S. military intervention on the ground?

MR. GEREN: Our goal is full-spectrum readiness, have our soldiers ready for the full range of threats that are out there. And as you note in your question, with the length of time that we have at home today, 12 months between deployments, we do not have time to train for full-spectrum readiness in that period of time.

We have funding that is allowing us to reset the equipment so that that equipment's ready for when soldiers redeploy, but until we get to a deployment-to-dwell ratio that gives us adequate time at home, we are going to fall short of our goal of full-spectrum readiness.

GEN. CASEY: If I could, Senator --

SEN. AKAKA: General Casey.

GEN. CASEY: -- just -- there's a perception that conventional training is not happening in the Army and -- it's not happening much. But I recently visited both Japan and Korea, and in Japan I witnessed a Army corps participating in a conventional scenario, partnered with a Japanese corps. And then in Korea, our brigade there in Korea is, in the U.S. forces there under General Bell, are also doing conventional training.

So not much, but it's not non-existent.

SEN. AKAKA: If current operations, Mr. Secretary, in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to require the same approximate number of forces for the next two or three years, what impact will this have on readiness, do you think?

MR. GEREN: Well, we are consuming readiness now as quickly as we build it. And if we are unable to extend the dwell time, if the number of brigades doesn't get down to a demand of 15 brigades for our Army, we are going to have a difficult time having sufficient dwell time to accomplish all the missions that we hope to accomplish when a soldier is home.

Our soldiers are training for the mission which they're asked to do today -- the COIN counterinsurgency mission. And the soldiers that we send into combat are well prepared for what we're asking them to do. But the demand to get them prepared for what we're asking them to do now, understandably limits their ability to prepare for other missions.

GEN. CASEY: Senator, I could.

SEN. AKAKA: General Casey.

GEN. CASEY: Based on your assumption -- your question about what will happen the next two years: If you hold the demand steady at those 15 active component brigades, what you see is with our growth, the amount of dwell time at home gradually increases to the point where every year starting in '09, we get a progressively larger number of forces trained for the full spectrum of operations in addition to the forces that we're deploying. So the growth helps.

MR. GEREN: When we reach our goal of 76 brigade combat teams across all three components, we'll be able to sustain up to 19 brigades deployed at that point. So as we grow towards that, as we reorganize towards that, we'll be able to sustain a higher level of overseas deployments.

SEN. AKAKA: I see.

General Casey, much has been said of the limited value of mechanized warfare and the impact technology can have in conducting counterinsurgency and stability operations, which tend to rely much more on cultural awareness and interpersonal relationships to be effective. In essence, the enemy is not a willing participant in the information network and detection in urban environments may be beyond the capabilities of any known technology.

My question is: What are the specific advantages that a future combat systems BCT could bring to the counterinsurgency fight that justify its costs in the near term?

GEN. CASEY: Thank you, Senator.

I think I have a couple of points here. One, first of all, the future combat systems is an effective system across the spectrum of conflict. And I see it as very good at conventional war in the 21st century, which is going to be different than the wars we planned to fight on the plains of Europe. But also, I see it very helpful in terms of irregular warfare.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, in irregular warfare, your intelligence requirements require much more precision than they do in conventional war. It's a heck of a lot easier to find the second echelon of the 8th Guard's Tank Army than it is to find, as you suggested, an individual on the sixth floor of a high-rise apartment building in a sprawling city.

And what we're working on with the future combat systems, and what is being tested and evaluated today out of Fort Bliss, are unmanned and unattended ground censors, unmanned aerial vehicles all linked by the network that will allow us to locate precisely the targets of our military operations. And then to apply precision effects -- and there's a non-line-of-sight weapons system that is part of this first test that you'll see that can put a missile on a target from 40 kilometers away.

So it's precision intelligence collections ability and it's precision attack capabilities will make it, in my view, just as useful in irregular warfare as it is in conventional warfare.

Lastly, the network will enable our soldiers to have a much better situational understanding of what will inherently be a very, very complex environment. And they will be augmented in that in their cultural understanding and their cultural training, which will still be part of it. But as I said, I am quite comfortable with the FCS capabilities in both an irregular and in a conventional environment.

SEN. AKAKA: Thank you for your response.

Senate Armed Services Committee official hearing notification and witness statements