<DOC> [108th Congress House Hearings] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access] [DOCID: f:96409.wais] COMBATING TERRORISM: TRAINING AND EQUIPPING RESERVE COMPONENT FORCES ======================================================================= HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, EMERGING THREATS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS of the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ MAY 11, 2004 __________ Serial No. 108-211 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house http://www.house.gov/reform ______ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 2004 96-409 PDF For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut TOM LANTOS, California ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland DOUG OSE, California DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio RON LEWIS, Kentucky DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri CHRIS CANNON, Utah DIANE E. WATSON, California ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California NATHAN DEAL, Georgia C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER, CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan Maryland TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Columbia JOHN R. CARTER, Texas JIM COOPER, Tennessee MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee ------ ------ PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio ------ KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont (Independent) Melissa Wojciak, Staff Director David Marin, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director Rob Borden, Parliamentarian Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut, Chairman MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio DAN BURTON, Indiana DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio TOM LANTOS, California RON LEWIS, Kentucky BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER, TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania Maryland KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts DIANE E. WATSON, California Ex Officio TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California Lawrence J. Halloran, Staff Director and Counsel R. Nicholas Palarino, Senior Policy Analyst Robert A. Briggs, Clerk Andrew Su, Minority Professional Staff Member C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on May 11, 2004..................................... 1 Statement of: Hanlon, Lieutenant General Edward, Commandant, Marine Corps Combat Development Command; Lieutenant General Roger C. Schultz, Director, Army National Guard; Lieutenant General James R. Helmly, Chief, Army Reserve; and Brigadier General Louis W. Weber, Director of training, U.S. Army............ 83 Neill, First Sergeant Gerald G., 323 Military Intelligence Battalion, U.S. Army Reserve, Maryland; Staff Sergeant Juan SanchezLopez, 2nd Battalion 23rd Marines, Reserves; Specialist Michael Tanguay, 143rd Military Police Co., National Guard, Connecticut; Lieutenant Colonel Steve J. Novotny, 530th Military Police Battalion, U.S. Army Reserve, Nebraska; Andrew F. Krepinevich, executive director, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments; and Major General (ret.) Richard C. Alexander, president, National Guard Association of the United States, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments........................ 6 Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by: Alexander, Major General (ret.) Richard C., president, National Guard Association of the United States, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, prepared statement of. 57 Hanlon, Lieutenant General Edward, Commandant, Marine Corps Combat Development Command, prepared statement of.......... 85 Helmly, Lieutenant General James R., Chief, Army Reserve: Information concerning processing days................... 156 Prepared statement of.................................... 106 Krepinevich, Andrew F., executive director, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, prepared statement of. 41 Neill, First Sergeant Gerald, 323 Military Intelligence Battalion, U.S. Army Reserve, Maryland, prepared statement of......................................................... 9 Novotny, Lieutenant Colonel Steve J., 530th Military Police Battalion, U.S. Army Reserve, Nebraska, prepared statement of......................................................... 31 SanchezLopez, Staff Sergeant Juan, 2nd Battalion 23rd Marines, Reserves, prepared statement of................... 16 Schultz, Lieutenant General Roger C., Director, Army National Guard, prepared statement of............................... 98 Shays, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from the State of Connecticut, prepared statement of............ 4 Tanguay, Specialist Michael, 143rd Military Police Co., National Guard, Connecticut, prepared statement of......... 22 Weber, Brigadier General Louis W., Director of training, U.S. Army, prepared statement of................................ 120 COMBATING TERRORISM: TRAINING AND EQUIPPING RESERVE COMPONENT FORCES ---------- TUESDAY, MAY 11, 2004 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1 p.m., in room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Schrock (acting chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Schrock, Shays and Watson. Staff present:: Lawrence Halloran, staff director and counsel; R. Nicholas Palarino, senior policy analyst; Robert A. Briggs, clerk; Richard Lundberg, detailee; Kristin Amerling and Andrew Su, minority professional staff members; Jeff Baran, minority counsel; and Jean Gosa, minority clerk. Mr. Schrock. This hearing will come to order. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations hearing entitled, ``Combating Terrorism: Training and Equipping Reserve Component Forces'' is called to order. Let me first thank all the witnesses for their time today in helping us address and improve a program that is vital to the men and women who put themselves in harms way for our country. As one of just a handful of military retirees serving in Congress, I believe I have a unique perspective and sensitivity to this issue. This war in Iraq and against terrorism has been personal to me since the beginning and has hit home in a very real way in the past few weeks with the deaths of military members from the district I am privileged to represent. I am sure I do not need to tell any of today's witnesses that it makes no difference to the enemy whether or not you are active duty or a Guard or Reservist. All of these men and women are placed in harms way without prejudice. Clearly it is our duty to ensure each and every soldier, airman, sailor, Marine and Coast Guardsman, regardless of active or reserve status is adequately equipped, trained and prepared to the highest degree possible to enter any war zone be it in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere we find our folks in harms way. Anything else is simply unacceptable. I recognize that utilization of the Guard and the Reserve military is at a pace we have not experienced in over 50 years. This has put tremendous pressure on the Pentagon to make everything come together. I also recognize we have had major obstacles in meeting these requirements, that many have been overcome, but that still more remain. I look forward to hearing from these witnesses today on what remains to be accomplished, and what recommendations they have to better help us meet these needs. I certainly expect they will address whatever inadequacies remain and explain what has been done or is being done to rectify such issues. I would like to recognize the chairman of this subcommittee, Mr. Shays, for any opening comments he might have. Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. National Guard and reserve units collectively called ``Reserve Component forces'' constitute an indispensable element of our national military power. No longer a rarely called upon supplement to the active force, they bring skills and specialties integral to modern warfare fighting, post- conflict stabilization and peacekeeping. It appears many RC units, still find themselves at the short end of the supply chain unable to train as they fight for new and evolving missions in challenging environments. Shortages of first-quality body armor, too few shielded Humvees, and limited pre-mobilization access to mission- specific training facilities have challenged Guard and Reserve unit effectiveness and put men and women at risk. We asked RC veterans of recent deployments and their Pentagon leadership to describe how the hard-won lessons from today's dynamic conflicts are applied to the equipment and training needs of the total force, particularly the Guard and Reserves. We asked how doctrine tactics and material are being adapted so deploying forces will be protected and will prevail against improvised explosive devices and other emerging threats. Ironically, the military occupational specialties like civil affairs, once regulated by cold war planners to Reserve component units, are proving essential on the front lines today. The policing skills many civilians bring to their military duties are in high demand on city streets from here to Baghdad. These units no longer are an extra element of the force package, but highly valuable and perishable assets that should be as well supported and judiciously deployed as their active duty components. Rick helped teach us that lesson. Army Reserve Staff Sergeant Richard S. Eaton, Jr., from Guilford, CT, voluntarily deployed to the Iraqi theater with the 323rd Military Intelligence Battalion. Before he died from apparent heat- related causes last August, he wrote to ask why members of his unit were activated twice in 2 years without required time at home? Why were RC personnel deemed ``mission essential,'' rushed to Kuwait only to find there was no mission? Meanwhile, was homeland security needlessly put at risk by their departure from the police departments, law enforcement units and intelligence agencies they left behind? His service, his dedication, his sacrifice compel us to pursue his questions about the preparation and tasking of the many thousands of men and women like Rick who put their Nation first and have every right to expect their national military leadership to reciprocate. This hearing is part of a sustained examination of National Guard and Reserve readiness issues by the Government Reform Committee. Past reports and testimony brought needed attention to mobilization pay errors, medical screening and structural strains caused by growing tensions between RC units' global combat and homeland security missions. As is our practice, we will hear first from veterans service members whose personal experiences and insights always prove invaluable to our oversight. We deeply appreciate that our distinguished second panel of Pentagon witnesses agreed to waive their customary right to open the hearing. Thanks to their forbearance, our subsequent discussion will be better grounded and more meaningful. Thank you all for being here. We look forward to hearing your testimony. [The prepared statement of Hon. Christopher Shays follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] Mr. Schrock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is customary that we swear our witnesses if you will please rise. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Schrock. Our first panel members this afternoon are: First Sergeant Gerald Neill, 323 Military Intelligence Battalion, U.S. Army Reserve, Maryland; Staff Sergeant Juan SanchezLopez, 2nd Battalion 23rd Marines, Reserves; Specialist Michael Tanguay, 143rd Military Police Co., National Guard from the chairman's home State of Connecticut; Lieutenant Colonel Steve J. Novotny, 530th Military Police Battalion, U.S. Army Reserve, Nebraska; our good friend Dr. Andrew F. Krepinevich, Executive Director, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments; and Major General (Ret.) Richard C. Alexander, president, National Guard Association of the United States, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. We are delighted to have all of you here. First Sergeant Neill, the floor is yours. STATEMENTS OF FIRST SERGEANT GERALD G. NEILL, 323 MILITARY INTELLIGENCE BATTALION, U.S. ARMY RESERVE, MARYLAND; STAFF SERGEANT JUAN SANCHEZLOPEZ, 2ND BATTALION 23RD MARINES, RESERVES; SPECIALIST MICHAEL TANGUAY, 143RD MILITARY POLICE CO., NATIONAL GUARD, CONNECTICUT; LIEUTENANT COLONEL STEVE J. NOVOTNY, 530TH MILITARY POLICE BATTALION, U.S. ARMY RESERVE, NEBRASKA; ANDREW F. KREPINEVICH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS; AND MAJOR GENERAL (RET.) RICHARD C. ALEXANDER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL GUARD ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS Sergeant Neill. I would like to begin my testimony with a silent moment recognizing the loss of life of our service members in Iraq. I want to particularly recognize Staff Sergeant Richard S. Eaton, Jr., from Bravo Co. 323 Military Intelligence Battalion, U.S. Army Reserves. He was a soldier and my friend, and he died in Iraq. [Moment of silence.] Sergeant Neill. Thank you for this opportunity to testify before you here today. You have my written testimony and I have to limit my time so I can only give you the highlights. I am a First Sergeant from Bravo Co. 323 Military Intelligence Battalion. I have 30 years of service. I have experience in team building, unit building and training. I have spent many years of working and developing sources and information in the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, DC. MI units work as teams. Solid teams contain a mix of young soldiers fresh from school and older soldiers, some with previous job skills with infantry training, motor training, supply, drill sergeants, communications, civilian street police experience are excellent pluses to any team. In the field in intense situations, they are the ones who stand above and carry the team to safety. We have a shortage of sworn officers who are their officer team leaders and they are the officer team builders. I believe soldiers fight as they train and that every Army trains for the next war based upon lessons learned from the last. If we accept this, we must look at training in two ways, premobilization which is basic training, military occupation skills, leadership training and unit training and second, mobilization. Pre-mobilization training is adequate except at the unit training level. Unit training and annual training time is too often used up with administrative functions or other distractions. Here is where team building takes place. Six soldiers make a team and these teams may deploy in either tactical or non-tactical situations. A major problem for us was vehicle care and use requirements that take up one quarter of a drill weekend. The stated time allotment would more than double if the driver requirements were followed to the letter. Our unit avoided this requirement by turning our vehicles into sites and since we didn't have our vehicles, we did not have our radios and they were not mounted. Radio communication was a major problem for us in Iraq. While active duty units came to the theater with satellite phones and can use them for communications, we had none. Many years ago motor sections, com sections were all moved from military intelligence companies and sent to battalion levels. Their staffing was reduced and they became ineffective. Maybe it is time to look at bringing them back to the company level. Weapons training from our reserve unit was completely inadequate due to ammo shortage for the past 3 years. Weapons training at the mobilizationsite was only marginal and only marginally prepared soldiers to be effective and use their weapons. Equipment shortages were extremely problematic. Short call-up and mobilization times further impacted supply problems. Consequently, soldiers deployed without insect protection measures, bug juice, insect netting needed to endure the harsh environment. At one point in Iraq while we were waiting for a mission to start, heat stroke and illness exhausted the ability of a local aid station to support us and I had to send half of my unit to the hospital for treatment and recovery. Many soldiers fell ill when preventive measures were known but not provided. Mobilization, we were the prisoners of Fort Dix. Army Reservists could not leave post and this was a bitter pill to swallow for many Reservists and they still speak ill of it now. Unit sponsorship was nonexistent. Stepchildren receive better care from their sponsors than we did. The best training we received in-theater was action on contact where soldiers went through simulated combat drills, conducting our vehicles in desert conditions. We set up our vehicles, mounted our M-60 machine guns on improvised plywood platforms and aligning the bottom of our vehicles with sand bags. These teams were prepared to move to the field in two vehicle convoys. In August, some 8 months after our activation we assumed our original mission. We replaced the Marines. They left us with much needed equipment not available to our organic MI chain of command but the Marines proved it was needed to be successful in our operations. They left us non-tactical vehicles which allowed us quicker traveling speeds in the 55 to 60 miles a hour tactical vehicles move at. They did not alert the Iraqi citizens that they were coming as the motor sound of the Humvee truly earned its name. You can hear it a long ways off. We varied our speeds on highways, change of lanes as we approached bridges and not let anyone pass us once we were on the highway. Our job is to know the enemy. It is their job to know us. We presented the appearance of a battle ready element. Every team had a heavy machine gun as well as automatic rifles, handguns and grenades. We looked at everyone who looked at us. We considered everyone a potential threat until we knew otherwise. What I learned as a policeman is to watch people as you drive into bad neighborhoods. If they start running or start moving quickly when they see you, that is not a good sign. It is a good sign that something is amiss. I passed this to my soldiers. Soldiers purchased much of their own equipment. They paid for vehicle repairs, purchased maintenance parts for which they were not reimbursed and stated as an aside, we left an Iraqi mechanic holding an $1,100 bill for vehicle repairs and I am not sure the bill was ever paid. In terms of intelligence operations, intelligence contingency funds were not available to us until just prior to redeployment to the States. Sources did provide information for a variety of reasons but money was not available as an incentive. We all had issues with doctrine that would not allow us to task sources for information. We could suggest but not task. Sources do not need suggestions, they need direction. You ask them a question and tell them to come back with the answer. One final point deals with sources and I will be brief. Sources provide information expecting to see action. If they do not see action, they lose faith in us and quit providing information. In a country where explosive devices litter the landscape, the best way to stop roadside bombings is to act on information provided by sources as to the old who, what, where, when and how can I catch them questions. In closing, we arrived as a unit and returned as a unit. We fought for just about every living and working space we had in Iraq and we left our replacements in improved living and working conditions. Let me say that I took what I consider the best trained, best qualified soldiers any Nation can offer to war. They did an outstanding job and I am proud of them. Additionally, I know they are proud of themselves and their service to our great Nation. Thank you and I will answer any questions you have. [The prepared statement of Sergeant Neill follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] Mr. Schrock. Sergeant, thank you for your testimony and thank you for saying the nice things you say about your men and women. We know that to be true and I think the whole country does. Staff Sergeant SanchezLopez, thank you for being here and the floor is yours. Sergeant SanchezLopez. My name is Staff Sergeant SanchezLopez, a member of the 2nd Battalion, 23rd Marines, U.S. Marine Corps Reserve located in Encino, CA. I was mobilized in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and reported to Camp Pendleton, CA where I served for 13 months. My unit was deployed with Regimental Combat Team I, 1st Marine Division in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom on February 2003 for an additional 4 months and returned to the United States in May 2003. I served on active duty for a total of 24 months. Prior to serving in the Reserves, I served on active duty for 8 years and I have been in the Reserves for 4 years. My military occupation specialty is Motor Transportation Chief. My unit was not involved in fighting the insurgents but we did change our fighting tactics based on how the enemy was fighting us. Our roadblock procedure was one of the biggest changes, based on the intelligence reports we conducted our roadblocks. The change was based on information from Marine regiments, from RCT2. Marines changed their tactics once they entered Baghdad. These changes involved convoy procedures. At the time we stopped allowing Iraqis civilian vehicles from passing and mixing in our convoys. This was due to reports of attacks on convoys from passing vehicles. Our battalion recently completed a battalion field exercise in which we incorporated the lessons we learned from the war in our training. Some of these lessons were convoy procedures and local security. My unit participated in the same training as our active duty counterparts at Camp Pendleton. Prior to deploying from the United States to Kuwait, we served on active duty 13 months prior to departing the United States in support of Enduring Freedom. One of our equipment difficulties was we did not know prior to crossing from Kuwait to Iraq where we would be equipped with amtracks or trucks. We didn't find out until a week prior to the ground offensive which we changed our tactics to how we were going to employ that. I would like to thank all the members of this committee for allowing me to speak. I hope my testimony will assist in answering any questions you may have. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Sergeant SanchezLopez follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] Mr. Schrock. It does and it will and we thank you for serving. Specialist Tanguay, welcome. Specialist Tanguay. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you and good afternoon. My name is Specialist Michael Tanguay, a member of the 143rd Military Police Co., a National Guard Unit out of Hartford, CT which was mobilized February 7, 2003 in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I have been invited here today to testify before you in regard to my experience with pre- deployment and deployment to Iraq as it pertains to the training and equipment we received. I thank you for this opportunity. It is the intent of my testimony today to provide you with the curriculum of training we received prior to and during our deployment, equipment issues we faced and most importantly, lessons we have learned. The goals I have set for myself and present to this committee in testifying here before you will aid in rectifying known problems and potential trouble spots coupled with insight to the lessons we have learned. In preparation for deployment, my unit moved to Fort Drum, NY for a train-up mission. It is here where we received 2 months of theater-specific training ranging from Arabic language lessons to convey security operations. As a military police combat support unit, we have a wide range of missions we can perform. Facing the uncertainty of war, we did not know our specific mission, so we took the time to review all standard operating procedures for each mission or task that we could face. We performed several live fire exercises that sharpened our marksmanship skills and refamiliarized ourselves with each weapons system. Mine awareness and unexploded ordinance classes were conducted. However, improvised explosive devices did not surface until we were once in theater. Medical aid, urban warfare tactics, patrol techniques, prisoner of war detainee doctrine, area security operations and convoy security procedures were key classes conducted that ultimately benefited us during our deployment. The 2-month train-up phase of the deployment provided ample time to train and become a unified fighting machine. However, poor time management skills, severe logistical issues and improper equipment prevented us from training the way we ended up fighting. This motto of train the way we fight highly adopted by my unit is a foundational building block of a training curriculum. Nonetheless, without the proper equipment at our training site, in preparing for a desert climate while bundled in three layers of winter clothing, and mismanagement of precious training time turned into a last minute dash to get up to speed in preparing for war. The deficiency of the highly sought after unarmored Humvee and interceptor vests, lack of training and time at the mock urban warfare town, and unintentional misguided operational procedures for various mission tasks proved to be key lessons learned and areas to improve. More time spent at the mock urban warfare town would have proved extremely beneficial in building clearing techniques, possible ambush situations and civilian considerations on the battlefield. Our unit spent 2 days out of the 2-months at this training site. Time is extremely precious in preparing for war but a 2-week minimum at the site would have proved extremely beneficial. Unintentional misguided operational procedures placed us at a temporary setback during the early going while we were in theater. Situational dictations coupled with an under manning strength hindered us in the way we trained and the way we ended up combating. For example, a traditional MP line company as myself is broken up into a 10 person squad with three vehicles, an ideal and perfect situation for any MP task. However, while on the ground in Iraq our squad consisted of six personnel and only two trucks, a severe setback in security concern when conducting such operations as area and convoy security. The operational tempo as high as it was along with a high demand for MP type missions dictated changes that took place. Arriving in Kuwait on April 15, 2003 proved to be our last ditch effort to improve upon our training and ready our gear for the bush toward Baghdad. In our 3-week stay in Kuwait, we learned of our vague mission task. It was an encompassing task to patrol sectors of Baghdad, a very indistinguishable and non- definitive mission task at best. We readied our unarmored vintage aged Humvees and dawned our Vietnam era non-protective flak vests for the ride north. Severe logistical issues regarding equipment surfaced here again. No ammunition for our brand new MK-19 weapon system, no up armored Humvees to patrol in, and still no interceptor ceramic plated vests to protect us. We adapted and overcame the best we could, sandbagging the floor boards of our 1985 Humvees, creating weapons mounts for our other weapon system the M-249 SAW, and retrofitting a couple Humvees with diamond plating on the side doors of the trucks. Once in Baghdad things didn't improve much. We finally received our interceptor vests after a month in Baghdad complete with ceramic plates but still had problems with ammunition and non-armored vehicles. We were quickly improving and overcoming great obstacles with what we had to work with. Training was a continuous process. Overcoming enemy tactics such as IEDs in the roadways forced us to vary our routes, continually improve base and area security, and maintain a high level of situational awareness. The U.S. military is a highly trained, skilled, adaptive and intelligent force. The Guard and Reserve component forces have a lot to bring to the table as far as civilian background and how it is incorporated into use on the battlefield. For example as a Military Police unit, we have a large number of civilian law enforcement officers whose expertise and knowledge of policing provided firsthand knowledge of patrol tactics, weapons proficiency, an urban backdrop and general policing duties to those of us less experienced. That factor alone made a true impact on our success during this deployment. The 143rd Military Police Co. and myself completed a 1-year tour of duty in Baghdad, Iraq honorably while facing extreme odds and extenuating circumstances not in our favor. Several lessons have been learned, some unfortunately due to casualties sustained and fellow brothers and sisters in arms lost. First and foremost, let us equip our troops with the best possible gear to all units whether active duty, National Guard or Reserve component. Up armored Humvees, interceptor vests and IED jamming systems are great initiatives but need to be dispersed to all troops deploying overseas. Next, let us phase in a training doctrine that relates more to theater specific training regiment. There are several training sites in California, Nevada and Louisiana that provide the type of climate troops will soon see before they deploy. The mock urban warfare training ranges and sites are great tools that need to be taken advantage of. Language classes are also great tools that prove beneficial. Finally, it is imperative that the lessons learned from veterans be heard and the suggestions set forth to integrate the training doctrine to all deploying units. Let us continue to be the most intelligent, best equipped, fighting force out there. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Specialist Tanguay follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] Mr. Schrock. Thank you very much. Very impressive. Colonel Novotny, welcome. You have come a long way today and we are anxious to hear what you have to say. Welcome. Colonel Novotny. Chairman Shays and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am Lieutenant Colonel Steven Novotny, Battalion Commander of the 530th Military Police Battalion from Omaha, NE. I am honored to have the opportunity to speak before your committee today. In January 2003, my battalion headquarters was mobilized in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. After receiving orders for active duty, my unit was certified for deployment at Fort Riley, KS, deployed overseas and established operations at two separate camps in Iraq. While our primary mission was providing force protection at Camp Bucca, we also managed several other important missions. Several days a week, we coordinated visitation with 100 prisoners and over 500 family members that were being held at our camp. Our property team, responsible for annotating and inventory of prisoner personal effects, successfully returned many personal items to hundreds of prisoners upon departure of our camp. In addition, we entered into an agreement with British MPS to serve as a Quick Reaction Force if they needed assistance. Health care was coordinated with the Czech and British hospitals in Basra to treat our soldiers and prisoners on an emergency basis. The British also provided a dedicated Air Medical Evacuation Team that supported our camp. My unit, the 530th MP Battalion attached 20 soldiers to the 101st Airborne, supporting prisoner constriction. These soldiers also provided instruction on law enforcement and correction tasks to Iraqi nationals who would assume control over these facilities. While the 530th was in control of operations of our entire camp, we placed tremendous effort on improving the quality of life for our soldiers. We constructed a landing pad for helicopters, improved food variety, started an exchange program for medical personnel from the British hospital and established an MWR, a morale, welfare and recreation center. We also constructed a fixed shower facility. While this may not sound like much, our troops truly looked forward to one creature comfort, improving significantly our quality of life. Other things we did to improve morale was establish a local PX and having a 2-day bazaar. In November, the 530th MP Battalion moved to a new location approximately 45 northeast of Baghdad where we secured a group of 3,800 detainees. In approximately 10 days our processing team entered all 3,800 detainees into an identification data bank with the assistance of a civilian assistance review team. Our processors were recognized for maintaining a high degree of dedication and professionalism while achieving an extremely high first-time acceptance rate for data input. Many soldiers supported other units to include traffic control points and convoy security, while conducting combat operations in our area of operation throughout our stay at Camp Ashraf. Upon assuming command of my battalion, I conducted a review of my unit training program to ensure that our training program supported the essential tasks that were required of my unit if we were mobilized. I directed that a staff exercise be organized to exercise my unit staff, non-commissioned officers and individual soldiers from the unit. This training was focused on our primary wartime mission. I directed that all officers within my battalion participate in a staff training exercise where we prepared estimates for conducting convoys. All soldiers were trained on individual defensive tactics and while using the SINGARS communications equipment, we trained on our communications skills. Additionally, we worked on our critical task skills, on prisoner handling and management as well as specific areas within the Geneva Convention that applied to prisoners. Before and after mobilization, our active component liaisons from the 75th Training Division were instrumental in providing our staff with current doctrine and guidance that we used to plan future training sessions. While at our mobilization station, we conducted training on convoy operations, conducted nearly 2 weeks of training on military operations and warfare in an urban environment. This training was organized as a direct result of lessons learned from the incident of the maintenance unit that became disoriented in the city during convoy movements and was required to fight its way out of an urban environment. Early in our mobilization, I was invited to view exercises of possible wartime maneuver scenarios at Fort Hood along with my higher headquarters. These training sessions were invaluable in providing me the focus of potential missions of my battalion. Prior to leaving for Iraq, the 530th Military Police Battalion dispatched liaison noncommissioned officers to meet with subordinate companies that were located at Fort Lewis, Fort McCoy and Fort Bragg. These NCOs assured a coordinated, clear standard operating procedure was distributed to all units and that lines of communication along with clear and understood chain of command was established. The primary wheeled vehicle we had in our headquarters company was the Humvee. These were configured as two and four seat vehicles. Several were used as utility vehicles and could haul a limited amount of supplies and personnel. None of these vehicles were equipped or configured with protective armor or machine gun mounts. Companies assigned under my control brought a variety of Humvee vehicles. These varied from vehicles with no armor to those with up-armored Humvees. Immediately upon our arrival at our first location, I ordered that all vehicles be sandbagged with protective measures against mines. Units were outfitted with the armored Humvees were heavily tasked to provide convoy escorts for VIPs, prisoner transport, medical movement, logistic escort and force protection missions. All assigned line companies were equipped with 2\1/2\ ton trucks as our primary logistics vehicle. While most of these trucks were over 30 years of age, the battalion was able to maintain an acceptable operational readiness rate. While in Iraq, our battalion received new medium trucks at our home station in Omaha. Unfortunately, those vehicles were provided to other units who were scheduled to mobilize after us. Prior to moving to Camp Ashraf, all soldiers received the most current body armor to include front and rear plates. The 530th MP Battalion left all vehicles and most equipment to include the light engineer equipment in-country for follow-on forces to utilize after our departure. One lesson learned that would have improved our mission capability would have been an increase in allocation of medium machine guns and additional ammunition to allow for more soldiers to qualify on these weapons. While communications equipment was adequate, we needed additional backup equipment such as cables and microphones. We found that while we deployed with all of our soldiers we were supposed to have with our manning roster, our communications soldier was not enough. This was one person to support an entire battalion. I would also recommend that some elements within the command structure be equipped with armored security vehicles, ASVs. These would provide MPS with increased fire power and survivability. Our war fighting doctrine was based on an MP battalion being placed approximately 80 miles behind the front lines. This doctrine did not account for an MP battalion to establish detainee camps while on the move and following lead combat forces. Prior to mobilizing, all staff officers reviewed the After Action Review from our unit from Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm. The staff would take information from actual events and modify our training accordingly. The battalion would send advance and quartering parties to identify critical issues at future locations that we would anticipate moving to. The battalion conducted after action reviews after primary training events or actual situations in order to capture critical issues and provide updated guidance to our soldiers. We utilized IED employment templates which identified patterns of employment in our area and along routes that our convoys would move. Prior to convoys leaving our base, the S2 would request an IED update from our supporting brigade. If necessary, we could postpone convoy movements or take alternate routes. We encouraged postponing convoy departures due to heavy fog in the morning. The battalion conducted detailed mission briefs utilizing sand tables which are a military method of visualization of the battlefield prior to all missions. My staff and I used the Combined Arms Lessons Learned [CALL], Web site from Fort Leavenworth. This is a storehouse of all Army lessons learned. We depended heavily on the operations and intel update for current information from the 2nd Combat Brigade of the 4th ID. The 530th Executive Office was tasked with forwarding current situational updates with our lessons learned to the 89th Regional Reserve Command in Wichita, KS so they can incorporate our lessons learned into training plans for other Reserve forces. The 89th was able to emphasize to following units issues such as bringing as much PLL, prescribed load list items as possible with them. In addition, the convoy portion of the mobilization train-up was modified to incorporate lessons learned from units in-theater and pass on information to improve safety. Another result was a subordinate unit bringing in a Humvee with increased protection instead of what had been authorized previously. During the 530th's mobilization, we commanded nine companies from active duty, Army Reserve and National Guard. My battalion did the best to forge all companies into one team while providing them with the best leadership, guidance and resources they would require. I am extremely proud of all of our soldiers I have served with from California, South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Georgia, Wisconsin, Kentucky and Puerto Rico. Thank you again for your time and I will answer any of your questions. [The prepared statement of Colonel Novotny follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] Mr. Schrock. Thank you, Colonel, and thank you for being here. Dr. Krepinevich, thank you. It is nice to have you here again and the floor is yours. Dr. Krepinevich. Thank you and thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and share my views on this important issue. As you know, my expertise on the details of training and preparing our troops for deployment to Afghanistan and Iraq is far from comprehensive. Consequently, I will focus my comments in placing the training issue within the larger context of our operations in these two countries. For people my age and those of us who have served in the military, there is a sense that we have been to this movie before. Indeed, 42 years ago almost to the day, President Kennedy in addressing the graduating class at West Point said the following, ``This is another type of war, new in its intensity, ancient in its origins, war by guerillas, subversives, insurgents, assassins, war by ambush instead of by combat, by infiltration instead of aggression, seeking victory by eroding and exhausting the enemy instead of engaging him. It requires in those situations where we must counter it a whole new kind of strategy, a wholly different kind of force, and therefore, a wholly different kind of military training.'' When he spoke those words, he was referring to places like Vietnam and Colombia but I think they are quite apt for the kind of combat that these people find themselves confronting today in Afghanistan and Iraq. First, we are victims of our success. Our military so dominates that the conventional form of warfare that we have essentially driven people out of that business. Those who want to confront us are now like North Korea and Iran, looking for nuclear weapons. Those that can't do that such as the opposition in Afghanistan and Iraq, seek the route of insurgency and practice the tactics the President spoke of some 42 years ago. Second, as they have gotten into this business, we find that we have been out of this business. We got out of this business after the Vietnam War. ``No more Vietnams'' was voiced not only by the American public and the political leadership but quite frankly also by our military as well. The 1980's saw the Weinberg and Powell doctrines, go in with everything you have, overwhelming force and leave quickly. The 1990's when we had situations where we did deploy overseas, we can think of Somalia, Haiti and Bosnia, there was all discussion about exit strategies. Let us not stay there too long. That seemed to work. Unfortunately, September 11 changed everything. Now we don't have the luxury of leaving a Haiti or Somalia, especially when they are named Afghanistan and Iraq just because we got tired or we don't feel we are as successful as we should be. Nevertheless, this approach, this no more Vietnams, Weinberg- Powell Doctrine and exit strategy concept practiced by all of us, Republicans, Democrats and military alike, led to the atrophy of the kinds of skills, the kind of doctrinal development, the kind of thinking about what it takes to prevail in this kind of war. Thus, the tactics we talk about the insurgents practice in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, while they seem perhaps new to us, they are hardly new at all. Suicide bombers are not new. Neither are car and truck bombs. We saw those as far back as 1983 in Beirut and Lebanon. Certainly attacks on convoys aren't new. As for improvised explosive devices, we have seen them before as well. In 1966 in Vietnam, over 1,000 Americans were killed in combat because of improvised booby traps and what we would call today IEDs. If it seems new, if these challenges seem new and the training requirements seem new, it is because just as they have gotten into this business, we find that we have been out of it for too long. The third point I would like to make is that insurgencies are typically protracted conflicts. Since they are protracted conflicts, we need not only the kinds of adaptive fixes that these men have been talking about but we also need to move beyond this hastily organized fix for training. We need a coherent, focused, long-term approach to bring the U.S. military's training infrastructure for irregular warfare as counter insurgency is up to the standards we have established for conventional warfare training facilities such as at the Army's National Training Center and other facilities. Fourth, the issue of a training gap. Insurgencies are, as I said, protracted conflicts. What we have is a force that will continue to rotate over time. We have already gone through the first rotation. Insurgents don't rotate. They continue to receive the best possible training, contact with American forces. If this occurs as it does over time, if this is a protracted conflict as most insurgencies are, a training gap will likely emerge between our forces and theirs, making it all the more important to make sure that our training standards are up to the highest level possible. Indeed, as troops rotate out of the theater of operations, their skills begin to atrophy. Not only that, but since they don't participate directly in the conflict, the fact the insurgents are adapting may make these skills not only atrophy but also less relevant over time. This means is that we need to find ways to mitigate the training gap, not only through the training infrastructure but also by prompt, accurate feedback that can be used in training forces in that infrastructure at the relevant kind of tactics and operations at the relevant scale. We need a stable rotation base that can insure high retention rates. If in fact over time we are going to be deploying forces again and again to Iraq and Afghanistan and other places where we are confronted by insurgents, we are going to need people who have had that experience before. Finally, the Army's concept of unit manning might even prove more productive in that it would not only rotate people back, people who have better experience but finally, people who are operating as a cohesive unit. Failure to retain people will lead to an even greater burden on our training infrastructure. My final point as First Sergeant O'Neill said, our troops and units train the way they fight. They train the way they fight and they fight as a function of the doctrine and the way they are organized, the force structure. Again, just as training has atrophied over the last 25 years, so has doctrine. The NTC may be fine for conducting training on sweeps to detect guerilla forces in open desert but it is far less relevant if our doctrine emphasizes securing and holding towns and urban areas for protracted periods. In this vein, it is critical to have a clear sense of the strategy that we are pursuing in Afghanistan and Iraq because the fact is that no matter how tactically proficient we are, that is not going to be a substitute for good strategy or effective doctrine. Let me sum up. Again, let me compliment the committee for raising the awareness of this important issue. Again, I think the fact we are engaged in dealing with insurgency today is a function of our military dominance. Nevertheless, although insurgency may be a form of warfare of the weak and not the strong, it still presents us, as Secretary Rumsfeld has said, with a long, hard slog to victory. This means we must move beyond the service's immediate training fixes, helpful though they may be, to undertake reform and restructure of our training programs to address a form of warfare that has received all too little attention these past two decades. Finally, it is critical to note that improved training at the tactical level of warfare cannot make up for deficiencies in strategy and military doctrine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Dr. Krepinevich follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] Mr. Schrock. Thank you. It is an incredibly important subject. We appreciate your thoughtful comments and hope everyone was listening because it is very important. General Alexander, we are glad to have you here. You represent a magnificent organization. It is my privilege to yield the floor to you. General Alexander. Thank you very much for inviting me to testify on behalf of the National Guard Association of the United States. As you know, the mission of the National Guard has changed drastically since September 11. Today's Guardsmen and Guardswomen are not only supporting missions to defend and protect our homeland but they are also deployed abroad in our ongoing war against terrorism. The state of the National Guard is good. However, as the Guard participates in Iraq, Afghanistan and other locations throughout the world, challenges continue and they will continue for some time. I believe the Guard has demonstrated they are up to these challenges. The current military leadership understands the hardship the Guard is enduring. The families and employers of these brave men and women understand and support the commitment that their loved ones, co-workers and friends have elected to make. An Arkansas spokesman says, ``Guard families are doing OK. Though they have anxiety, they still support the Guard.'' These comments were in light of the Arkansas Guard sustaining five combat related deaths just a few weekends ago in Operation Iraqi Freedom. In preparing my testimony, I solicited comments from members of the National Guard Association and received feedback from the Adjutants General of the States and communications from Special Forces soldiers and those soldiers returning from areas of operation in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will report to you those in the field are thankful for the forward thinking preparation that has been demonstrated by our Nation's Adjutants General. In several instances, training from lessons learned has been instituted from the ground up, that is State level rather than top down from the Federal level. As such, many States have taken the lessons learned from their returning or deployed units and incorporated new training regimes to prepare soldiers for their deployment in theater. Several States have initiated their own programs to prepare their soldiers for combat operations such as additional combat arms training to enhance basic soldier skills outside of the MOS skill set and years of additional funding to enhance communication and coordination training for units preparing for deployment. In preparation for my testimony, I reviewed questions that you posed to us. As such in my capacity as president of the National Guard Association, I would like to focus on two aspects of the questions you presented to us, training and resourcing. With regard to training, some units are reporting that redundancy in training has extended their stay at mobilization stations. Other feedback indicates that some of the existing training at home station does not fit the scenarios that our personnel are encountering. This also is increasing time at mobilization stations. This is requiring our soldiers to be gone for 18 months or more. There should be a review of our current policies and procedures to maximize training and certification at home station. There exists instances where we are using training doctrine as stated earlier that is more than 3 years old. We should make every effort to reduce time at mobilization stations by addressing this training gap. In addition, there should be a review of training for the Air National Guard transportation units. Some Air National Guard units are being deployed without training and as a result are required to train up in theater. This is the transportation piece. A greater attempt should be made to train these units prior to deployment. Allow me to read comments from a Special Forces unit that has returned from operations in Afghanistan. Transition that occurred in Afghanistan between National Guard Special Forces groups and active duty Special Forces groups did not allow for an effective passage of information or situational awareness for two reasons. Active component intelligence and command personnel who had been deployed in the region for less than 8 months did not have confidence in the National Guard to further develop a valuable situational awareness or understanding. The transition schedule also did not allow for sufficient overlap. After returning to home station for deployment, most units did not see value in their receiving lessons learned or heads- up information from us, that is the Guard Special Forces group. They viewed such as an ad hoc means of relating information to be a training distractor. These unit commands believe that their power projection platforms and higher headquarters would be able to provide them the information they needed to succeed. Some units have accepted offered briefings and work groups only to limit attendance and to assure that these meetings were kept short. Attempts at providing information failed because unit commands were not reachable or did not return attempted contacts. With regard to the issue of resourcing our Guard forces, the following comments were made from the field. Adequate training with sappy plates and body armor should be done stateside. Soldiers need to be comfortable and familiar with all the equipment they will be using before deploying to their theater of operations. We should be training and resourcing our forces at C-1 level rather than taking extended time to train at C-3 level. We must ensure that our personnel have the materials and equipment they will be using in the area of operation. Also allow me to read excerpts from one of several e-mails I received from soldiers serving abroad when we posed your questions to them. The current military table of organizations do not provide the necessary equipment for units operating in this environment. For example, our truck company is not authorized radios in each vehicle to maintain communications between drivers. The unit purchased secure handheld radios prior to deployment which have been essential to that unit. The M-16 A2 is not the best weapon for transportation soldiers to quickly engage the enemy and they should be replaced with M-4s. A hatch cut in the top of a het would offer better field of fire observations. Up-armored Humvees must be standardized. As you may have heard, a number of our soldiers are being inundated and all kinds of ways are being used to protect themselves in Humvees. The standard military weapons training must be enhanced to include close quarter battle and enhanced weapons training for all soldiers. This is very true for our transportation company personnel who during an ambush transitioning to modern infantry is a must. At present, the individual States are purchasing equipment and providing training required. MOS training schools must spend more time focusing on critical combat skills and eliminate nonsurvival skills such as drill and ceremony. Every minute of training time on skills that will keep a soldier alive in combat is what we should be about. In the fog of war and in light of logistics and resourcing challenges facing our Guard units, they are producing innovations in the field as relates to the individual equipment and vehicles. For the record, I would ask that an article from the Topeka Capital Journal be entered into the record for the committee's review. I believe that has already been submitted. Mr. Schrock. Without objection. General Alexander. As you can see, there have been challenges that need to be addressed. I believe the Guard units and their leadership are responding. I believe that our Guard units and Adjutants General are focusing on training and preparing their personnel in order to protect the lives of our citizens. Again, our Guard personnel are rising to the new challenges each and every day. We must continue to evaluate our mission and how we train and equipment for such missions. I applaud you and this committee for focusing on this important issue in order to serve our military men and women. They are our greatest asset. Without them, we cannot fight and defend our country. We must honor the sacrifices they make each day. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and look forward to your questions. [The prepared statement of General Alexander follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] Mr. Schrock. Thank you, General. Let me start the questioning by asking our first three witnesses, if you had the opportunity to ask questions of your senior leadership, what questions would you ask? Sergeant Neill. We did ask questions of our senior leadership. We asked them what was wrong with their supply system and who was responsible. They fingerpointed and would not accept responsibility. Anything that happened in my company, as the First Sergeant I am responsible for it, good or bad. So the senior leadership has to provide an answer for us. They didn't always have an answer. We asked about training, we asked about plus up of ammo. We didn't have our basic load. We were able to get ammunition from other people, ask them and they gave it to us. Our own battalion wouldn't support us for many months. We didn't have, like other soldiers said, the basic material we should have had to go to war. Mr. Schrock. Staff Sergeant. Sergeant SanchezLopez. Well, sir, for us, we did have the opportunity to speak to General Maddis who was in charge of us, the 4th Marine Division Commander came up and took questions from the individual Marine and Lance Corporal. Whatever he didn't have an answer to, he took it down, went back and came back with an answer. Mr. Schrock. Specialist Tanguay. Specialist Tanguay. We did ask quite a few questions during our training mission and once we were overseas. Several questions were raised at the training site in regards to seminition training which is a realistic training exercise involving the M-9 pistol, the barrel is interchangeable with a seminition barrel and it fires a projectile most commonly referred to as a paintball. That training we have ample opportunity, we have the equipment in our possession but we didn't train with it. Why didn't we train with it? It provides a realistic opportunity for soldiers to train with it. Why didn't we train with it? We asked that question. Mr. Schrock. What was the answer? Specialist Tanguay. The answer was none of your business was a command directive. It was a commander's responsibility for providing the training at our training site. We did not receive that training. The next question that was raised by subordinates along with NCOs was the truck issue, the Humvee, the up-armored Humvee once we got overseas. Several questions were raised why aren't we getting the up-armored and so forth. The up-armored were in such high demand and in short supply. Basically every other week we were getting an answer but they came out with these retrofitted survivability kits they call them for the Humvees. Primary answer to that question was funding. They didn't have the money to purchase these kits. That was the answer we received from our command staff in regards to that issue. We did ask questions. We were provided the opportunity to ask questions. Some of the answers we received were not adequate. Mr. Schrock. Colonel, would you want to comment on that? Colonel Novotny. Reference funding for the add-on kits, we were able to obtain funding which allowed us to have add-on armor to our vehicles that were not armored at all. While it didn't give us the same protection as an up-armored vehicle, it provided some protection against fragmentation and small arms fire. Questions after we were deployed on the logistics side, we contacted the CFLC G-4 and they sent a rep to our camp to ensure that my battalion and all subordinate companies were tied in the best we possibly could to ensure we received the PLL, all parts and items that we were authorized and to ensure the system was streamlined. Back at Fort Riley, I understand the criticality of ammunition. The STRAC Manual only allows so much ammunition for qualification for primary machine gunners and other machine gunners. When we deployed, my HHC and the headquarters immediately realized that was not adequate for our needs because we were now providing security on a 24-hour basis and we had to train- up our own soldiers in order for them to handle machine guns. One thing I would say is that we need to look at how units are authorized and how they are aligned in a peacetime environment. I mean by that when I was mobilized, the companies that fell under me, I had not had any contact with those commanders before and that is the primary reason why I sent that liaison to those company commanders to ensure we were tied in the best we possibly could to command control and structure so they knew the 530th MP Battalion and knew our standards. Mr. Schrock. Let me do a follow on. To your knowledge, have your replacements over there experienced the same deficiencies or have some of these problems been adequately addressed, to your knowledge? First Sergeant. Sergeant Neill. Our replacement company, the company that came in behind us, actually had a much better supply system than we had. We left them with all our vehicles, we left them with extra weapons, we left them with all our body armor and we left them with non-tactical vehicles and equipment we acquired that actually Marines left us. It made it much easier to do their mission. They didn't have enough non-tactical vehicles but they surely had a better supply system in place than we had. Mr. Schrock. Only because you left in-country what you took in country? Sergeant Neill. We left a lot, they had better support coming in. We are a unit that has teams that deploy in cities away from our company. We are a company that was detached from our battalion and our battalion didn't support us. The other battalion we came to, some of them took better care of us than our battalion did but we stretched our asses also. So our teams were pretty much operating every day in two vehicle convoys in the communities by themselves. We carried supplies to them once a week and in our time in Iraq put some 30,000 miles in two vehicle convoys between the five southern cities of Iraq, Desaqut, Desja, Dewina, Karbala and Hella. They were better off than we got there. Mr. Schrock. Staff Sergeant. Sergeant SanchezLopez. The follow-on units, we were slated to stay back if they didn't have enough equipment. What happened is they had enough equipment and we got to rotate back out of Iraq. In Kuwait, we did an asset inventory of what we had and the question was what can you do without back in the States to sustain your training when you get back that you could give up to other units. So we hashed out, gave them hardback hummers which was the Humvees they are describing, gave several of those, tow vehicles, anything anyone needed, we gave them. Mr. Schrock. Specialist Tanguay. Specialist Tanguay. I also agree that the unit that replaced us was far better equipped than we were when we first got there. We also left our up-armored vehicles that we did receive after being in theater for 12 months. We left those behind. We left behind crew serve weapons, excess ammunition, parts and service and logistical issues that we experienced were hashed out for the unit that replaced us. So they were far better equipped when we left than when we first got there. Mr. Schrock. Colonel. Colonel Novotny. I would agree. The battalion that replaced us was much better off than we were going in. My staff had organized many lessons learned as far as the train-up. We had a good crossover between the two battalion staffs. One issue that should be raised is that while we were both MP battalion staff and headquarters, we were organized differently. My battalion headquarters had a R&U section which was capable of performing light engineer tasks, building small items. One thing that was key for us was showers for ourselves. A lot of times you could not depend on a shower unit being at our facility and it was a tremendous asset for us. Also, their primary focus is to support the prisoner population in the compounds for light engineer resources and tasks. Our guys did a tremendous effort for our battalion. The follow-on unit did not have that and it was a shortfall they probably had, but overall, they were better. Mr. Schrock. I want to address the POW issue in a minute but let me ask one question of everybody. Have Guard and Reserve units properly addressed or are they addressing and improving in-CONUS administrative procedures to foster better real training for the war fighters? Sergeant Neill. I can't answer that question. I am too new back to this country. I have only been back 30 days. I can't answer. General Alexander. I would like to comment on that question. There are several instances where that is in fact happening. The heads training area located in the State of Louisiana has been very innovative to embrace convoy operations that provide for the exercise of modern infantry skill set. The State of New Mexico has also been leaning forward to ensure that the present tactics that are utilized are regimented into their original training institute. There are lessons learned that are being exercised that are taking advantage of our acts of war. Mr. Schrock. Staff Sergeant. Sergeant SanchezLopez. We are applying what we learned specifically to our unit. We do have a lot of new personnel. We have a lot of experienced Staff NCOs and we are sharing that knowledge to everyone so everybody will be on board. It doesn't matter if they are a cook, admin, transportation, everybody will be on the same level. Mr. Schrock. Did you want to comment? Specialist Tanguay. I have also only been back 3 weeks, so I really can't comment on the situation of administrative functions and the reality of training. Mr. Schrock. That big smile on your face tells me you are glad to be home. Colonel. Colonel Novotny. I can state that follow-on forces from within my own group back home, they have modified the training at Fort Riley for convoy operations where they conduct live fire exercises as part of that convoy process. Mr. Schrock. The prisoner abuse cases that are certainly dominating the news have cast tremendous doubt on how effective military police and military intelligence training is inculcating in military personnel the humane treatment of prisoners of war and detainees. Three of you are connected with military police and military intelligence. Were you ever provided training focusing on the care, handling and management of prisoners of war according to the Geneva Convention rules? First Sergeant. Sergeant Neill. Yes, sir. Every time we deployed, and this was my second deployment, we were provided with Geneva Convention training and an initial training in MOS training, you are provided with that same training which says you will treat any prisoner the same way you treat your own soldiers, that they have protective equipment during an attack, they will be allowed to wear that equipment. To see soldiers violate that Geneva Convention hurts all of us. It hurts us as soldiers, it hurts us as Americans. That is not what this country is about. If I could, I found the Iraqi citizens to be hard working and they want the same things we want. They want employment, protection for their families and they want to earn an honest living. To see that happen, hurts every citizen in America. Mr. Schrock. It hurts us too. Specialist Tanguay, do you want to comment on that? Specialist Tanguay. Yes, sir. During our 16 weeks of military police school, MOS specialty school, you learn a great deal about how to handle prisoners, detainees and prisoners of war, so it is absolutely certain that we did receive the training, both at the 16 weeks of our specialty school along with our pre-deployment mobilization phase, the necessary training in the Geneva Convention process and detainee and prisoner of war operations. Mr. Schrock. Colonel. Colonel Novotny. I agree with the comments of the other panel members. We have also received that instruction as part of mandatory training, it was part of the process at Fort Riley, it was part of the process that I directed my people go through and shortly after I took over my unit, we completed for our certification at Fort Riley a very similar exercise that we move individuals from one location to another from compound to compound as far as receiving these individuals who were prisoners. They were actually citizens or soldiers dressed up in uniforms. Prior to the mobilization, I read every word of the Geneva Convention that applies to taking care of prisoners to establish my basis. I also was in the same unit during Desert Shield/Desert Storm where we took care of 18,000 prisoners. I was assistant operations officer and also an enclosure commander and came in contact with nearly every prisoner that came in our facility. I was charged with ensuring that they were properly cared for, bringing them, accounting for them, making sure they had their ID card and they were in our system for accountability. After the prisoner situation was stabilized, I was tasked to lead another element to conduct an identification process for 12,000 refugees who fled Iraq and were in the process of confirming the identification process for them in the neutral zone. Mr. Schrock. Hindsight is always 20-20 but had any of you observed such abuse, what do the relative training modules and/ or the regulations say you as an observer should do because obviously there were people who were observers who did nothing. By regulation, what were you to do? Colonel Novotny. I would say report immediately to your chain of command if that were to happen. I had minor situations where a guard had pushed a prisoner. My NCOs reported it immediately through the chain of command to me. I took what I considered appropriate actions against those individuals. Their chain of command was present. To my NCO who was specifically tasked to run the facility where that happened, I ensured that every case would be reported up the chain of command and that would not be tolerated in the future. Mr. Schrock. First Sergeant. Sergeant Neill. That action would have stopped immediately, sir. I agree with the Commander, ensuring that the soldier was adequately counseled, disciplined if required and efforts redirected. Mr. Schrock. Specialist. Specialist Tanguay. Absolutely report it up the chain of command, without a doubt. Mr. Schrock. Mr. Shays. Mr. Shays. Thank you. I have now learned what happens when you allow someone to chair the committee and get 15 minutes. [Laughter.] Mr. Schrock. Make hay while the sun shines. Mr. Shays. This committee allows for extensive questioning by a Member instead of just doing 5 minutes. When we do that, I think we learn so much. I learned so much from your questions and I thank you. I want to say this is a wonderful example of how a process works because I had a community meeting in Oxford, CT and I had two fairly young moms who had sons in Iraq complain to me about the fact that their sons were in Humvees that didn't have shielded proper equipment. So I task the gentleman on my right to be in touch with your mom. I thought one of the things, Mr. Tanguay, that I would not want is to have had to go back to your mom and express my sorrow for your death, for your not having the proper equipment since I sent you there. Whether I sent you there or not, I would never want that to happen. It has been a real surprise to me when Mr. Murtha had gone to Iraq and found our soldiers did not have the fully armored vests, it was a surprise to me to learn from your mom that our Humvees were not properly shielded and that is the way the process sometimes works. When we find out, we start to see some incredible action. When I was in Iraq for my fifth visit with the professional staff to my right, we were in Haniken and we had three Humvees so we just kind of knocked on the door of the 257th Armored Brigade and they had three Humvees, one that had no armament, one that was makeshift and one with the kit, and I understand the kit was a little better because if a shell hit, it would maintain its integrity a little better. The question I want to ask each of you, it is hard for me to imagine that we would have sent you there without the proper equipment. Is this an example of where we just didn't think we needed the equipment? If it is not, I want to know. I want to ask each of you. You all must have thought about this. Why would you have been sent there without the proper equipment? Let us start with you, Mr. Neill. Sergeant Neill. I couldn't answer that question. We were surprised to see that. We had Internet access home, we saw the papers and people back home were saying we would have the vests in a certain month. We were already in country 6 or 8 months before we had them. It was 3 or 4 more months after that before we finally received the vests. When we left, our vehicles were not plus-up armored and our job was to go into community every day. We didn't have ammo, we had to acquire extra weapons from other companies in our battalion. We mounted our weapons ourselves. The important thing for us was to go out battle ready and be prepared for whatever came and giving the appearance that we were ready. I think that deterred it. Mr. Shays. Do you think that was because you weren't part of the active force or do you make the same claim as active force did not have the same quality equipment? Sergeant Neill. The active force that we saw, MI, did not have the same quality vehicles that we had. Some of them had plus-ups, some of them did not. They had the same exact things we had but they were doing the same mission we were. The countryside is littered with ammo, artillery rounds everywhere. What brought us back safely was we used NTVs. Mr. Shays. Non-tactical vehicles. Sergeant Neill. And we could travel faster. We became a difficult target for them to hit. We could travel at 120 miles a hour. An Humvee can only do 55 miles a hour and you can hear it coming from about a quarter of a mile away. We would see the citizens in the field look up from their work when they heard the Humvee coming. Mr. Shays. What was the speed of the other vehicle? Sergeant Neill. We could go 120 miles a hour, sir. We used Trailblazers, seized vehicles that the Marines purchases. Mr. Shays. You are saying the SUVs? Sergeant Neill. Yes, sir, the SUVs. The Humvee could do a maximum of 55 to 60 miles a hour. Mr. Shays. You would rather have been in an SUV than the Humvee? Sergeant Neill. For where we were, yes, sir. Mr. Shays. The irony is the SUV got better mileage. Staff Sergeant. Sergeant SanchezLopez. It was our understanding about those vests that went into our flak jacket, they were just beginning that process of fielding to the Marines when we were getting to go, so as we got our desert camis issued, we got our ballistic shields issued. When we got in theater in Kuwait, we didn't bring our stuff because the ship arrived 2 days prior for us crossing the line of departure. So we stuffed our Humvees, our trucks, our ammo and took off. They said we are crossing at this time. The only shortfalls we had was didn't find out we were going to have trucks until the week before. We were waiting for the gear that was on the ships and they said, oh, no, we're going to give you some other stuff coming in from other ships. Mr. Shays. I think there are always reasons for everything, obviously, and what I am trying to understand is the reasons why you didn't have the ammunition, the reason why you didn't have the plus-up Humvees, the reason why you didn't have the vests, reasons other than just they weren't available. The question I raise is did they think you didn't need them, that in other words the war was over. Were you being sent before engagement or before the removal of Saddam or after? Sergeant SanchezLopez. We were part of the OIF-1. Mr. Shays. So they knew you would be in combat. Sergeant SanchezLopez. We needed everything that we were provided. Mr. Shays. Specialist Tanguay. Specialist Tanguay. We knew we needed everything we could get. Unfortunately there were severe logistical issues that prevented us from receiving what we needed. We knew we needed better protective vests, we knew we needed better vehicles, we knew we needed more ammunition than what we received. It was not a question of did we need this or not. It was a question of we knew we needed it, but we didn't receive it. Mr. Shays. Tell me why you think you didn't receive it? Specialist Tanguay. I am not sure. There were logistical issues beyond the control of myself or our command staff at levels far above our control that prevented us from getting what we needed. We needed to be prepared for any MP type mission we were going to be assigned. MP type missions encompass a wide range of tasks. Mr. Shays. It seems very clear that you would need the protective gear and you would want to be in a Humvee that is shielded. Specialist Tanguay. Correct. Mr. Shays. Colonel. General Alexander. I would say that---- Mr. Shays. Is that the prerogative of the General? I said Colonel and I heard from the General. General Alexander. I am sorry. Mr. Shays. General, I am going to let you be the closer in this line of questioning. Colonel. Colonel Novotny. I felt that the reason why we went with the vehicles we did, as I stated earlier, was the doctrine was that my kind of unit would be organized and would be set up behind the lines. If we were in an environment where there was a low threat, I would have no problem with soft skin hummers, excellent vehicle, go anyplace, do anything but it did cause some concern when we crossed the border a few days after the ground forces and we weren't sure what kind of environment we were going into. After we deployed forward, I believe we were on the same basis as the active component units in our area. There was no difference between AC, Guard or Reserves there, same vehicles, we helped them and they helped us. Mr. Shays. What do you do when you are in a command position and you know you are sending your men into battle without proper equipment? What do you do? Do you complain about it? Do you tell your men you are sorry? Do you just say, stiff upper lip? What do you say? What do you do? What do you think? Colonel Novotny. We had to do some negotiations to get the correct body armor along with the plates. We coordinated. One of my units was redeploying back home and at a redeployment point they dropped off their armor, they accounted for it, we picked it up, within a couple of days we moved north to our second location. Mr. Shays. Thank you. Dr. Krepinevich, do you want to make a comment or should we go to the General? Dr. Krepinevich. I would just echo what the Colonel said about the issue of doctrine. We are talking about not only an enemy that is presenting us with a kind of problem that we haven't really focused on for several decades now, but in the case of the Army, the Army is transforming. If you look at the difference between the first and second Gulf wars, the first Gulf war was a 1-year advance, there was a clear front and a clear rear and you could operate in the rear in a Humvee without much protection and you would be just fine. Mr. Shays. That sounds very logical. Dr. Krepinevich. But in the second Gulf war, the Army and quite frankly the Marine Corps is shifting to something they call non-linear warfare which there isn't a long front line, there isn't a forward area that is clearly delineated and a rear area. Even in the portion of major combat operations, you had splotches of U.S. troops all over Iraq. In those circumstances where there is a non-linear battlefield, where you don't have that clarity even in conventional operations, you are going to have to think differently about how you do a lot of things, including resupplying units, providing rear area security, all sorts of things. We saw that as early as the initial operations with the Fedayeen who are operating in the rear area, what traditionally would have been the rear area. This is part of the larger issue, what is our strategy, what is our doctrine for dealing with these kinds of situations. Obviously going back to what President Kennedy said, it is the new environment, a new strategy, a new doctrine and that leads to different kinds of forces and different kinds of equipment and different kinds of training. Mr. Shays. Thank you. General. General Alexander. There have been several instances where we had deployed Guard units to theater to perform Mission A in Kuwait and out of necessity, they were required to perform Mission B in Baghdad. The classic example is the infantry battalions from Florida. As a result of these rapidly changing mission sets, these units chose to do their job with a lot of creativity, thus the steel plates that are put on vehicles, the sandbagging and the like, but I believe that initially the idea was to rebuild Iraq in a peaceful setting and the insurgency tactic came on so fast that the OIF-1 units were not quite able to recover. Today, every effort is being made to ensure that those mistakes don't occur. I think the equipping strategy will in fact, if the resourcing continues, catch up. It is the training doctrine, the ability to do urban warfare at home station is what the challenge is going to be. Mr. Shays. Do you mind if I go another round or do you want to go now and I will come back? Let me just make a comment. The comment is this. The administration has wanted more authority, and I believe there has to be more legislative oversight when there is more authority but one of the things I am actually convinced of is, and this hearing just adds confirmation to it, when the story of Iraq is told one of the biggest criticisms will be that Congress didn't do proper oversight. For Mr. Murtha to go and discover that our troops didn't have proper vests, thank God he went there but we didn't know it before. Had we gone into Iraq last year and gone to the prisons, I am absolutely convinced we would have been told things. Had I not had a community meeting, I wouldn't have learned about the failure to provide the kind of protection on our Humvees given the mission we were asking you and others to do. My job as a Member of Congress is to make sure it is never a fair fight. I think I was deprived of the knowledge that would have been helpful. In other words, I want it never to be a fair fight. We are going to know that literally hundreds of Americans were killed, in my judgment, because we didn't give them in some cases the proper training, the proper equipment and so on. I never thought I would be saying that. I didn't think in this day and age that would be the case. I would like to ask more questions but we have time. Thank you. Mr. Schrock. We are glad to be joined by the gentlelady from California who I would like to recognize for any questions and comments she has, Ms. Watson. Ms. Watson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I want to say to all of you thank you so much for the service to your country. We love you and we care about you. That is the reason why we are here, to be sure you have what you need to do your jobs on command. So what might come up in the form of a question is only because we care about you and we appreciate you. I too have been following exactly what you have been following. I do know someone who was in Iraq. He was a Reservist and he was at a community college and was called up. He was a Marine and he went over unprepared. He said they didn't have the Kevlar inside the clothing, they didn't have proper equipment. I have been hearing that families have had to purchase and outfit and in some cases send money for equipment. Let me ask Sergeant Neill, is that the case? Do you know if that is the case? Sergeant Neill. I can tell you, we bought our own vests before we left. We bought the level vests that police officers wear on the street. We knew we would be in a civilian environment, pretty much our teams would be by themselves, six or eight person teams. They bought their own vests and then additionally purchased the panels that go in the vests for additional coverage. We were prepared to do our job. Even if the military wasn't going to provide it, we knew what was out there and we got it. Ms. Watson. I feel that we let you down. Money was appropriated, why did it not get out to you. The other concern I have is that it should have been known beforehand that this battle would be fought in an urban environment. We watched shock and awe. The military in Iraq could not compete with that but I think they must have said we will catch you in the streets, we will catch you in the doorways because I was told by returning personnel that they never knew where the bullets were coming from and they never knew how to fight back. They just hit. So urban warfare is what you are experiencing at the current time. What kind of training was there prior to your detachment going into Iraq on how to be prepared for urban warfare? Colonel Novotny. I would like to address that. We designed a pretty extensive training plan for urban warfare. When my unit initially was going to be a quick deploying unit and we realized we had time to train, we coordinated for the facility at Fort Riley, it was blocked out for us. My NCOs led our soldiers through a training program from ground up, they covered everything from issuing and order in a mock environment to movement as an individual, movement as a team, movement as a platoon, how to clear buildings, how to defend. I was fortunate that we had 2 weeks of training in that facility and the reason for that is I felt there was a good possibility somewhere along the line that my unit may be engaged in a contact like that and we might have to perform the exact mission just as you described. Ms. Watson. I am wondering if your units are representative across the system. I am hearing a different system from those who have returned, that they certainly weren't prepared, particularly in a desert environment. I have had contact with some of the POWs and the story of how they got lost out in the desert and every sand dune looks like every other one and so they were ambushed and some were killed. My concern is have we done extensive planning and counter insurgency training because it looks like that is the way war is to come if we are going to be in the Middle East or other places, the Far East, would have to be fought. Are we planning ahead, are we giving adequate training, are we prepared? Anyone who would like to address that? Sergeant Neill. I don't think it was planned for when we first deployed but as we deployed and recognized the situation was changing and the people were adapting to our vehicle convoys, we changed what we were doing also. We instructed our soldiers in vehicle contact, how to take contact right, contact left, how to shoot at people they see firing at them, where they see fire coming from, the actual flashes, where they see smoke coming from, the actual smoke coming from weapons, where they see dust coming from the ground. Since we're in an environment where everything that moved caused dust to fly and move, if you couldn't see the people shooting at you, you could surely see one of those other things. Our job was to put down fire and move out of there unless we were disabled. Ms. Watson. Dr. Krepinevich, maybe you can add to that? Dr. Krepinevich. Yes, ma'am. As I mentioned in my testimony, the U.S. military has the world's best training infrastructure. However, it is a training infrastructure that is optimized principally for conventional warfare not counter insurgency. We, the U.S. military, for the last quarter of a century has essentially convinced itself we are not getting back into those kinds of conflicts. The military has had a lot of encouragement from the American people and the American political leadership. Right after Vietnam, the slogan was ``No More Vietnams,'' the 1990's was the decade of exit strategies and the 1980's, the Powell and Weinberger doctrines. So in a sense for a combination of reasons, we have a marvelous training infrastructure but it is not a training infrastructure that really is designed for a counter insurgency environment. As I mentioned earlier, it is not just the training facilities, it is a matter of doctrine having languished as well, a doctrine that as Sergeant O'Neill said, we train the way we expect to fight. If you don't expect to fight that way, you are not going to train that way. So it is also are we structured. Do we have the requisite skills not only at the individual level but at the unit level, the company level, the battalion level, the brigade level. Right now, of course, General Schoomaker is engaged in the process of restructuring the Army, including rerolling units, converting artillery men to military police and so on. This is going on in the active force and the Reserve force. It is laudable but it is also a reflection of the fact that in some respects we found ourselves behind the curve here playing catch up. As I mentioned, because insurgencies do tend to be protracted, I think if we are looking at accomplishing the kinds of goals the administration has set for us in Afghanistan and Iraq, we are looking at a long term conflict and probably in other parts of the world as well. Because of the enormous power of our military, we have driven enemies to insurgency, to terrorism and these forms of warfare. If we are going to be involved in this and we are in it for the long haul, the long hard slog that Secretary Rumsfeld talks about, then it is not just a matter of the kind of innovative approaches and quick fixes to training that these men are talking about, we also need to look more fundamentally at the doctrine we have for conducting these kinds of operations and what kind of training infrastructure we need to create to make sure that our soldiers and Marines get the right kind of training. Ms. Watson. Thank you so much for your comment. My questions, Mr. Chairman, should probably be addressed to the second panel but again, I want to let you know how much we appreciate your service. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Schrock. Thank you, Ms. Watson. Mr. Shays. Mr. Shays. I know we need to get to the second panel but let me ask this because I am actually convinced we have the best trained and best equipped military in the world and the best experienced. In fact, because of our engagements, I am told there is nothing that gives you better training than the reality of live ammunition coming at you and the fear of death. I want to be clear on this. It strikes me that if you are a Reservist or National Guard, you have less time to train, and so you specialize in a particular mission but when you are sent off to battle, you may end up doing something different than your MOS. Is that a fair way to describe it or does someone need to qualify my view or would you agree with it? General Alexander. Based upon the comments from the field, that is in fact a reality. That is happening. Units are being deployed for a mission. In theater they are being rerolled to accomplish different missions. Mr. Shays. Let me ask, is it more likely that if you are active duty, that transition is not as big a challenge because you are training every day? General Alexander. I would say that perhaps it is a greater challenge for the Reserve components even though they are adjusting to it. Mr. Shays. Colonel, did you want to make a comment? Colonel. Novotny. Yes, sir. My primary mission in my battalion is to handle prisoners of war, civilian internees and detainees. When we actually hit ground in Iraq, our primary mission switched to force protection for the camp. While it is different, we were trained for that. Force protection was one of the critical subtasks that we identified well in advance of our mobilization that we needed to train on. We also had individuals who were trained on force protection before, we had sent people to school for force protection, we had people who had combat arms background and we were very fortunate to have engineers at our location to help with berming and entering protective environment force. Mr. Shays. Part of the purpose of this hearing was lessons learned and the capability of the military to adjust and learn and grow from experiences. So, for instance, you would have the Center for Army's lessons learned, I think that deals primarily with the training, it is a short term focus; you would have training and doctrine command which is more long term; you would have the rapid field initiative which would be short term dealing with equipment. Do any of the Reservists have an opportunity, or the National Guard, to interface in this process of being able to forward lessons learned? One of the complaints is that the Reservists and National Guard don't feel as much a part of this role, even though they have opinions. Sergeant Neill. Sir, we lesson learned the unit that came to replace us. We haven't lesson learned anybody else. We lesson learned the teams that replaced us. Lessons learned to everyone else hasn't happened yet but our training begins with individual team member selection. We select people to be on teams to do any job. We did a tactical job, they were prepared for it. What they weren't prepared for was the equipment shortage we faced and we didn't have the equipment the active duty had and we saw them with it. Mr. Shays. Let me go to lessons learned. Colonel, you are looking at me like I may be walking off a cliff here. Colonel Novotny. No, sir. Lessons learned were a two-way street. The information we provide up the chain, I felt went up and went through our active brigade, the Reserve Brigade that was above us and the information also came back down to us so that we could take the information that other people learned and apply it to our own tactics and doctrine we were currently employing in the field. Mr. Shays. Mr. Chairman, we could keep this panel here for a long time. Our next panel has waited a long time and I think we need to interact with them, but I want to thank you as well for being here today and thank your mom for doing her part as an American citizen and loving her son so much that she would have strangled her Congressman if he didn't take action. Mr. Schrock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me too thank you all for being here. Your testimony was very helpful. Your answers to the questions were very helpful. We thank you very much for what you have done for our country. Let me mention one more thing before we go to the next panel. We are all familiar with General Taguba's report that he did on Abu Ghraib prison and some of the problems and hopefully how we can solve some of those problems, but in that report, he mentions one battalion commander who did his job very well in the detention business, better than anybody else I would imagine and that one person was Lieutenant Colonel Steve Novotny who is with us today. I think we ought to thank him for that. [Applause.] Colonel Novotny. Thank you very much, sir. Mr. Schrock. May be they need you back--no, I don't want to say they need you back over there, your family won't like that very well but they need to take the lessons learned from you and apply them there. Thank you again. Thank you all very much. We will take a 3 or 4 minute break before the next panel. [Recess.] Mr. Schrock. Let me welcome the second panel. As you saw with the first panel, it is traditional that we swear folks, so if you will stand with me. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Shays [assuming Chair]. I would note for the record that the witnesses all responded in the affirmative. We are glad to have you all here today. As I told Lieutenant General Hanlon a minute ago, I think legally if he comes up here one more time, I will have to claim him as a dependent. I see all of you all the time and that is a good thing. We are happy to have today Lieutenant General Edward Hanlon, Commandant, Marine Corps Combat Development Command; Lieutenant General Roger C. Schultz, Director, Army National Guard; Lieutenant General James R. Helmly, Chief, Army Reserve; and Brigadier General Louis W. Weber, Director of Training, U.S. Army. We are glad to have you here and thank you very much. With that, I will turn the floor over to General Hanlon. STATEMENTS OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL EDWARD HANLON, COMMANDANT, MARINE CORPS COMBAT DEVELOPMENT COMMAND; LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROGER C. SCHULTZ, DIRECTOR, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD; LIEUTENANT GENERAL JAMES R. HELMLY, CHIEF, ARMY RESERVE; AND BRIGADIER GENERAL LOUIS W. WEBER, DIRECTOR OF TRAINING, U.S. ARMY General Hanlon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for the invitation to be here today. It is good to be back to the committee because I was here a few years ago when I had the opportunity to testify before one of the subcommittees here on some of the training encroachment hearings we had back in those days. I thank you for the help you gave us because as was said on the first panel, train the way we will fight, had it not been for the foresight of some of this committee, I am not so sure we would have made the gains we did in the last couple of years in that regard, so I want to thank you. I have some written notes here but I think what I am going to do with your permission is in the interest of time and to allow for more questions and answers, let me make a few comments off the cuff and I will turn it over to the other panel members. Staff Sergeant SanchezLopez I think basically said it all when he talked about his Reserve battalion that was called up and went off to I believe he said Afghanistan and later into Operation Iraqi Freedom. He made the comment that his battalion was trained and equipped very much like his active duty counterparts. I think it is very important you all understand that from the Marine Corps perspective because that is exactly how we treat our Reserve units. We don't make any distinction between how our Reserve units, whether they be ground, aviation, combat element or combat service support, how they are trained and equipped from their regular counterparts. All of you as Congressmen I am sure have Reserve units in your districts. I would invite you when you have a chance, if you haven't had a chance yet, to go down to your local Marine Reserve center some weekend when you are back in the district and go in and see what goes on in one of those Reserve units because you will find that embedded in each Reserve unit is an organization we call an I&I, instructor inspector who is an active duty cadre and their job is to make sure that Reserve unit is trained and equipped and ready to go to war when they are called up. The idea is that they are trained already, they simply get mobilized and they join their regular counterparts and off they go. That is the way we have been doing business in the Marine Corps going back 50 or 60 years. I think the proof is in the pudding because we take a look at the way the Reserve units performed in Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, you will see no distinction between them and their regular counterparts. In Desert Storm and Desert Shield, you saw the same thing. I always like to point out in the Korean War in defense of the Pusan perimeter, the first Marines that went in there, the first brigade that held the line when North Koreans were almost pushing us off peninsula were Marine Reservists who came in there and held the line. Many of the Marines that went across the seawall at Inchon just a few months later, were for the most part Reservists. So since 1950 to 2004, we really don't make a distinction between how we train and equip our Reserves and our regular Marines. Staff Sergeant SanchezLopez is a Reservist but he is no different from me in that regard in that we are both Marines. I also wanted to point out with you that one of the things that is very important to us are the lessons learned. We can talk about that in the Q&A, if you have any questions on how we do that. Sitting behind me is Colonel Phil Exner. Phil is my Director of Studies Analysis at Quantico. He will soon be leaving to take an appointment, a cushy appointment over in Brussels at NATO but for the last 3 years I have had him as the Director of our Lessons Learned Team where he was running our efforts in Afghanistan, a year ago in Iraq and currently the operations we have in Iraq in which his responsibility is to capture real time the lessons learned we are gathering from the Marines who fought the last 3 years and turn that very rapidly into tactics, techniques and procedures for the Marines today, whether Reserve or active duty. I wanted to bring Phil with me today so you could see him and if you have any particular questions, he is certainly available to answer any of those questions. I would simply say it is a pleasure to be here. I thank you for the chance to be here and I look forward to your questions. Thank you. [The prepared statement of General Hanlon follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] Mr. Shays. Thank you, General. General Schultz. General Schultz. Thank you. It is an honor for me to appear before you again here today. I want to express my appreciation for the support of our soldiers and the families to this committee personally. Simply said, your support is critical to our mission success. Today, the Guard has over 93,000 soldiers deployed in missions around the world and we take preparing these soldiers for their assigned duty very seriously. You have my pledge to always keep their well being in mind as we proceed with missions assigned to Army National Guard units. Our soldiers ask for so little, yet they carry the burden of our priorities and proudly serve this Nation. They are selfless to the person. I am proud of every one of them. Now to the focus of this hearing on combating terrorism. I share your interest and your concerns. In perspective, we have made progress. You know well that many of our soldiers were called to active duty on very short notice. Many were placed on duty in less than 2 weeks. Although the mobilization process was accomplished well ahead of anything outlined in our plans, we can still do better. To the credit of our soldiers and their leaders, our units assembled, deployed and performed their missions. To date, almost 60,000 soldiers from the Army National Guard have been demobilized since the September 11 attacks but work remains. We are concentrating in two principal areas, equipping our units and training our soldiers. While progress is being made with our rapid fielding initiatives, you will not find us satisfied until our equipment shortages have been fully accomplished. While it took longer than we had planned, individual body armor has now been provided to all of our soldiers in the Afghanistan and Iraqi theaters. We continue to distribute up-armored and add-on armor systems to our wheeled vehicle fleet. So I end where I started. The real credit for our current condition goes to our soldiers. They are truly outstanding indeed. Our Nation's call, they have answered and we too owe them our very best. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of General Schultz follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] Mr. Shays. Thank you, General. General Helmly. General Helmly. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity and the privilege to testify on behalf of the 211,000 soldiers, civilian employees and families of the U.S. Army Reserve, an integral component of the world's greatest army, an army at war for a Nation at war. I am Ron Helmly, Chief of Army Reserve and an American soldier in your Army and exceptionally proud of it. I have a brief statement that I would ask be entered into the record. This is my first opportunity to address this subcommittee. As the Chief, Army Reserve, I am profoundly humbled and sobered by my responsibility for the readiness, training and welfare of our soldiers and families. Today as we speak nearly 60,000 Army Reserve soldiers are on active duty in Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan and the continental United States and elsewhere around the world as part of America's global war on terrorism. Since September 11, 2001, more than 100,000 Army Reserve soldiers have served on active duty as part of this global war on terrorism. Tragically, 38 Army Reserve soldiers have made the ultimate sacrifice in service to our Nation. We are deeply in their debt and honor their memories by our actions here today. Your invitation to testify comes at a time of profound and unprecedented change in challenge in the dynamics of our Nation's security environment. From the start, we have understood that this will be no brief campaign or a short war. It will be an enduring global war, a protracted war, a long struggle that lacks clear, well defined borders. Have no doubt, however, our soldiers understand and our fellow soldiers, airmen and Marines all understand it is in fact a war. It challenges our national will and our perseverance, it tries our patience and indeed our moral fiber. As we engage these enemies, we recognize that carrying out current missions is not in and of itself sufficient. The very forces that cause this war to be different have propelled the world into a period of unprecedented change and volatility. We live in a much changed world and we must change to confront it. We must simultaneously confront today's challenges while preparing for tomorrow's. The Army will maintain its nonnegotiable contract to right and win our Nation's wars as we change to become more strategically responsive and maintain our dominance at every point across the spectrum of military operations. The confluence of these dual challenges transforming while fighting and winning and preparing for future wars is the crux of our challenge today, transforming while at war. The Army Reserve is part of a public institution founded in law. Our mission and our responsibility comes from this law. I would note that the law does not say for big wars, for little wars, short or medium wars. It says whenever our Nation, our Army and our Armed Services require us, we are to provide trained units and qualified soldiers. We must change to continue fulfilling the mandate of that law while simultaneously perfecting and strengthening the quality force we have today. The Army Reserve is fully engaged in the global war on terrorism. Every day we are dealing with challenges to ensure our soldiers are properly trained, adequately equipped and competently led. We are making every effort to incorporate lessons learned from the soldiers facing threats every day to better prepare mobilizing and deploying soldiers to survive and win on a lethal, complex battlefield. Your attention to this issue should help us design and resource the Army Reserve for success. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of General Helmly follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] Mr. Shays. Thank you very much. General Weber. General Weber. Thank you for having me today. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss how the Department of the Army is incorporating lessons learned from operations in Iraq and Afghanistan into the training and equipping of our Reserve and National Guard units prior to deployment. The Army appreciates your continued support of the men and women who make up our great Army as we conduct operations around the globe. Thank you so much. As you know, the Reserve and National Guard components are integral to the Army and indispensable to a quality force. We cannot perform effectively without employing National Guard and Reserve forces. Accordingly, the Army is committed to serving all components by providing common doctrine, standard organizations, fielding and supporting equipment and shared opportunities for training and leader development. We can expect the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan to continue to challenge the persistence and perseverance of our soldiers deployed there. Our forces face an adaptive threat that will continue to fight from the shadows without regard for conventional norms of warfare and will seek ways to undermine our resolve and support. The continuing readiness and effectiveness of our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan depends in no small part upon our ability to analyze and quickly address lessons we learn there on a rapidly changing basis. We have expanded our available assets to identify, gather, categorize and analyze operational lessons learned and then to rapidly develop and disseminate products associated with those lessons learned. The Center for Army Lessons Learned [CALL], established at Fort Leavenworth, KS, plays the most central role in this process and is used as the central repository for lessons learned, observations and associated tactics techniques and procedures [TTP]. Operational lessons learned are routinely disseminated immediately to units already employed in theater and to those preparing to deploy. Lessons learned are also disseminated appropriately throughout the institutional Army as you heard from the previous panel, and aggressively applied the institutional processes. A top priority for the U.S. Army's doctrine development resources is generating TTPs for forces based on lessons learned from Afghanistan and Iraq. Our training base schools, both active and Reserve, do a remarkable job of providing individual leaders but the foundation, knowledge and skills need to be adapted asymmetrically in today's complex, contemporary operating environment, an environment as we know where leaders at all levels from sergeant through the general officer ranks are faced with decisions that have significant impacts on the enemy, their units, mission success and the indigenous population. The competencies that our soldiers and leaders, the main benefactors of lessons learned, need to execute operations across the entire spectrum or develop further at the Army combat training centers. We work hard at incorporating TTPs in what we are learning into the scenarios and training at the CTCs as well as our home station and mobilization training sites. Further, the information age has also enhanced the ability for direct communications between personnel and have completed an operational rotation or are currently deployed and those who are preparing to deploy. Currently, soldiers are using direct e-mail and Web sites both official and unofficial sites to share information about recent experiences and informal lessons learned. Commanders and leaders at all levels have invested an interest in using every tool available to better prepare their units and soldiers. In terms of resources, I would like to briefly describe how the Army decides to provide resources to the force. The Army Strategic Planning Board is the principal vehicle we use to prioritize requirements and resources. It functions as an iterative and adaptive planning body to provide an integrating framework to organize and synchronize support for a global campaign. In order to support the regional combatant commanders, the ASPB recommends solutions to immediate requirements, anticipates intermediate needs and puts sound thought into future requirements to win this war but also to posture the Army for other future contingencies. Since its establishment, the ASPB has developed recommendations for and has tracked over 500 discreet tasks in support of combatant commanders. It has obligated over $5.5 billion to support the war on terrorism and has synchronized the Department of the Army's planning and execution. The ASPB is the vehicle that we use to synchronize the priorities and the requirements that come into the building and then determine the prioritization for resourcing those requirements. The IED Task Force led by Colonel Joe Votel I think provides and excellent example of how the Army quickly adapts to changing circumstances. This task force was chartered to adopt a holistic approach focused on intelligence, tactics, techniques and procedures in information ops in order to turn around the lessons learned associated with IEDs back into the field. This particular task force has made numerous recommendations for doctrinal changes, training and organization adaptations to assist in the response to the IED threat. In conclusion, I would like to say the Army process for capturing lessons learned and providing solutions to deployed and deploying forces is generally a great success story. As you heard, it is a daunting task but adaptive leaders at every level are identifying the solutions and making recommendations for improving training, doctrine and material solutions. We are committed to providing the best resources available to every component and the best training we can develop to properly prepare our force. Thank you and I look forward to responding to any questions you may have. [The prepared statement of General Weber follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] Mr. Shays. Thank you. I wanted to hear all of your testimony. I am going to be gone for about 5 minutes and give Ms. Watson the chair. I will be back shortly. Ms. Watson [assuming Chair]. I want to thank all of you for your testimony and your brevity. We will carry on in the absence of the Chair but we don't want to take you through a long ordeal. Our purpose here today is to find out how we can help and what it is that we need to pay attention to. I have heard, as many of you have heard, that the people involved in the atrocities at the prison were untrained. They had not had the experience, most of them were young, and therefore their decisionmaking ability was not quite shaped. Any one of you can answer but maybe we ought to start with General Helmly and find out what kind of training would have taken place, did it take place in this instance, or were the military police of the 372nd Co. of the 800th Brigade just thrown into this situation and told to act as guards when their training was to be prepared to fight a more conventional and traditional way? General Helmly. General Helmly. First of all, the 372nd Military Police Co. is in fact organized as what we call a combat support military police company. That means that its primary organization, training and equipping is for general purpose missions, principally route reconnaissance, armored reconnaissance, convoy escort, rear area protection. Its parent battalion at Abu Ghraib and the 800th MPW Brigade were organized, trained, equipped specifically for IR operations. As you heard on the last panel, Lieutenant Colonel Novotny commanded a sister battalion to the 320th which was a specialty prisoner of war, detainee internment unit, specifically organized, trained and equipped for that purpose. So the 372nd was not specifically organized, trained and equipped. However, as you heard the young military police soldier from the Connecticut National Guard describe, his unit was a combat support, military police company. He described the training that he received which for military police soldiers of any specialization is extensive regarding the handling, the treatment, the security of detainees and prisoners of war. I have reviewed the training of all three of those units involved. Prior to their mobilization, they did in fact receive training on the law of land warfare and Geneva Convention. At their mobilization stations as was described by Colonel Novotny they received additional training regarding Geneva Convention and I will tell you my view is that what we have witnessed is an abject failure of leadership and personal conduct. It is true there is an old Army axiom that a soldier never receives enough training and thus shortly after the report was briefed to me in February, I initiated a special inspection by our Army Reserve Command Inspector General of the training we received with emphasis on military police and military intelligence units across our force with emphasis on interrogation, detainee handling and security, leadership and ethical decisionmaking because I felt strongly and I feel strongly today that there was a fundamental lapse of leadership and ethical decisionmaking that went on in leadership channels and that lacked courage to stop these abuses. I accept that training needs to be improved, it should be improved. We will never get enough. We will emphasize more strongly in the days, weeks and months ahead across our Army, not just Army Reserve, training in the law of land warfare and handling of detainees, and so forth but I reject any notion that a lack of training led to abuses that are this horrendous and this devastating. Ms. Watson. Do you feel that this particular group of military police were adequately trained? Do you feel prior to even going this group had the kind of character that would be able on the spot to make the kind of decisions that we would hope our well trained personnel would make? We have heard this particular outrageous event described as an aberration. I have tried, I had to go home this weekend, I couldn't hardly get out of the airport because when they see us coming through with our little badges, that is why I took mine off, I didn't want to be identified. They stop us in security, they stopped us on the streets, what are you doing about this. So I am saying we are looking into it. We are finding the truth. Personally, I don't feel that the people who were involved did it on their own because what strikes me is how do they have the trained dogs right onsite if this was a flash reaction? They seemed to have all of the resources necessary, these ropes and duct tape and so on. Who supplied that for that kind of spontaneous, negligent reaction? So I am thinking did someone look the other way? I am going to repeat as I monitored the news what I heard and all of you have heard it is that those involved said they were directed by the contract interrogators and the military interrogators. So can you respond to how the resources got in their hands to do the atrocities that were committed and that we saw on film? General Helmly. The kinds of resources that you cited are commonplace. I think you understand we use those for a variety of purposes. Ms. Watson. The trained dogs too? General Helmly. We use trained military police working dogs, yes. Those are not used for prisoner abuse, they are there to detect mines, explosives, to walk with military police, the walking perimeter guards around the prisons at night. They are an excellent tool used by all the armed forces for security purposes. In this case, the dogs were misused rather like using a simple broom instead of its intended purpose to hit or to abuse someone. So the kinds of things you cited were misutilization of common resources. With regard to the word character, that in my judgment is the fundamental flaw. The Uniform Code of Military Justice provides an authorization for a soldier when they believe an order they have been given is illegal in nature to question that order. We had one simple specialist who had the courage to question an order and to report what he felt were abuses. That then led to this investigation with regard to the six or seven soldiers currently charged. There could be other charges brought for either administrative disciplinary action or further action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I would note that the investigations are not complete. General Taguba's investigation is complete, it has spawned others and further inquires are ongoing as a result of General Taguba's investigation. We will be relentless in determining how to prevent recurrences of this nature. Ms. Watson. Thank you very much, General. I am glad you mentioned General Taguba's report because in that report he found that the military police were never trained in interment operations and his conclusion is inconsistent with what you have just said to us. General Helmly. Yes, I think in that case he is referring to the 372nd Military Police Co. and I acknowledge that was a combat support military police unit, not specifically organized, trained and equipped for interment operations. Ms. Watson. I see. Are you saying that they were misused or misplaced, they should not have been there? General Helmly. No, I am not saying that at all. They were assigned there because there was a shortage of the specialty units, so they were assigned there. They are capable of fulfilling that role. We had other combat support military police units pressed into security duties for interment and detainee security and none of those units felt obliged, that we know of, to commit such atrocities. Ms. Watson. Apparently they were just substitute units that were put in there and they said they never had the interment operations training. I would think any person whose conscience was functioning would not commit the kind of acts they did. I don't know what is going on here. In terms of the dogs that are used and very well used and a necessary component as you survey and secure, can anyone go in and check out one of those dogs or do they have to go with the person who trained them, can people who are brought in at the last minute use those dogs efficiently and effectively, can they give the signals that would have the dogs sicced on a prisoner? How does that work? General Helmly. We call those military working dog teams because there is a human handler with the animal. They are trained by the Air Force at the same time at the same school and each of the Armed Services employs them as teams. I could not go out or you could not go out or another soldier not trained with that particular animal and cause the animal to perform its trained task. Ms. Watson. Then how did these military police have custody and access to those dogs and get those dogs to act the way they did? If they have to go out with somebody who has trained with them, then how did they get into the hands of the people who you saw in the pictures? General Helmly. We have military police working dog teams. These are military police soldiers trained as dog handlers with the dogs. Ms. Watson. So they knew exactly what they were doing? General Helmly. That could be attached to such a military police unit. As I noted, they are frequently used for external security, walking perimeter guard to detect people who would be trying to infiltrate or to sabotage these operations. Ms. Watson. Would you explain to the committee what the relationship is between the contract interrogators, the military interrogators and the military police, the 372nd? General Helmly. Candidly, I am not qualified to answer that question. I was not in command on the ground and in my position, I provide forces to the combatant commanders. Ms. Watson. I understand. Is there anyone on the panel who could respond? What we are trying to do here is to look at this and get to the truth so we can reorganize if we need to and we can correct the tremendous mistakes that were made. I want to know if anyone can respond, and maybe you can't, why the person who was in charge of the prison was told that she could not be around when interrogations were taking place and why someone did not go in and monitor what was going on? I also want to know why there were photographs taken of these violations? Can anyone hazard a response? Mr. Shays [resuming Chair]. Since the gentlelady is on her third 5 minutes, we will defer that question and allow that question to be answered, but I want to get back to the focus of this hearing and I want to be real clear about not losing what was said in the first panel. I found it pretty difficult to think that I sent men and women into battle who did not feel they were properly trained, who did not feel they had the proper equipment and I want to know how you reacted when you had someone say basically, we didn't even have enough ammunition. Walk me through that and have me understand how you reacted when you listened to the first panel. If we could start with you, General Helmly? General Hanlon. I think in listening to Staff Sergeant SanchezLopez's comments, I would like to think that those comments did not apply to any of the Marine units that were involved. Let me give you an example. All the Marine units that came back from Operation Iraqi Freedom from last year, and had returned by August 2003. We then found out this past November that we were going to have to go back into Iraq with a force of about 25,000 Marines, of which there would be a mix of regular and Reserve Marines. We made sure that all of those Marines, whether Reserve or regular, were properly equipped and properly trained for the mission they were going to. Ms. Watson, I know you are from the district right outside of Los Angeles. Not far down the road from you at Riverside, CA, there is the former air base called March Air Force Base. We went there and with the help of the base, took over what used to be the old housing area there and put together a special training facility so that every single battalion that was going to go back into Iraq, Reserve and regular, went through a special urban training environment to walk them through scenarios and vignettes that they could experience when they were in Iraq. This is where the efforts of Colonel Exner who I introduced earlier was so important because his team which was embedded and had gone forward into Iraq, were sending back to us the kinds of things we needed because we were relieving the 82nd Airborne Division. So we were pulling down from our Army colleagues the things they were learning, we were transferring that very rapidly to the training our Marines were getting. That group of Marines will be returning sometime in the August/September timeframe. Mr. Shays. General, let me say this to you. We have not had testimony that I am aware of, that Marines have said they were short on ammunition. This is, I think, frankly more a National Guard problem than maybe even a Reservist issue, so let us cut to the chase and maybe we can have that addressed. The Marines has its challenges but I guess that wasn't one of them. General Schultz. I am responsible for the Army National Guard, as you know. I was surprised to find out that we didn't have ammunition in theater. We have had spot shortages of ammunition here in the continental United States and General Weber can obviously get inside the detail, talk about the numbers and types of ammunition and so on. We have said as a priority units going to combat will have the preference for ammunition. So we have moved ammunition around the Guard, around some of our supply points so we can at a minimum prepare soldiers for their combat duty they are about to deploy to. In terms of training, I listened carefully to the first panel and take significance interest in the tone of the messages and the themes that were mentioned by the panel members. Every unit is certified by a team outside the Guard as we prepare to deploy units into combat. When Guard units don't satisfy minimum deployment standards, they don't deploy. We have changed out unit leadership, we have changed out unit commanders, held up the latest arrival dates to be certain that our units satisfy minimum deployment, meaning combat readiness standards. When they don't satisfy the standards, they don't deploy on the schedules. So I take very seriously the issue that our units were in theater and felt they weren't prepared because in my mind we had processes in place, systems in place, second opinion by a team outside the Guard channels to certify our units for deployment. What I learned from the first panel is we have some more work. Mr. Shays. Any other comments? General Helmly. Sometimes old bad habits die very hard. Training didn't start yesterday obviously, it started a long time ago, in the past, the first panel explained that the nature of the war we are fighting at the tactical level has changed, there is no secure rear area, we are fighting an enemy that is very adaptive and lethal and we found ourselves disorganized for it, soft skinned vehicles and not the right kind of weaponry, as cited in the first panel we did not have communications for individual truck drivers, and so forth, we were short night vision goggles. When we entered this war, our strategic guidance was that we were in a period of strategic pause, that we could take risks with near term readiness and invest in research and development for the farther out requirements. I am exceptionally proud of the fact that the Army leadership has grabbed hold of this. Our current chief has been nothing less than a bull dog in terms of rectifying, as General Schultz noted, the shortages of individual body armor, shortages of ammunition. General Weber can speak to the details but almost $1 billion in the past 6 months was put into ammunition production and shortages of up-armored Humvees. I will note though that it also requires an immense change in the way we think about things. Only in the last 2 years has Army Reserve Command training guidance focused our soldiers on the performance of warrior tasks in conjunction with their technical support tasks. In the past, the training guidance focused on technical training and no one really worried. I can go back in time where I have had soldiers tell me I didn't have training ammunition. I look at the allocation and the command didn't shoot its full allocation of training ammunition. That is because our leaders were not doing their job and training soldiers for war. So we have corrected that. I must tell you we have an immensely strong effort to train our soldiers and prepare them for close combat, all soldiers so that we do not repeat stories of 507th maintenance company again. That was a training failure of the first order. We do not intend to repeat those mistakes. Mr. Shays. Thank you. General Weber, if you would respond? General Weber. Last year I had the privilege of being Assistant Division Commander for Support for the 3rd Infantry Division during its fight up to Baghdad. I can tell you that you are never well enough equipped to do what you think you are going to have to do in the next war. In spite of our best efforts, in spite of what we would like to do, the fact of the matter is when it comes down to correct resourcing and applying the money to buy those resources and ensuring that your troops have those resources, those are very complex issues as you know. The 3rd Infantry Division in this case, all of our troops were not fully equipped with SAPI plates for example. With the limited amount of resources that were available to the division, we positioned those resources where we thought the threat was the greatest. We didn't have everything we needed. The truth of the matter is you go to war with what you have, you don't go to war with what you would like to have because sometimes it is not completely available. Up-armored Humvees, for example, we have a huge requirement for up-armored Humvees. It has grown over time. The current validated requirement in the theater is 4,454 up-armored Humvees. Currently we have 3,139 that have been produced and positioned toward the theater. Part of our problem is the industrial base capabilities of our country to produce what we need. Because you apply resources in terms of money and funding to buy what you need does not imply that it is immediately available. This month alone, the production for up-armored Humvees will hit 220 vehicles. We have been at war over a year. Some would argue that perhaps we need to take another look at our industrial base capabilities. That production rate will rise to 300 per month starting in July and with the current requirements, we plan on producing 300 vehicles a month through March 2005. The fact of the matter though is we don't have enough up- armored Humvees today in the inventory to do what is required in the theater. As you heard earlier, SAPI plates and body armor has been taken care of but again, that took us time. The production capability was not there to get it to us when we needed it. One could argue we did not forecast well enough what we might have needed, but the current assumptions about how the war was going to be conducted and the assumptions we were using a year ago based on after operations have proven to be invalid to a certain extent we could argue and we have responded to that as best we could I think. Mr. Shays. I appreciate your honest answer. I knew they would be honest but candid answers. It will be very interesting when the story is told in the years to come what are the things that had unintended consequences. For instance, when we disbanded the government, the army and the police, in my five visits to Iraq, four of them with the military and outside the umbrella of the military, I had countless Iraqis tell us they would love to have guarded the hospitals and other sites. They also said there are bad people in the military and the police and in the government but most are very decent people. They would say to me, how would you have survived in Saddam's government, how would you have fed your family? That forced us to do things with our military. When I came from Algute in a taxi and we were late getting to the green zone, I saw three Humvees in front of us and I said to the taxi driver, follow them, they are clearing the path. The taxi driver said, I don't know how he said it but it was in his language, like are you crazy. I am haunted by it now, thinking were they patrolling with no armament in their Humvee and you could see the tension in their necks. The driver had his left hand on the steering wheel and his right hand with this rifle across his lap with it on the trigger. I am thinking it shouldn't be like that, it shouldn't have turned out this way. It makes me want to know if the so-called best practices, lessons learned and so on, all the lessons we are going to learn I hope we have a real good analysis of this. I will say again, I think one of the analyses should be you should be having more congressional oversight. There should have been Members of Congress walking that prison in September of last year. When I was in other places this time someone from Bremer's organization in the Babylon area said, Congressman, we only have seven people. I am supposed to have 100 and the Marines are leaving and the Poles are taking their place or someone else coming up to me and saying we don't have enough money, in September last year. These are things I could come back and raise questions. I am certain if you had members walking that prison, we would have seen maybe human waste being thrown at our troops and we would have raised questions about that but we would have someone come up and say, I am a cook, I don't know what I am doing here. I don't have the training that I need. That would have forced a dialog a lot sooner and we would have been able to break through the chain of command or somehow as you have all said, a failure of leadership. It is also a failure of Congress to not do its job. Ms. Watson, you have 10 minutes for any questions you want to go through. She had a question on the table. Ms. Watson. I want to get some ideas back from you. I don't understand the chain of command and what authority do the contract interrogators have. What is their relationship to the military personnel there and the military intelligence, those interrogators, what is their relationship to the Guard, to the MPs? Can someone respond? General Helmly. I don't know, as I was about to say earlier, what instructions were provided. Ms. Watson. I just want to know how does the chain of command work in that scenario? General Helmly. That is what I am explaining. I don't know what guidance was provided to the chain of command. I will tell you that I think all of us at this table are quite accustomed to working with contractors. Ms. Watson. Let me clarify my question because I am not being clear. I would like to know does a private interrogator, contractee interrogator have a relationship to the MPs and if so, what is that? Who would tell the general who was in charge of determent and the prisons what to do and what not to do in terms of the interrogation? Where in the chain of command does this take place? General Helmly. I don't feel qualified to answer that. I think General Taguba's investigation went into that. I will simply say that had I been in charge of that, I feel if I am in command, I am in full command and if you are a contractor or civilian employee, you work for me. Ms. Watson. That helps. If you were in charge of prisons, then you would be in full command. Could you and do you and can you go through at any time and inspect and monitor what is going on? General Helmly. I would have insisted upon that access and had I been denied that access by anyone, short of physical actions, I would have informed my superiors that they could no longer hold me accountable because if I am in command, I will go anyplace in the organization I wish to go. Ms. Watson. Thank you. Maybe Lieutenant General Hanlon can address that same question too. Can the civilian contractor order the MPs to do something? General Hanlon. I will answer that question by saying that I am deferring to my colleagues in the Army who probably have a bit more familiarity with that situation than I. I don't have any at all but I will tell you, and I think the General gave an excellent answer a second ago when he said I think it is safe to assume that any commander any place, any time, anywhere where you have civilian contractors working for you, in the mess hall much less interrogators, ultimately are responsible to you as the commander for the good order, discipline and the functioning of whatever their job is. So I thought his answer was very good but I can't give any more definition than that because I am really not familiar. Ms. Watson. That is acceptable to me. We are just trying to get some things clarified. I was interested in the chain of command. What obligations does the civilian-private contractor have when they come into say a prison to interrogate? Is there an obligation to report to whoever is in charge? Do they have to go through the personnel that is already there, the MPs? How does that work? General Helmly. Contractors are not independent operators. I think General Hanlon addressed that part. They sign a contract to perform tasks for the U.S. Government. We have contracting officers, technical representatives and contracting officers representatives. The COTRs, I have been one of those myself and within the terms of that contract, I always gave them guidance, direction and instruction and insisted upon reports from them, visited their workplace and I think all of us have done that, not in my case with interrogators but again, with the exception of the function being performed, I would not try to administer such a contract any differently than I do with contract employees who do staff work for us here in the Pentagon. Ms. Watson. Is it a usual thing for the intelligence interrogators, the contract or military, to say to the prison guards, the MPs, whoever, soften them up. Is this something that is said when they are preparing to go into a situation, soften them up, and who would say that, and would the military police have to respond accordingly? General Hanlon. I am not in any way shape or form trying to dodge your question but I am not an intel officer, I am not a military police officer, I run the Marine Corps Combat Development Command and there is no way I can begin to answer that question because I have no idea what the authorities were or any guidance given in that particular case. Ms. Watson. All right. General Schultz. General Schultz. Ms. Watson, I have been in the Army over 41 years. I have not heard the term, never been associated with the use of that term. I also must clarify I am not a military police officer. General Helmly. I don't think any of us are trying to dodge your question but I believe the question is with any degree of clarity and accuracy, it is probably impossible for any of us to answer given the fact that none of us were there, none of us are military police and today do not run military police or military intelligence operations. I will simply say if someone instructed---- Ms. Watson. Sir, I know you weren't there. What I am trying to find out and maybe somebody would come forward and let me know what the chain of command is in a prison setting. Who oversees, who orders people to do things? Mr. Shays. Could the gentlelady suspend just a second, so we understand? I want the gentlelady to be able to ask these questions but I want to understand the expertise of the witnesses we have to make sure we are not tasking them beyond their expertise. Ms. Watson. Chain of command. Mr. Shays. Chain of command is, I want to say, a very logical question that anyone should be able to ask. I just want to know in terms of prison guarding and so on, what expertise do you gentlemen bring to this issue just so we understand. Have you had those tasks during your time in the military? Who has so we know who to ask if any? Do any of you have that responsibility? General Weber. Sir, speaking for myself, no. I am an armored cavalryman by trade. I have very little to do with MPs and military intelligence. General Helmly. Sir, as Commander, I am responsible for the training of the U.S. Army Reserve but I have no direct expertise in detainee operations or interrogations. Mr. Shays. But in terms of making sure you have people trained, that would be the closest we have gotten so far. General Schultz and then I will let you get back to our questioning, just so we know. General Schultz. In our units, we have military police capabilities and we have soldiers in our subordinate chains of command that prepare them for their duty in theater including prison related work. I am not personally involved in the question you asked, however. Mr. Shays. General Hanlon. General Hanlon. In my past, I have been a base commanding general. As a base commanding general, I have had military police work for me for the good order and discipline of protecting the military base and we had a brig aboard the base which did normal functions for what brigs are designed for, but I have not had any experience at all in any kind of facility dealing with detainees or prisoners of war. Mr. Shays. I appreciate that you are trying to be helpful to Ms. Watson who is asking questions that all of us in Congress would like answers to. We are just trying to break the surface here and begin to understand. I am sorry, Ms. Watson. We will keep the clock running for you. Ms. Watson. I just have one or two more things. General Schultz, were there any Marine Reservists accused of shall I say violations within that prison setting? General Hanlon. You said General Schultz, did you mean General Hanlon? Ms. Watson. Lieutenant General Schultz. General Schultz. I am not familiar with any. Ms. Watson. General Hanlon. General Hanlon. Would you repeat that question? Ms. Watson. I understand that Marine Reservists have been accused of abuses of Iraqi prisoners. Are you aware that there have been some accused? General Hanlon. There were allegation from a year ago involving some Marines. My understanding is that all the cases are being adjudicated. In fact, I think in a couple of cases there are pending courts martial. Many of the charges were dismissed and I know each and every one of those cases has been under investigation. That is about all I know about it because it involved commands other than my own. My understanding is they have all been investigated and they are all being properly adjudicated. Ms. Watson. In this kind of situation, in a detention facility, who can command a Marine Reservist to treat prisoners one way or the other? Who is in direct charge of them? General Hanlon. You have a Marine, a rifleman, say he is a Lance Corporal and say this Lance Corporal is in a platoon in a company in a battalion in a regiment, so he has a chain of command. If he is a Lance Corporal, he will have a squad leader, a squad leader will have a platoon leader, a platoon leader will have a platoon commander, a platoon commander will have a company commander, a company commander will have a battalion commander, a battalion commander will have a regimental commander, so there is a set chain of command that Marine is responsible to every single day. If he is a Lance Corporal, he is probably reporting to a Corporal or to a Sergeant. Ms. Watson. In a detention facility? General Hanlon. In any facility. No matter where a Marine is located, he will have a boss. Ms. Watson. I want to focus on a detention facility, just say detention facility. General Hanlon. I don't know what that means, a detention facility. Are we talking like what? Ms. Watson. I am talking about the detention facility in question, a prison, interment wherever. Who can direct a Marine Reservist? General Hanlon. First of all, I would like to go back to something I said earlier. Ms. Watson. Let me ask you, can a contractor do that? General Hanlon. No, ma'am. Ms. Watson. Thank you. You have answered my question. General Hanlon. My understanding is that a Marine will always take his instructions from another Marine. I just want to say one thing, something I said in my opening comments. We don't make distinctions between Reservists and active duty Marine. A Marine is a Marine. Ms. Watson. OK. Very good. I appreciate your response and I will try to figure it out. General Hanlon. Thank you. Ms. Watson. That is it. Mr. Shays. Let me ask a question I have been very curious about. When I hear that mothers and fathers are buying protective vests for their children in Iraq, is it the same quality vest that you would see our own military have when they have their vest? Is it the same or is it something less than what the military could buy? General Schultz. Mr. Chairman, the cases I am familiar with, they will meet a police standard for police operations here in the continental United States but will not satisfy a U.S. military criteria. It is slightly different. Mr. Shays. Really what starts to happen is that if they have nothing, something is better than nothing but it doesn't in most cases meet the standard of the military? General Schultz. That is correct. Mr. Shays. First Sergeant Neill made four points. I would like to go through those points with you and get a response. He said, ``We have a shortage of warrant officers who are the officer team leaders. It is my belief that this shortage could be filled directly from the senior NCO ranks where soldiers are forced out of the Army because of age, time and grade and time and service.'' Do you have any response to that comment? General Schultz. Mr. Chairman, we have a shortage of 1,500 warrant officers in the Army National Guard today. The First Sergeant's recommendation is the very issue we are working right now. That would be to take from our senior non- commissioned officer ranks those soldiers that satisfy the skills to become warrant officers and they clearly could begin to fill those shortages that we have outlined here that come time of war, no doubt have to all be filled. So the point he raises, although he is an Army Reservist, applies to the Guard no doubt. Mr. Shays. This is his second point. ``Many years ago, motor sections, supply sections and communications sections were all moved from intelligence companies and sent to battalion level organization where their staffing was reduced and became ineffective. Maybe it is time to look at bringing them back to individual companies.'' What is your response to that? General Helmly. Mr. Chairman, that is a part of the modified table of organization and equipment, the organizational structure laid down by the Department of the Army. I would tell you that we are relooking every kind of organization in the Army under an action called modularizing our units. I have every confidence that will be relooked. Whether the Army will change that, I don't know but we are relooking the organizational structure of virtually all of our units. Mr. Shays. Under the heading of mobilization, he said, ``We were the prisoners at Fort Dix.'' What was he driving at? General Helmly. He was pointing out that the installation Commander stated soldiers mobilizing there would be restricted to the installation. That was done principally for safety and security. We found that some soldiers were attempting to take a day or an afternoon drive too far after 16-18 hours of training and we were incurring accidents. So many of the installation commanders said, you have to stay on the installation. Mr. Shays. How long a time before they were deployed were they at Fort Dix? General Helmly. I don't know for that particular unit. I will take that for the record and tell you how long they were at Fort Dix. [The information referred to follows:] The unit's processing at Fort Dix lasted 63 days. Mr. Shays. I have no comprehension. Are we talking a month or two or potentially many, many months? General Helmly. We had some units that were in OIF-1 that were stagnated in the flow of forces to the theater and spent 3 to 4 months at a mobilization station. I will tell you in those instances most Mob Commanders then tried to take action to provide for passes and that kind of thing in a measured manner. Mr. Shays. I want to say I don't know your reaction but I thought the panel we had was a thoughtful group of individuals. I felt they care about their job, they care about the military and want it to work better. They just want people to listen and that is one of the reasons I appreciated that we had all four of you taking the time to listen. It means a lot to them and it means a lot to this committee that you did that. His fourth point was, ``We also had issues with doctrine which would not allow us to task sources of information.'' In other words, if an Iraqi told him something that was informative, he could gain passive information but he could not say, why don't you go back and see if you find this. It strikes me that it would have been potentially helpful to do that. What are the pros and cons of doing that and why didn't we allow it? Do you want to take a stab at it, General Hanlon? General Hanlon. I guess I did not hear that particular comment but I would only say to you that I would like to think since I am responsible for the doctrine in the Marine Corps and how we train Marines, I would like to think that under no circumstances would we ever have doctrine that would in any way, shape or form stifle the initiative of a Marine when it comes to getting a piece of information and acting on it. In fact, we encourage them to do just that. Mr. Shays. He was basically saying sources did provide information for a variety of reasons but money was not available as an incentive. ``We also had an issue with doctrine which would not allow us to task sources of information. We would suggest but not task. Sources do not need suggestions, they need directions. You ask them a question and tell them to come back with an answer.'' Does someone from the military want to take a shot? General Helmly. Sir, I think General Hanlon made an excellent point. We write doctrine to provide us guidance. Sometimes one finds that it is interpreted more as dogma by some and I would like to echo your remarks and agree with you. All of these service members we saw, Staff Sergeant SanchezLopez and the three Army soldiers, all the officers and non-commissioned officers and the enlisted soldier, all remind us of the immensely strong, capable, competent, professional force we all have and are very proud of. In this case, I took the First Sergeant's remarks to mean that he felt he probably had a shortage of money to pay informants from which he could get information. I believe we are tackling that. We understand, as our Chief has said, that in fact, we find ourselves fighting a network when we are organized as a hierarchy and we have found several times we have to go too far up in that hierarchy to get permissions. As we find those cases, we are rapidly trying to change those in order to adapt ourselves to this kind of battlefield. Mr. Shays. To give some credit to the Army, General Patrayus, when we met with him, he didn't wait for the CPA, he just started. He started to interact with Iraqis, he started to meet with them, he tried to understand their culture, he did a lot of things that I think Marines would probably take pride in as well, showing that kind of initiative and not being held back by the doctrine, probably taking a risk or two but I think made a very important contribution. General Weber. If I could comment, please? Mr. Shays. Yes, thank you. General Weber. What General Patrayus was doing was not any different than what any other unit was doing in Iraq immediately after the war. All of us in the 3rd Infantry Division were doing the same thing and if you go over today, battalion, brigade and even company commanders are doing exactly what you described. They are meeting with the people who are involved, they are trying to develop the intelligence community and information they need to fight the fight at their own levels and that is going on. That is what we do, that is how we adapt to the environment and that is what our unit commanders are responsible to do. I would like to highlight that is what our Army is all about, we take the current threat conditions, take the environment we are operating in and adjust to try to get in front of the enemies and the threat. Mr. Shays. Let me say this with all due respect, General Weber. Having been there five times, there are some people that did it better than others and he pushed the envelope a little further. I will tell you that I know our troops were during the day fixing up the schools and painting and cleaning them up and at night looking for the bad guys. I know that happened, so I want to agree with your general point, but what happened with General Patrayus is instantly there were people waiting for CPA to do some of what we said CPA should do. He just couldn't wait and I think he started the ball rolling a little sooner. I just want to say that to you because I met with a number of Army personnel and I was struck with the fact that he was pushing it a little bit more than others, but your point is extraordinarily valid. One more point of our first testifier. He said, ``Soldiers purchased much of their own equipment. They purchased cell phones that we used for communications, clothing, bug spray, CPS systems, handheld radios for in between vehicle communication, office supplies, tranformers, refrigerators and coolers. Additionally, they paid for NTB vehicle repairs and purchased parts for maintenance for which they were not reimbursed.'' It strikes me, I don't want to say it is embarrassing, but it is good there was this ingenuity, but it strikes me I am looking at myself and Congress and saying where did I drop the ball or where did other Members of Congress drop the ball that this happened? Is it that things simply got out of hand? I will tell you what I am wrestling with. I was chairing a Budget Committee hearing and we had one of the commanding officers accompany Mr. Wolfowitz or Mr. Wolfowitz was responding. I have great respect for Mr. Wolfowitz. It was mentioned that we might need 200,000 plus troops and it was immediately argued that we didn't need as many, but I am struck by the fact that we overworked our folks. They got very little sleep, they worked morning, noon and night and I am just struck by the fact that it seems to me things got out of hand. General Weber. If I could comment? You are familiar with the rapid fielding initiative and that was the result of the lessons learned early on from the OIF piece but also from the OEF lessons learned. What struck me about the previous panel was a lot of those comments were associated with the OIF-1 units that granted had some shortages, had some problems, etc. What I find interesting today is with the OIF-2 rotation, every unit that was sent, in theory but we try to make it happen, was fielded with a basic set of equipment under the rapid fielding initiative for soldiers to take care of some of those problems you just identified. I would try to explain it to you that the Army has noticed a shortfall and a shortcoming and we have taken corrective action to try to field the soldier with the right equipment that he needs. Mr. Shays. I will just make a point to you. It would sometimes be good to learn this from the command rather than from the field. We were learning things from what soldiers were telling their loved ones back home and so on. I think we need to have a lot of respect for each other and our capability to deal with this. We were learning in some cases indirectly and I think that is what is so unsettling about this whole issue with the prisons. Let me close by asking you what is the point of the first panel that you agreed with most and what is the point you agreed with least? This isn't a quiz, I know you must react and say, I don't agree with that. If there wasn't anything said in the first panel you don't agree with, then I would like to know that or if you want to qualify it. I realize we have three Army personnel and one Marine, but is there anything you would like to comment about the first panel? General Schultz. The first panel outlined for me the urgency of the equipping issues. You know we have been working this for some months, years now and it has just come a little too slow to satisfy anyone, so I am reminded we just have to keep some issues on our list of priorities because we still have soldiers in harms way that are not as equipped as we would want them. This is after months of combat. Mr. Shays. Let me respond to that and have you react. Once of the challenges we know exists, because this committee has done work in this area, is that we have an inventory challenge. We can't do what K-Mart can do, we can't tell you where supplies are and so we sometimes have an overabundance of supplies, sometimes an under abundance. Was that part of the issue or was it we simply didn't have these supplies anywhere and was it in fact a money issue or just a backlog in orders, if you could respond to that? General Schultz. Initially, a little of both actually, a resourcing item initially and then we had a distribution problem with the body armor, probably had enough total armor systems in certain theaters and then we had sizing issues with some, so it was really resourcing. Then we had the industrial base that General Weber already talked about, so a combination of about three things. As I listened to that first panel, the one thing they left me with was they all departed their areas of operations leaving the units to follow on in better shape which makes me feel pretty good even though we have a lot of work yet. Mr. Shays. General Helmly. General Helmly. I would first of all highlight the remarks that Dr. Krepinevich made. I am mindful sometimes that it is difficult to appreciate the accuracy of the content of a problem if one does not appreciate the larger context within which it occurred. I thought Dr. Krepinevich gave an excellent outline of the immense change that the strategic context within which our armed forces operate has occurred. Beyond that, I found virtually everything that Colonel Novotny and the three enlisted and non-commissioned officers and the soldier spoke about to be compelling evidence of why we must be mindful this is the first extended duration conflict our Nation has fought with an all volunteer force because the immense quality of the Marine and the soldiers showed this committee today is proof positive that we must be careful as we operate and fight this war to maintain that force. General Weber. I think the comments about the equipping and the lessons learned were very positive. I think the Army is headed in the right direction. We have tried to identify some problems and problems were identified to us. In that sense, I think the previous panel was accurately reflecting the conditions that existed at the time they were deployed. I would hope if we went back with the OIF-2 units, some of those conditions would be different and our reactions to the OIF-1 problems have been ameliorated if not resolved in some cases. I hope we are on the right track there. The only disagreement I would have is some of the comments previously about the combat training centers. The combat training centers have responded very quickly to the conditions and the environments that our troops are operating in both at JRTC at Fort Polk, NTC at Fort Irwin and CMTC at Hohenfels, Germany. If you went out and looked at those training centers, the operations groups and those responsible for training there are doing great things. They are working hard with the unit commanders who are deploying into these conditions to set the right training conditions and scenarios and environments for them to get the most out of the CTC event. Mr. Shays. Let me just ask you, because you brought up that issue and it is very related, the active and the Reserve components, do they interface in training? They interface on the battlefield but I am hearing that is one of the questions, that the Guard is rarely invited to participate in simulations in training opportunities with the active force. General Weber. I will defer to my colleagues but from my perspective, we try to do as much of that as time allows and as the timing of the events permit as well. In some conditions, we work very well. The civil affairs community is always embedded in our rotations normally if they are available but we try to do as best we can with that. General Schultz. We have an opportunity to train thousands of soldiers at both Fort Irwin and Fort Polk. Last year the schedule was simply so busy we couldn't send soldiers, we had them committed elsewhere, so there is an opportunity to train that we are not able to take advantage of right now. Mr. Shays. But you would say there is value clearly in having the Reservists in there? General Schultz. Absolutely. Mr. Shays. General Schultz, this is kind of a curiosity but I would like to it on the record. When the National Guard units leave their equipment behind, what do they go home to? General Schultz. In some cases, they don't have a whole lot when they get back to their local motor pools. What we are doing in the Army is moving equipment around, literally around the Army from the Reserve, from the Guard, from other places so that we reequip units with a minimum level of equipment initially. We have to redistribute equipment back into those motor pools where there is none. Mr. Shays. Why do you say between the Reserve and the Guard? If they are doing the same role, wouldn't you also do it from the active? General Schultz. Oh, yes. In fact, that is exactly our plan. Mr. Shays. General. General Hanlon. Going back to your original question. I think it was Dr. Krepinevich who talked a little bit about some of the lessons learned we have had over the last decade from the way the military used to train with the lessons we have picked up as a result of Iraq and the whole issue of urban environment. We have been concerned in the Marine Corps about fighting in cities for a long time. In fact, back in the 1996- 1997 timeframe, our warfighting lab started doing a number of experiments looking specifically at combat in the built up area. In fact, the training I mentioned to Ms. Watson that we do out of March Air Force Base is really a result of what we learned back in the late 1990's and how we need to train Marines to fight in the built up area. Fighting in a built up area is something you don't want to do if you have a choice but keeping in mind the latest statistic I think I heard is like 70 percent of the population in the world lives in built up areas, one can assume somewhere, someplace if you are going to get into a fight you could well be in an urban built up area. In fact, you remember probably our former Commandant, General Krulak used the famous line of the three block war in which we used to talk about the difficulties of training and fighting in an urban environment. So this is something we have been focusing on for a long time, it is something we continue to focus on, our warfighting lab down at Quantico, and one of the things I have talked to my Army counterparts about. There is an Army General by the name of General Burns who has the Army equivalent to my command which is TRADOC command, is the need for looking in the future at building joint MOC facilities that both soldiers and Marines can use that will give a state-of-the-art, large training area we can put our battalions through and both take advantage of that. We are looking at how we might build something like that, say a 29 Palms or Fort Irwin so that both organizations can take advantage of that. I will tell you something we focus on all the time and it drives a lot of the work we are doing on technology and special equipment to not only protect Marines fighting in an urban environment but to give them the fighting edge. I think you said in your comments earlier that you want to set it up so we always win. Mr. Shays. I said it should never be a fair fight. General Hanlon. It should never be a fair fight, a great line, and that is precisely what we are trying to do not only through our tactics and techniques and procedures but also with our technology. We are doing as much as we possibly can and that is why the lessons learned that we are garnering from the experiences over in Iraq right now, I think will pay huge dividends for us in the future. Mr. Shays. I will add that I think we owe it to our soldiers and our Marines, all our military, to help make sure they have some cultural sensitivity. Maybe I am speaking now as a Peace Corps volunteer, but it is hugely advantageous to understand the actions you take and how people react to them, just knowing their culture and so on. If in fact the battlefield will be in urban areas, there are a lot of women and children and others but it is nice to know their culture and how they react to things. General Hanlon. Absolutely right. That is part of the culturization and the training you try to give the Marines. When we were showing the House Armed Services Committee about a month ago how some of the new devices, the phrasalators that the Marines can carry, actually a little gadget where you can say something in English, hit a button and it will come back in the local dialect, things of that sort so you make sure you can communicate which is always the first step. Sir, your points are right on. Mr. Shays. Any last comments before we adjourn? [No response.] Mr. Shays. Let me just conclude by thanking all four of you and your staff and say this is really an effort of the subcommittee as well as the full committee. We are working together on this. Sometimes the full committee has a hearing and sometimes it is the subcommittee, but we are all working for the same basic cause. We would like our National Guard and Reservists to be paid on time and the salaries they are owed. We would like them to be better equipped. We would like the training to keep improving. We would like them not to be overworked. My big fear is that you are going to start to see spouses who are simply say, honey, I don't want you, and it may be a man to his wife who is in the military. We lost one young lady and we lost one young man in my district and I am concerned the spouses are going to say, don't sign up, don't reenlist. I hope we are thinking that one through too. Thank you all very much. With that, this hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.] <all>