New Landpower Analysis Group Being Set Up

The Army and SOCOM are setting up a new "landpower" group at the Pentagon.

The Army and Special Operations Command are starting a new strategic land power cell. The brand-new initiative, known only to a small group of planners thus far, is the brainchild of Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno and will take shape over the next few months. The group, which will also include the Marines, is designed to fuse the military's land cultures, from the conventional land power of "Big Army" to the people-oriented skills of Special Forces to technology and cyber efforts. Ultimately, the planning cell could include general officers from each of the major land components, Situation Report is told.

By creating a group focused on integrating those pieces, military strategists believe they can make more effective use of land power -- especially at a time when ground forces, after more than 10 years of war, are perceived to have fallen out of fashion in the hallways of the Pentagon. Ultimately, the effort could have implications for military doctrine, for the integration of conventional and specialized forces, and even for acquisition, according to an individual familiar with the nascent group.

The group's formation is bound to be controversial for the perception it will create at a time of a major budget crunch and the move to Asia - in effect, that the land forces are looking to lobby for more resources and influence But the individual familiar with the group pushes back on the notion that this is anything more than the ground forces taking a strategic approach to working better together.

"The Strategic Landpower initiative is intended to harness the lessons learned over the past decade of population-centric warfare, retain what worked, and then determine what that means for land forces going forward," the person told Situation Report. "Understanding the relationship between people, technology and the environment will improve our efforts to shape the environment in positive ways that prevent war, just as it should allow us to make lasting process in future conflicts if we have to fight."

By: Brant

Current ISAF Placemat

As of 10 September 2012

By: Brant

US Basing Substantial Force Out of Kuwait

The US planning a rather large footprint in Kuwait for several years.

The United States is planning a significant military presence of 13,500 troops in Kuwait to give it the flexibility to respond to sudden conflicts in the region as Iraq adjusts to the withdrawal of American combat forces and the world nervously eyes Iran, according to a congressional report.
The study by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee examined the U.S. relationship with the six nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council - Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman - against a fast-moving backdrop. In just the last two days, Saudi Arabia's ruler named Defense Minister Prince Salman bin Abdul-Aziz as the country's new crown prince after last week's death of Prince Nayef, and Kuwait's government suspended parliament for a month over an internal political feud.
The latest developments inject even more uncertainty as the Middle East deals with the demands of the Arab Spring, the end to U.S. combat operations in Iraq at the end of 2011 and fears of Iran's nuclear program.
"Home to more than half of the world's oil reserves and over a third of its natural gas, the stability of the Persian Gulf is critical to the global economy," the report said. "However, the region faces a myriad of political and security challenges, from the Iranian nuclear program to the threat of terrorism to the political crisis in Bahrain."
The report obtained by The Associated Press in advance of Tuesday's release provided precise numbers on U.S. forces in Kuwait, a presence that Pentagon officials have only acknowledged on condition of anonymity. Currently, there are about 15,000 U.S. forces in Kuwait at Camp Arifjan, Ali Al Salem Air Base and Camp Buehring, giving the United States staging hubs, training ranges and locations to provide logistical support. The report said the number of troops is likely to drop to 13,500.

Unknown what the exact composition will be, but likely not all Army, as some USAF folks will be needed to help run the airfields.

By: Brant

Restationing of Aviation Units to Ft Lewis

The Army is relocating the last of the units that will make up the 16th Combat Aviation Brigade.

The Department of the Army announced today the planned relocation of two aviation units to Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Wash.: 1st Battalion, 229th Air Cavalry Squadron will relocate from Fort Hood, Texas, and convert to an Attack/Reconnaissance Battalion; and Company D, 123rd Aviation Regiment will relocate from Fort Wainwright, Alaska. These force structure actions represent a net increase of 531 military and zero civilian authorizations for the Army at Joint Base Lewis-McChord; a decrease of 402 military and zero civilian authorizations at Fort Hood; and a decrease of 129 military and zero civilian authorizations at Fort Wainwright. These actions will be completed by Oct. 15, 2012.

These force structure actions represent the final phase of the activation of the 16th Combat Aviation Brigade at Joint Base Lewis-McChord to meet the Army’s broader strategic and operational requirements. These actions incorporate the Army Force Generation Model and Army Transformation initiatives, both of which are required to achieve the Army’s goal of rebalancing the force. Overall, these unit relocations will help the Army meet the increased demand placed on its aviation assets and provide combatant commanders with flexible, trained and highly-mobile forces to execute operations worldwide. The Army is transforming to provide a more relevant organization to meet its worldwide strategic and operational requirements.

By: Brant

More info on the UK restructuring

Just how much will the Brits cut uniforms and swap in contractors?

Whole regiments could be axed or merged, and infantry battalions and armoured units disappear as the army faces its biggest shakeup since the end of the cold war, Philip Hammond, the defence secretary, will say on Thursday.

The army will be cut from 102,000 to 82,000 by the year 2020 and will have to rely more on reserves and private contractors, he is expected to say.

But it will continue to provide the "teeth" in future military operations as Britain's European allies provide the logistics backup, Hammond will say at a London conference on land warfare run by the Royal United Services Institute thinktank.

Defence officials emphasised that more functions of the army would be "outsourced" – potentially to include more training and logistics as well as backup security work.

Restructuring the British army will "rethink the way we deliver every aspect of military effect in order to maximise capability at the front line". In future, he will say, the army must be "thinking innovatively about how combat service support is provided. Using more systematically the skills available in the reserve and from our contractors. Working closely with partners to operate logistics more rationally through [Nato] alliance structures. Looking to others to provide the tail, where Britain is concentrating on providing the teeth".

Hammond will stress the importance of the regimental tradition – "maintaining the ethos, traditions and connections that are part of what makes the British army so effective – particularly, a regimental system and regionally focused recruiting", he will say. But he is expected to emphasise the point that a regular army of 82,000 will have a very different structure to one of 102,000. "Some units inevitably will be lost or will merge," the defence secretary will warn.

Hammond will say there is "no question of abandoning the regimental system... that does not mean that we can avoid difficult decisions as the army gets smaller." History and heritage deliver "tangible military benefits in the modern British army".

By: Brant

Restationing of Amphibious Group Moved Up

The US Navy is accelerating the restationing of the an amphibious ready group.

Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced today that the first amphibious ready group (ARG) ship scheduled to shift homeport to Naval Station Mayport, Fla., will arrive in the last quarter of 2013.

The USS New York, the USS Iwo Jima and the USS Fort McHenry, will shift from their current homeport of Norfolk, Va., to Mayport. The USS New York will be the first to change homeport, followed by the USS Iwo Jima and the USS Fort McHenry in 2014.

Mabus originally announced Feb. 28 that the ARG would arrive no later than 2015.

The accelerated timeline ensures continued viability of the Mayport ship repair industrial base and maintains the capabilities of the Jacksonville fleet concentration area, thereby preserving surge capability and reducing risk to fleet resources in the event of natural or man-made contingencies.

“I am very pleased that the Navy is able condense the time horizon for the arrival of the Mayport ARG,” stated Mabus. “The move underscores just how important Jacksonville and Naval Station Mayport are to our national defense, and how committed we are to strategic dispersal on the east coast.”

View Larger Map

By: Brant

A Sneak Peek At British Army Restructuring?

While much of the article concerns integration of contractors and reserves into service support, the notes at the end about maneuver forces are interesting.

Most of the significant changes at the unit level would occur between 2014 and 2016, he said.

Reaction forces would provide an assault brigade equipped with attack helicopters. There will be three armored infantry brigades equipped with medium and heavy vehicles, including the Challenger tank.

In addition, there will be seven infantry brigades of various sizes made up of paired regular and reserve forces. These will be particularly suited to U.K. or enduring operations such as the Falkland Islands and Cyprus.

Force groups involving artillery, engineering, intelligence and logistics would provide maneuver support and logistics, Wall said.

By: Brant

AFRICOM and New US Regionally-Aligned Brigades

The Stars & Stripes has an article on the new regional brigade concept and the first rotation through AFRICOM.

A U.S.-based unit has been selected as the Army’s first “regionally aligned” brigade, and by next year its soldiers could begin conducting operations in Africa.

It is the first step in an effort to develop expert units to rotate through a region.

U.S. Africa Command will be the first to test the new rotational model, intended to give commanders a more reliable supply of soldiers available for short, training-focused missions.

Army chief of staff Gen. Raymond Odierno on Wednesday said that a brigade from the 10th Mountain Division has been picked to lead the effort in Africa.

Plans also call for brigades to eventually be aligned with Southern, Central and Pacific Commands, Odierno said. The number of brigades aligned with a given region will depend on the needs of the respective combatant commands.

“So as they go through a training process, then they become available for a period a time, nine to 12 months,” Odierno said. “And then they can use those forces to meet whatever requirements they might have. It might be rotational forces. It could be building partner capacity. It could be providing security assistance. It could be doing exercises.”

By: Brant

The Sage of Brigade-Based Ops, Douglas MacGregor, Weighs In On Reforming the US Army

How'd we get here? and how do we get back to where we want to be?

In the United States, it’s popular to focus on technology to the exclusion of all else. The Service bureaucracies are comfortable with this approach because it models “gadgets against gadgets” in simulation. This approach treats the anachronistic organizational status quo as irrelevant and unchangeable. The possibility that command structures, organization for combat and human understanding could be at least if not more decisive is not even considered.

It’s the victory of what Don Vandergriff (Major, US Army, retired) attributes to the destructive impact of Frederick Taylor’s industrial age model. Those who dismiss criticality of how we organize our forces and equipment, how we train and educate to fight miss the point that organization in particular reflects cultural patterns that shape thinking and behavior or how we interact with the technology of war and events in action, (an argument Delbrueck made). Ultimately, organization tells you how we think about warfare. If the organizational paradigm never changes, it tells you the thinking, policies and culture have not changed either.

These points notwithstanding, change is not always possible. In 1973, the Egyptian Army’s rigid, top-heavy command structure stifled fresh ideas, tactical flexibility, and honest communication from lower levels. After successfully crossing the Suez in a carefully planned and well-rehearsed operation this military culture contributed decisively to Egypt’s defeat at the hands of the Israel Defense Force. However, in practice, Egypt’s leaders knew Arab culture demanded that every action be scripted from the top down to the individual soldier. The point is: Egyptian national military and political leadership had little choice in the matters of organization, leadership and tactics, let alone operational art. What they did was all that they could do.

A similar dilemma confronted the Soviet military leadership during WW II. The Stavka had to organize and move tens of millions of illiterate, and largely unwilling Slavic and Mongol-Turkic soldiers into battle against a highly educated, competently led German Army. (Ivan’s War is a recent work informed by the NKVD archives now closed, and worth reading on this point). As I was told during an official visit to the Russian General Staff Academy in November 2001, unavoidable tactical rigidity together with the brutal subjugation of millions who did not want to defend Stalin’s Russia produced at least 40 million Soviet dead, twice what the Soviets publicly admitted, but the communists were always great liars.

By: Brant

7th ID Coming Back Onto the Rolls

Yes, we know... 7th ID "sorta" exists out at Ft Carson. Suuuuuure... That's why the Army is actually bringing back 7th ID as a real headquarters and back at Ft Lewis, where they moved at Ft Ord closed up shop in the '90s.

Secretary of the Army John McHugh today announced that the Army will establish a new two-star headquarters at Joint Base Lewis-McChord (JBLM), reflecting the installation’s growth over the past nine years, as well as its strategic importance in the new Defense Strategic Guidance.

“This new headquarters will provide command and control for several brigade-size units, many of which have been activated since 2003,” McHugh explained during a news conference at JBLM, near Tacoma, Wash. “Under the leadership of Gen. Ray Odierno, the chief of staff of the Army, and joined by officials from I Corps and U.S. Army Forces Command, the Department of the Army believes this new headquarters will help meet the needs created by the base’s nine years of dynamic growth and its evolving future missions.”

McHugh noted that the new headquarters is an internal reorganization within the Army, and will not require an increase to the Army’s end-strength.

“As the Army’s only power projection installation west of the Rocky Mountains, JBLM has assumed even greater importance in our new Defense Strategic Guidance,” he explained. “The dynamic growth over the past decade, combined with their regional significance in our ability to protect and defend the Pacific region, makes JBLM’s new headquarters important not only to the Army, but also to the nation.”

The new unit will provide oversight for personnel, equipment, training and readiness of three Stryker brigade combat teams, a combat aviation brigade and a fires brigade -- totaling some 17,000 Soldiers. The I Corps commanding general remains the joint base commander at Joint Base Lewis-McChord and the new two-star headquarters will report to I Corps. The Joint Base Lewis-McChord Garrison Command will continue its joint-installation functions in support of the new headquarters and other tenant units.

Since 2003, the roles of I Corps and Joint Base Lewis-McChord have evolved in a manner to keep pace with significantly changing war-time roles and missions of the Army, Air Force and the Department of Defense (DoD). Over the past nine years, it has grown by about 15,000 soldiers and 22,000 family members. During that time, it has also seen the rapid establishment of three Stryker brigade combat teams; and a military construction program totaling $1.75 billion.

“This has been one of the fastest growing installations in the Army,” McHugh said. “And we’ve been fortunate that members of Washington State’s Congressional delegation – specifically Sen. Patty Murray, Rep. Adam Smith and Rep. Norm Dicks – have worked with us on behalf of JBLM, its soldiers and families, and I’m grateful for their leadership and support.”

Joint Base Lewis-McChord is the largest in size of the DoD’s 12 joint bases, and is the second largest in population. The new headquarters’ formal activation is scheduled for Oct. 1, 2012, but the unit’s personnel and three general officers will begin arriving early this summer. The new unit will be designated Headquarters, 7th Infantry Division and its commander will be announced at a later date.

By: Brant

US Moving 9,000 Marines to Guam

About half of the Marines in Okinawa will move to Guam.

Roughly half the U.S. Marines on Okinawa will be transferred under an agreement announced Thursday that will reduce the military footprint in Japan, easing local resentments over the amount of land being used by American forces.
Some 9,000 Marines along with their family members will be transferred under the agreement, with about 5,000 being sent to Guam as part of a military buildup on the U.S. territory in the Pacific, according to a joint statement released by the U.S.-Japan Security Consultative Committee.
"I am very pleased that, after many years, we have reached this important agreement and plan of action," Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said.
The announcement by the committee, which included the top U.S. and Japanese defense officials, ends years of seesaw talks aimed at cutting the American presence on the island south of Tokyo.
Though no exact timetable was given for transfer of the Marines, preparations are under way at Guam.

And no, we don't expect it to capsize.


By: Brant

Rearranging the MTOEs... Again...

There's about to be another reshuffling of how the maneuver brigades are organized.

However, whether leaders will make their decision public immediately -- if one is made at all -- is unclear. "An announcement on specific force structure actions is expected sometime before, or in conjunction with, submission of the [fiscal year 2014] President's Budget in early February 2013," service spokeswoman Lt. Col. Peggy Kageleiry wrote in a statement to Inside the Army.

Whatever the roll-out plans, there are strong indications that the leaders will formally decide to reorganize Army BCTs so that each formation has three maneuver battalions. The reshuffling means the service will be left with 32 BCTs, down from 45, when factoring in the end-strength reductions announced by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in January.

That could leave the Army with too many bases for too few brigades, one Army official said, noting the service is keenly aware of the political sensitivities involved in stationing decisions. "Congress doesn't realize it yet fully," said another official, referring to the fallout not only from the end-strength plans but also the BCT reorganization.

By: Brant

What's in a Name?

The Army is changing the name of their "HBCT" to "ABCT".
This does not in any way affect tomorrow's sunrise. As far as we can tell.



By: Brant

DoD Announces Changes to Afghan Missions, Units

The DoD has announced changes to the organization and missions of upcoming units deploying to Afghanistan.

The Army announced today a new mission to meet requirements in Afghanistan. Four brigade combat teams (BCTs), one separate brigade and an Army command, each in a modified configuration, will deploy between April and August 2012. Approximately 1,460 active component officers and senior non-commissioned officers along with approximately 300 DoD civilians will deploy in 18-person teams to provide training assistance to Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF).

The majority of those BCT soldiers and leaders not deploying will be reassigned to other units, in most cases on their respective installations. The remainder will focus on schooling, training, gunnery, and equipment maintenance and accountability.

Beginning in the 3rd quarter of fiscal 2012, these security force assistance teams will help to further generate, employ, and sustain the ANSF during the transition of security responsibility to the Afghan government and its security forces.

The units ordered to deploy are:

• 2nd BCT, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, Ky.
  
• 2nd BCT, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, Ga.
  
• 3rd BCT, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, Colo.
  
• 4th BCT, 1st Armored Division, Fort Bliss, Texas.
  
• 162nd Infantry Brigade, Fort Polk, La.
  
• 1st Army, Rock Island Arsenal, Ill.

By: Brant

New Counterterrorism Network Founded

The purpose of the Global Counterterrorism Forum is to identify urgent global needs in counterterrorism, devise solutions, and mobilize the resources needed to implement those solutions.

The new group will become "a counterterrorism network that is as nimble and adaptive as our adversaries," U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said at the inaugural meeting of the Global Counterterrorism Forum.

"Let us pledge to learn as much as we can from one another."

Canada is a founding member of the group, whose 30 members include Britain, China, the European Union, Japan, Australia, developing countries in Africa, the Middle East and Asia, as well as leading Muslim nations including Egypt, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

The U.S. and Turkey will co-chair the group.

By: Shelldrake

The Latest in the DoD Unified Command Plans

With the disestablishment of JFCOM, the DoD has released the latest change to the Unified Command Plan 2011.

The Department of Defense has issued a change to the Unified Command Plan (UCP), a strategic document that establishes the missions, responsibilities, and geographic areas of responsibility (AORs) for commanders of combatant commands. The Unified Command Plan 2011 Change 1, signed by President Obama on Sept. 12 captures administrative changes required to reflect the disestablishment of U.S. Joint Forces Command and several secretary of defense-directed efficiencies initiatives.

Every two years, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is required to review the missions, responsibilities, and geographical boundaries of each combatant command and recommend to the President, through the secretary of defense, any changes that may be necessary.

As in past years, this review process included the combatant commanders, service chiefs, and DoD leadership.

Significant changes made by UCP 2011 Change 1 include:

- Removing language that refers to U.S. Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM), which was disestablished on Aug. 31, 2011.

- Removing language for geographic combatant command standing joint force headquarters, which are approved for disestablishment by the end of fiscal 2012.

- Adding responsibility for global standing joint force headquarters to U.S. Transportation Command. These assets will transfer as the Joint Enabling Capabilities Command from USJFCOM.

- Transferring the Joint Warfare Analysis Center missions to U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM). Joint Warfare Analysis Center was previously a subordinate command to USJFCOM.

- Removing language and responsibilities for information operations, military deception, and operations security from USSTRATCOM. These missions will transfer to the Joint Staff.

The UCP 2011 continues to support U.S. defense security commitments around the world while improving military responsiveness to emerging crises.

Click to enlarge.  Also available as a PDF from http://www.defense.gov/ucc

As noted on the page with the map, there have been a few boundary shifts:

Significant changes made by UCP 2011 include:

• Shifting AOR boundaries in the Arctic region to leverage long-standing relationships and improve unity of effort.
  
• Giving U.S. Northern Command responsibility to advocate for Arctic capabilities.
  
• Codifying the President's approval to disestablish U.S. Joint Forces Command.
  
• Expanding U.S. Strategic Command’s responsibility for combating weapons of mass destruction and developing Global Missile Defense Concept of Operations.
  
• Giving U.S. Transportation Command responsibility for synchronizing planning of global distribution operations.

The UCP 2011 continues to support U.S. defense security commitments around the world while improving military responsiveness to emerging crises.

By: Brant

Army Cutting BCTs?

I get it, it's easier to cut BCTs and whack line units to get end-strength numbers down.

The U.S. Army may cut 10 of its 45 active-duty brigade combat teams (BCTs) as it works to meet President Obama's order to slice defense spending, said an Army official familiar with the budget deliberations.

Service leaders are still discussing how many Stryker, heavy or infantry BCTs might get cut and when.

The discussions are part of the budget drills each U.S. military service is undertaking before the Defense Department delivers a plan in October to cut its budget by at least $400 billion.

The Army has already announced plans to reduce its end strength by 27,000 starting in 2015 and has set lower recruiting goals to prepare for those cuts. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, the Army vice chief of staff, has said the service plans to cut out the temporary 22,000-solider increase that started in 2009 for the Afghanistan surge by 2012.

Subtracting 10 BCTs would fall in line with this plan, said the official, who asked to remain anonymous since discussions are ongoing.

Here's a thought... let's instead take out maneuver support brigades, corps-artillery units, and aviation brigades, rather than cutting foxhole strength.
"But wait! What happens if you need fires and there's no corps artillery to shoot for you?"
Lemme ask you this: if you cut line brigades instead of artillery brigades, who are you firing in support of?

That said, if you're cutting brigades, start with the 82nd/101st. Do we really need as many airborne brigades as they're bringing to the table?

By: Brant

Order Of Battle: 3rd SBCT / 2nd ID (and DoD Announces Next Afghan Rotation Unit)

The DoD has announced the next Afghanistan rotational unit in the box.

The Department of Defense announced today a unit to deploy as part of the upcoming rotation of forces operating in Afghanistan. The announcement involves one brigade combat team totaling about 3,200 soldiers. The scheduled deployment date for this unit is December 2011.

Specific unit:

3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Wash.

Official site of the 3rd Stryker Brigade
The brigade is composed of the following battalions:
1-23 IN
2-3 IN
5-20 IN
1-14 CAV
1-37 FA
296 BSB


By: Brant

Save the Infantry! Looking Ahead at Budget Cuts

An impassioned plea that we "Don’t Forget the Infantry" from Jim Lacey at National Review Online

Even as American soldiers and marines remain locked in mortal combat, debates rage over how deeply to cut the military. Cuts ranging from $400 billion to $1 trillion over five to ten years are on the table. As none of these discussions appear grounded in any determination of what our strategic needs might be in an uncertain future, I may be wasting my words in pointing out that this appears to be a particularly bad time to think about reducing our military capabilities. Rather, I wish to rail against the one thing that almost always happens when the country undertakes an ill-thought-out reduction of its military might: the senseless elimination of land forces.
After the Soviet Union’s demise, the U.S. Army’s 18 combat divisions were cut to ten. And before 9/11 Secretary Rumsfeld was proposing to cut that force to eight. Let’s put that in perspective. The combat troops within a division (infantry, artillery, armor) are only a fraction of the division’s total strength; the rest serve in crucial logistics and other support roles. If one took all the “trigger pullers” in the nation’s ten Army and two Marine divisions, there would be barely enough to fill half a college football stadium. This lack of manpower was so detrimental to our war efforts that during the peak of the fighting in Iraq serious consideration was given to adding two more combat divisions to the Army. It never happened. And now that our commitment in Iraq is winding down, the Army is once again bracing itself for the possibility of losing two of its ten divisions.

Now, as much as I like his article and the excellent points it makes, I do have to quibble with one thing: post Cold-War, when we consolidated from 18 combat divisions to 10, one of the changes we made was that every division was given a full complement of 3 line brigades. During the 80s, many of those 18 divisions had 'roundout' brigades from the National Guard. Those relationships were punted after Gulf I and the drawdown when we closed VII Corps. Several of the active duty separate brigades (like the 197th at Ft Benning) were tied into existing divisions to replace their associated National Guard units.
Additionally, no one has ever really answered this question: where were we supposed to put VII Corps if we brought them home? Seriously. You're talking about 2 infantry divisions, 2 artillery brigades, plus an ACR, and MI, MP, AVN, SIG, and ADA brigades. That's a lot of stuff to park somewhere at a time when most bases were pretty strained for capacity and the Russians had just rolled over and called "Uncle!"

By: Brant

Rearranging the Organization Boxes Again

Secretary of the Army John McHugh recently announced an effort to restructure the "institutional Army".

During a morning town hall forum with members of the Army’s Senior Executive Service, Secretary of the Army John McHugh today announced creation of the Institutional Army Transformation Commission, a panel charged with finding new ways to make the Army a more “agile, cost-effective organization.”

“We’re not just asking people to change the way they budget,” McHugh said. “We’re asking them to change the way they think.”

Earlier this year, McHugh created a short-term task force to examine the Army’s organizations and business practices to identify both short-term improvements and long-term structural changes within the institutional Army -- the so-called Generating Force. To date, that task force has launched efforts to root out overlap and redundancies in research and development, review temporary organizations and task forces to see if they are still needed, consolidate and streamline the requirements process, reform installations management, optimize Army acquisitions, and make changes in human capital management.

“While I’ve been encouraged by the task force’s early work, the simple fact is that large-scale institutional transformation takes years to mature before agile, cost-effective organizations emerge -- with a culture of continuous improvement incorporated in all activities,” McHugh said. “This commission will implement changes already identified through the short-term task force, assess and identify new opportunities, and continue to function for the next three years. This longer term, more enduring approach is historically and practically necessary and will help make continuous transformation a part of Army culture.”

McHugh explained his focus on restructuring the institutional Army by noting that the Army is loosely divided into two separate organizations -- the operational Army, which are deployed forces, currently in the fight in Afghanistan and Iraq; and the institutional Army, or generating force, which prepares, trains, educates and supports those troops.

“To an outsider, there are no visible differences between these two parts of the Army,” McHugh said. “In one assignment, they might be driving an MRAP (mine resistant ambush protective vehicle) through Afghanistan, and in the next, providing stateside training to other soldiers in how to use the vehicle. In the first, he or she is part of the operational Army; in the second, the institutional Army.”

Since the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq began, the operational Army -- the sharp tip of the spear -- has experienced dramatic and continuous change, quickly adapting to changes in terrain, mission and the enemy it faces. But the institutional Army looks much the same, structurally, as it has since the early to mid-70s.

By: Brant