Deep budget cuts and talk about possible changes to troop compensation, especially as soldiers continue deploying for new and enduring missions around the world, are putting a strain on soldiers and their families, the president of the Association of the United States Army said.
"I think we're stressing the force too much," said retired Gen. Gordon Sullivan. "Everybody says, 'Thanks for your service. We love the troops.' This is the time to put up."
Sullivan sat down March 17 with Army Times as AUSA prepared for its annual Global Force Symposium and Exposition and senior Army leaders testified on Capitol Hill about the risks soldiers will face if sequestration returns.
The symposium, formerly referred to as the winter symposium, is March 31 to April 2 in Huntsville, Alabama.
During the wide-ranging interview, Sullivan, a former Army chief of staff, expressed frustration at Congress' inaction and warned that the Army is getting smaller in an increasingly volatile world.
"Pay now or pay later, and I can tell you that paying later, they're not going to like it," Sullivan said. "They're going to pay in lives. We've been through this before. This is not new."
America cannot have another Task Force Smith, Sullivan said.
The men of Task Force Smith were the first American ground troops to fight the enemy in the Korean War. The ill-fated task force, named after their commander, Lt. Col. Charles Smith, was undermanned and under-equipped, and the soldiers were quickly overrun by the larger North Korean force.
"Unfortunately, we repeat the same lessons over and over, those same mistakes over and over again," Sullivan said. "We don't like war. I don't like war, either. But unfortunately, as Trotsky said, wars like us."
Here's what else Sullivan had to say. Interview highlights, edited for space and clarity.
Q. What's your take on what's going on around the world?
A. It's a whole new world, and I think it's becoming more and more obvious that decisions made three years ago or two years ago on what the various services would look like probably are somewhat dysfunctional, certainly with regards to the Army and making the Army smaller every day.
Q. Can you explain what you mean?
A. We keep seeing indications that things we thought were the future are proving to be not true. The Russians, Ukraine, the evolution of events in Iraq, the ever-increasing involvement of Iran in that conflict, and, of course, Syria and the implications of that, and ISIS.
ISIS is the growing threat. North Korea is an erratic foe and very, very dangerous enemy with countless soldiers, nuclear weapons, and it's very close to Seoul.
I think we need land forces for all of these threats. I'm not arguing for Army-centric operations everywhere, but we certainly need balanced forces.
Q. What message does this send around the world?
A. I think we need to be very careful about the message we're sending to our allies. Our allies need leadership. I think we sometimes give the indication that we're not interested in leading, and that's troublesome.
Our allies read us one way, and our enemies read us, too, and they draw their own conclusions.
Is America serious or is it just stepping back everywhere?
There are a lot of people watching us. These other countries are looking very carefully at what the United States is doing, and they are going after our vulnerabilities. One of the vulnerabilities they're going after is they know that we are having a very difficult time making a decision on anything. They know our armed forces are getting very, very small.
Q. What worries you most about all of this?
A. I worry about the soldiers. I worry about the troops. There's a lot of uncertainty in their lives. There has been now for more than a decade. But that's exacerbated by this continuing attack on their compensation, their benefits, their quality of life, and, as they would see it, their pocketbooks and their future.
What is their future? Is it more and more deployments? How much will they have to contribute toward their own livelihoods?
Q. How does this uncertainty impact the force?
A. The strength of the nation is the people who serve in uniform. The equipment enables them, but it's the people. We have an all-volunteer force. I am concerned that at some point, they may say 'it's not for me anymore.' Then the all-volunteer force starts to break down, and I don't think we will know when the all-volunteer force breaks until after it's broken.
Frankly, there are people directly pinning the weight on the troops by saying they're getting paid too much and this and that.
Q. Those are pretty strong words.
A. I'm just telling you how I see it, having been around this part of the Army and defense for a long time.
Every time the troops turn around, it's something else that's on the table. I never thought, the 36 years I was on active duty, about my retirement. I knew it was there. I knew the health care was there, the commissary was there. I never thought about any of that.
It seems to be very easy for people to rationalize going after compensation and benefits for those in uniform.
Q. What about sequestration?
A. It's mid-March and there's the sound of silence up there [on Capitol Hill]. Am I optimistic the law will change? No, I'm not.
This is the wrong time to be doing it. We have enemies out there who are doing things, dangerous things.
With sequestration, end-strength goes down, readiness goes down. We're getting into what is the essential nature of the Army. It is training to fight, training to do whatever we have to do, and it is education.
Anybody who says you can have an active-duty Army [end-strength] at 420,000 is dreaming. What you'll have is a hollow shell, and the long-term impact of going to 420,000 will be real trouble.
Q. How do you think those budget cuts will impact morale?
A. It exacerbates it. Troops come in expecting to be trained and expecting to be prepared for what they will face.
The world has become more complex and more dangerous. The [Army chief of staff] has to have troops who are prepared to do all of this, from Iraq-like activities and Afghanistan-like activities to Europe, where you reassure our allies.
Q. What keeps you up at night?
A. We've got this mindset that we don't need the full range of capabilities. We need a broad range of capabilities, including heavy duty stuff like the Abrams tanks, light forces, special operating forces, medium forces, hybrid forces. You have to have a lot of arrows in your quiver.
These are tough times, but I think for the United States of America, there's a level at which we must maintain our defenses. It's a big world, and there's a lot going on out there. Everybody wants American troops or American capabilities. Everybody wants leadership by the United States of America, and we have to be credible. If we're not credible, we're going to pay a price.
Michelle Tan is the editor of Army Times and Air Force Times. She has covered the military for Military Times since 2005, and has embedded with U.S. troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Haiti, Gabon and the Horn of Africa.
