Future Combat System Demonstration Held on Capitol Hill Senate Panel Hears Testimony on State of Iraq New GI Bill Legislation Expected to Move Forward

“Effective” and “informative.”  Those were some of the comments made by the members of Congress and congressional staff members that viewed a demonstration of the Army’s Future Combat System held on Capitol Hill last week. 

One key congressional staff member said, “We had no idea how important this is to the Army and how far into development it all is.”

The Future Combat Systems Brigade Combat Team presented several static displays of future Army technology and provided a live demonstration of the Land Warrior (LW) system and key corresponding equipment:  Urban Unattended Ground Sensors, Small Unmanned Ground Vehicles and Class I Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.

The demonstration highlighted the ability of LW to provide more survivability to the Soldier and its capability to be rapidly deployed.  As part of FCS overall, the demonstration explained how new systems would diminish the gaps in current combat technology through providing situational awareness previously unachieved.

Land Warrior is a modular fighting system using a state-of-the-art computer, communications and global positioning technologies to digitally link Soldiers on the battlefield.  The system is carried like a backpack and has a helmet mounted display used to see and send text messages, maps, and imagery.

CSM Phil Pich, the primary presenter for the LW demonstration, said the four distinct advantages of LW were situational awareness, voice and text messaging capability, maps and imagery, and the ability to change graphics on the move.

"(LW) gives us situational awareness that the enemy does not have, so we can be much faster than the enemy and capture or kill him," CSM Pich said.   He added, "This system has made us so fast on the battlefield that my units -- attached to other organizations that are out there -- they have to tell us to stop and slow down."

Other major technologies and equipment with displays were the Non-Line-of-Sight Launch System, Manned Ground Vehicles, Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon and the Multifunctional Utility/Logistics and Equipment, or MULE vehicles.

The FCS demonstration could not have come at a better time.  Army officials testifying at a hearing held last week by the House Armed Services Air and Land Forces Subcommittee assured lawmakers that FCS is on track and that cost estimates for the modernization program remained credible. 

The Army has requested $35.1 billion for procurement and development of new equipment in fiscal 2009, out of an overall $140.7 billion request, with billions more expected in the supplemental budget request.  The Army’s current estimate for the overall FCS program is $160.9 billion, with the goal of producing the system the end of fiscal 2013.

Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, said that the Army Chief of Staff’s prediction of 20 years of “persistent conflict” as well as the chance that future supplemental budgets may be pared down obligated the Army to choose between what is desirable and what is essential in coming budget requests – including FCS.

Over the past few years, lawmakers have consistently cut roughly $200 million from the President’s annual requests for the FCS program.  The Army has been forced to consider a delay in the program for the current fiscal year after the fiscal 2008 Defense appropriations bill cut $230 million from the programs $3.1 billion request.

LTG Stephen Speakes, Deputy Chief of Staff, G-8, said that making FCS affordable was a “fundamental issue” and that it would not eat up more than a third of the Army’s annual base budget in basic research, development and acquisition costs between now and 2015.  He assured the subcommittee members that FCS would be kept separate from the “volatility of supplemental funding “requests.

Also testifying was Paul Francis, Director of Acquisition and Sourcing Management for the Government Accountability Office (GAO).  GAO recently released a report entitled “2009 Review of Future Combat System Is Critical to Program’s Direction.”  (That report can be found at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08638t.pdf).

Francis told the subcommittee that Congress has "about two years of oversight leverage” over FCS and that next year’s congressionally mandated “go/no-go decision on FCS would be critical for deciding whether the Army has proven it can deliver it."

“In 2013, when the Department of Defense makes its milestone FCS production decision, Congress will have appropriated about $39 billion, possibly up to $47 billion, for FCS,” Francis said.  “If you’re thinking about waiting until that production decision, I think that’s going to be too late because we’d be very heavily invested.”

LTG Ross Thompson, Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology responded by saying that the Army has conducted annual reviews since 2003 of all aspects of the FCS program.  He said they would soon establish conditions for the 2009 go/no-go decision and, prior to that, there would be a preliminary design review to ensure that FCS components fit together.

It is not yet known what, if any, cuts will be made to FCS in the upcoming defense-related bills.

 

Senate Panel Hears Testimony on State of Iraq

The commander of the Multi-National Force -- Iraq has recommended to the President that as the last of the six brigade combat teams sent to stabilize Baghdad and Sunni areas to the west and north of the capital leave, there should be a “45-day period of consolidation and assessment” before any other U.S. forces withdraw.

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week, Gen. David Petraeus said this recommendation “does not allow a set withdrawal timetable.”  He said in making the recommendation he took into account the stress it was putting on soldiers and Marines and their families, the possibility of having to respond to crises in other parts of the world, continuing operations in Afghanistan and the long-term effects of the surge’s 15-month deployments upon the Army.

Committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., disagreed.  He said the recommendation sends the wrong message to the Iraqi government because “it is a clear open-ended pause.”  He said it was time “to shift responsibility from our troops and our taxpayers to the Iraqi government.”

As in earlier hearings with Gen. Petraeus, Sen. Levin asked again whether the Iraqi government had taken the necessary steps to achieve political reconciliation and rebuild the country.  “An intransigent Shi’ite government is the greatest threat” to achieving the security, political and economic goals the surge was designed to provide time for.

Ambassador Ryan Crocker told the committee “Progress is uneven” but the Iraqi parliament has passed laws restoring pensions to former Ba’ath party officials, limiting the deBa’athification program to senior leaders in Saddam Hussein’s regime, passing an oil-revenue sharing bill and setting the groundwork for provincial elections in the fall.  “The laws are not perfect … but are important steps.”

He and Gen. Petraeus warned about the influence of a Shi’ite extremist regime in Iran in training and equipping militia forces and trying to de-stabilize a largely Shi’ite Arab Iraq.  Crocker called the effort the “Lebanonization” of Iraq. Gen. Petraeus added, “We should all watch Iran’s actions in the next few months … to see how it will relate to its neighbor.”

As to why al Qaeda chose to fight in Iraq, “They came to establish a base in the heart of the Arab world,” Gen. Petraeus said.

Crocker told the committee:  “The era of major U.S.-funded infrastructure projects is over.”  He added that there were certain intangibles in saying progress was being made politically and economically in Iraq. 

One is the attitude of Shi’ites who are turning against Shi’ite extremist militias especially in the southern part of the country, the Sunnis’ continued willingness to take on al Qaeda in Iraq in the northern part and government of Nouri al Maliki’s demonstration that it is willing to take on militarily extremists from all sects in any part of the country.

“Almost everything about Iraq is hard, [but] hard does not mean hopeless,” Crocker said.  “War is not a linear phenomenon.  It is a calculus,” involving the military, political and economic leaders and cultural values and leaders.

Crocker also said there are no plans to bring the status of forces agreement that will be signed by the United States and Iraq by the end of the year to the Senate for approval nor are there plans to bring the broader strategic agreement on continued U.S. military operations in Iraq to the Senate for approval.

“The fact is there has been progress in Iraq,” Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., said.  “Iraqi political leadership has made a lot more political reconciliation than the American political leadership.”

Saying there should be “no reckless withdrawal,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., ranking member, said a defeat in Iraq would “be terrible and long-lasting.  Adding, “We must press ahead against al Qaeda, the Shi’ia militias, the special groups backed by Iran and help the Sunnis” in their struggle in the north.  Congress must choose not to lose in Iraq.”

 

New GI Bill Legislation Expected to Move Forward

AUSA-supported legislation that would significantly expand the GI Bill benefit could be attached to one of two must-pass measures. 

On his first day in office, Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., introduced “The Post 9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act” (S.22).  However, the measure in its original form failed to garner much support largely because of the cost.

Earlier this year, Sen. Webb, with the help of Sen. John Warner, R-Va., revised the bill making it more palatable to fiscally conservative Senators.  Now, it is expected that the measure will be attached to either the emergency supplemental spending bill or the fiscal 2009 defense authorization bill.

Sen. Webb's bill has 54 Senate co-sponsors – 42 Democrats, 10 Republicans and 2 Independents.  The House version of the bill (H.R. 5740) introduced last week by Rep. Harry Mitchell, D-Ariz., has 170 co-sponsors – 125 Democrats and 45 Republicans.

What the legislation does not have, however, is the support of the White House.  Administration officials have said that the bill would draw soldiers away from careers in the military and weaken the armed forces in a time of war.

Sen. Webb said their reasoning is “absurd.”  “It is going to expand the recruiting base and I think it would improve the active-duty military.” 

Another possible hurdle is Congress’ pay-as-you-go budget rules which require that new spending or tax changes be offset on the federal balance sheet.  If the bill is attached to the defense authorization bill, then the pay-as-you-go rule applies.

Some of the major provisions in Sen. Webb’s bill are listed below.

--Increased educational benefits that would be available to all members of the military who have served on active duty since September 11, 2001, including activated reservists and National Guard.  To qualify, veterans must have served at least three to thirty-six months of qualified active duty, beginning on or after September 11, 2001.

--The bill provides for educational benefits to be paid in amounts linked to the amount of active duty served in the military after 9/11.  Generally, veterans would receive some amount of assistance proportional to their service for 36 months, which equals four academic years.  Veterans would still be eligible to receive any incentive-based supplemental educational assistance from their military branch for which they qualify.

--Benefits provided under the bill would allow veterans pursuing an approved program of education to receive payments covering the established charges of their program, up to the cost of the most expensive instate public school, plus a monthly stipend equivalent to housing costs in their area.  The bill would allow additional payments for tutorial assistance, as well as licensure and certification tests.

--The bill would create a new program in which the government will agree to match, dollar for dollar, any voluntary additional contributions to veterans from institutions whose tuition is more expensive than the maximum educational assistance provided under S.22.

--Veterans would have up to fifteen years, compared to ten years under the Montgomery G.I. Bill, after they leave active duty to use their educational assistance entitlement.  Veterans would be barred from receiving concurrent assistance from this program and another similar program.