Army Grunts Will Be ‘Million-Dollar’
Men
The cost of equipping soldiers has escalated dramatically since
the beginning of the war in Iraq, says the Army’s top deputy
for acquisition. Some troops in specialized jobs today carry more
than $100,000 in gear.
Equipping a soldier with basic gear for Vietnam cost $2,000. The
same equipment now costs $25,000. “When we start adding other
things—such as communications gear—you get close to
$100,000,” says Lt. Gen. Joseph Yakovac.
The trend is alarming, Yakovac says. “I believe eventually
we are heading to the ‘million-dollar’ man.”
This could create huge financial problems for the Army, he warns.
“If this nation wants this Army to be capable … our
dollar requirements will continue to grow.”
‘Thought Police’ Displeased by General’s Memo
Senior Pentagon officials were not amused when a memo written by
the U.S. general in charge of Army Reserve forces was leaked to
the news media last December. The memo by Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly
criticized the current reserve mobilization process—in place
since 1952—as out of step with the times. The Army, he wrote
in the summer of 2002, is “burdened by industrial-age mobilization
policies.”
After the memo turned up on major newspapers’ front pages,
Helmly’s executive officer got a call from the Pentagon “thought
police,” he recalls during a speech to an industry conference.
The unnamed official accused Helmly of a “direct attack”
on the Defense Department by calling the mobilization process “industrial-age.”
“The thought police didn’t want the ‘industrial-age’
term used,” says Helmly. However, he adds, “I was vindicated
18 months later when I saw the secretary of defense on CSPAN attacking
the industrial-age mobilization process.”
Artillery vs. Air Power Dispute Continues
he turf feud between the Air Force and the Army on how best to
destroy targets on the ground continues unabated.
A rivalry between supporters of ground-based artillery and those
who favor air-delivered firepower surfaced in open debates after
Operation Anaconda, in March 2002, when U.S. forces fought Taliban
and Al-Qaeda operatives in the Shah-i-Kot mountains of eastern Afghanistan.
The Air Force was criticized for failing to provide timely close
air-support to Army troops. Air Force officers now privately complain
that the Army is more interested in protecting its artillery assets
and programs than in figuring out how to fight together more effectively.
“The Army thinks of the Air Force as a cannon,” says
an Air Force wing commander. “We can be a cannon, but they
have to include us in the party.” Further, he says, the “Army
artillery folks are in search of a mission … as artillery
becomes more supplanted by air power.” An abundance of “artillery
pet programs” inevitably results in “an entire corps
of officers fearing losing the capability to command and control
the deep battle space.”
Fixing Army Trucks Almost As Costly as Buying New
The steep price tag for repairing Army trucks is fueling debate
among service leaders on whether it makes more sense to buy new
vehicles, rather than fix them.
A Humvee shipped back from Iraq, for example, costs $39,000 to
refurbish at Army depots. But the Army estimates it could buy a
new one for $47,000. Similarly, a heavy-hauling tractor trailer
costs $179,000 to repair, and a new one would run $184,000.
The Army often chooses to repair old trucks, because, by law, it
cannot spend procurement dollars to fix existing vehicles.
Separate chains of command control different colors of money, explains
Brig. Gen. William M. Lenaers, who runs the Army Tank-Automotive
and Armaments Command. “We have walls set up between organizations
… ‘legal’ and ‘mental’ walls.”
It would behoove the Army to decide whether a truck should be fixed
or replaced based on financial common sense, but that is hard to
do, as long as the funds are in separate stovepipes, Lanaers says.
“The challenge is to work together so that we don’t
break the laws in colors of money.”