Army's Top Officer Signals Pentagon Budget Revolt

LA Times ^ | September 24, 2006 | Peter Spiegel

[jmc1969]

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army's top officer withheld a required 2008 budget plan from Pentagon leaders last month after protesting to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that the service could not maintain its current level of activity in Iraq plus its other global commitments without billions in additional funding.

The decision by Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, is believed to be unprecedented and signals a widespread belief within the Army that in the absence of significant troop withdrawals from Iraq, funding assumptions must be completely reworked, current and former Pentagon officials said.

"This is unusual, but hell, we're in unusual times," said a senior Pentagon official involved in the budget discussions.

Schoomaker failed to submit the budget plan by an Aug. 15 deadline. The protest followed a series of cuts in the service's funding requests by both the White House and Congress over the last four months.

According to a senior Army official involved in budget talks, Schoomaker is now seeking $138.8 billion in 2008, or nearly $25 billion above budget limits originally set by Rumsfeld. The Army's budget this year is $98.2 billion, making Schoomaker's request a 41% increase over current levels.

"It's incredibly huge," said the Army official, who, like others, spoke on condition of anonymity when commenting on internal deliberations. "These are just incredible numbers."

[quadrant]

You haven't presented any reasons at all, except a recitation of Army policy.
A unit that is out of harm's way is as in need of experienced leadership as is one in combat, especially if that unit expects to return to combat within a year.
I agree that platoon leaders and company commanders make 99% of all life and death decisions, but they are trained, led, and influenced by experienced battalion commanders and senior NCO's.

[Axhandle]

"You haven't presented any reasons at all, except a recitation of Army policy."

Sir, I think that you have a monomaniacal fixation on one aspect of our personnel system and that you will always find a way to rationalize clinging to it, even if there is no reason to.

I won't bother wasting any more time on the matter. Good luck to you.

[quadrant]

You're the one whose hiding behind an obsolete policy. Remember MacArthur's admonition that policy is a screen for the lazy to hide behind.