The U.S. Army has seen its missions grow in number and intensity in recent years with the global war on terrorism and the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The resulting levels of stress that have been placed on the Army's active and reserve components have generated public debate about whether the Army's present organization is adequate for the roles that the service is playing now and will play in the foreseeable future. At the same time, the Army has begun an extensive restructuring effort, called modularity, that is designed to significantly alter how the service is organized and how it operates in the field. This Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study - prepared at the request of the House Committee on Armed Services - examines the Army's capability to fight wars, sustain long deployments, and deploy rapidly to overseas operations, as well as its dependence on personnel and units in the reserve component. This study also analyzes eight options for restructuring the Army, each of which would either increase the Army's ability to perform some types of missions or decrease its reliance on the reserve component. The options offer a broad overview of the general types of policy choices and trade-offs that decisionmakers will face when considering the size, structure, and capability of any plan for reorganizing the Army. In keeping with CBO's mandate to provide impartial analysis, this study makes no recommendations.
Compares prior estimates of the size of an occupation force that the U.S. military can sustain in Iraq with the military¿s actual practice up to Oct. 2005. The DoD made policy decisions that increased its ability to sustain a larger occupation force compared with a previous estimate. That includes terminating the U.S. military mission in Bosnia, reducing the U.S. presence in NE Asia, and adopting more demanding goals for how rapidly U.S. forces should rotate through extended deployments. The major difference between the size of an occupation force in Iraq 2003-10/05 and the estimate of the size of a sustainable force derives from DoD¿s practice of deploying active- and reserve-component units at rates in excess of what are considered sustainable. Illus.
In most years, the Department of Defense (DoD) provides a five- or six-year plan, called the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP), associated with the budget that it submits to the Congress. Because decisions made in the near term can have consequences for the defense budget well beyond that period, this report has examined the programs and plans contained in DoD's FYDP and projected their budgetary impact in subsequent years. For this analysis, the report used the FYDP provided to the Congress in April 2010, which covers fiscal years 2011 through 2015 the most recent plan available when this analysis was conducted. The report's projections span 2011 through 2028. Charts and tables. This is a print on demand report.
The U.S. Army has seen its missions grow in number and intensity in recent years with the global war on terrorism and the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The resulting levels of stress that have been placed on the Army's active and reserve components have generated public debate about whether the Army's present organization is adequate for the roles that the service is playing now and will play in the foreseeable future. At the same time, the Army has begun an extensive restructuring effort, called modularity, that is designed to significantly alter how the service is organized and how it operates in the field. This Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study - prepared at the request of the House Committee on Armed Services - examines the Army's capability to fight wars, sustain long deployments, and deploy rapidly to overseas operations, as well as its dependence on personnel and units in the reserve component. This study also analyzes eight options for restructuring the Army, each of which would either increase the Army's ability to perform some types of missions or decrease its reliance on the reserve component. The options offer a broad overview of the general types of policy choices and trade-offs that decisionmakers will face when considering the size, structure, and capability of any plan for reorganizing the Army. In keeping with CBO's mandate to provide impartial analysis, this study makes no recommendations.
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.