Chiarelli: history shows defense cuts costs lives
October 27th, 2011
03:11 PM ET

Chiarelli: history shows defense cuts costs lives

By Senior National Security Producer Charley Keyes

A senior military leader warned Congress Thursday that further budget cuts will mean lost lives in future conflicts.

"There is just a tendency to believe at the end of a war that we will never need ground forces again. I'll tell you that we've never got that right," said Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, vice chief of staff of the Army. "We have always required them. We just don't have the imagination to predict when that will be."

Chiarelli was testifying before the Readiness Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee along with high-level officers from the other services.

"And quite frankly, let's be honest, it has cost us lives," Chiarelli said of cuts in the aftermath of previous wars. "Cost us lives at Kasserine Pass" in Tunisia in World War II," it cost us lives at Task Force Smith in Korea. It cost us lives every single time."

Chiarelli's blunt talk of deadly flesh-and-blood consequences broke free of the usual budget debate on the risk of a "hollowed-out force," and the cost of "modernization."

And his warnings were echoed by the other services, as the military decides how to absorb more than $450 billion in cuts already planned for the coming decade and argues against an additional slash of $600 billion that would be triggered automatically if Congress cannot reach agreement on targeted cuts.

Adm. Mark E. Ferguson, the vice chief of naval operations, said forced cuts, under the process known as sequestration, would have dramatic consequences on capabilities. "That impact on our industrial base and our Navy would be immediate, severe and long-lasting and would fundamentally change the Navy we have today," Ferguson said.

The assistant commandant of the Marines, Gen. Joseph Dunford, warned of significant consequences if the force is scaled back.

"We will not be there to deter our potential adversaries, we won't be there to assure our potential friends, or our allies, and we certainly won't be there to contain small crises before they become major conflagrations," Dunford said.

Lawmakers on the committee, who have generally been vocal in criticizing the potential cuts, expressed sympathy with the military leaders.

The subcommittee's chairman, Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Virginia, said the Department of Defense "has also already made tough decisions on force structure and civilian personnel, shrinking the Marine Corps by more than 15,000 Marines, the active Army by 49,000 soldiers," as well as freezing Defense Department civilian jobs at fiscal year 2010 levels.

"The fact is, we now face strategic uncertainties - uncertainties such as whether the U.S. can maintain its proud tradition of air superiority or whether the vital amphibious capability of the Marine Corps is sustainable," Forbes said.

One reminder of the size and complexity of the defense budget is the running disagreement on how many cuts the Pentagon already is planning.

"It's hard to actually get the exact number," said Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R- , the committee's chairman. "It's somewhere between $450 and $500 billion that you are dealing with."

And as a reminder of how emotion-charged the budget debate has become, McKeon appeared to be overcome while discussing how the government must not break its promises to young men and women in military about their future.

"I think about these young men that are going outside the wire over in Afghanistan, every day on patrol." McKeon said in his closing remarks at the hearing. "And if they are having to think about what's happening with my future, instead of concentrating on IEDs, or snipers or on ambushes or not being to be totally focused on their jobs, that puts them at risk today, needlessly."

McKeon choked up and could not continue.

soundoff (4 Responses)
  1. SWAT Team-member

    What we need is for congress to pass the peace officer indemnification act. With all these occupy protests going on, things are going to get messy. I serve with some officers worried about getting sued or having disciplinary actions due to what might be perceived as overuse of force. We need the government to fully take the handcuffs off. These protester types are big boys and should know going in that severe injury and death are possibilities when involved in these kind of insurgent activities. It was sickening to see the governer of Oakland apologize to the protesters for that kid that got his head smashed in his military experience notwithstanding. The moral of the story is that when we need to shoot and kill, we need to shoot and kill. Thats what we train to do and the government need to give us immunity from disciplinary actions and civil damages when we make that occasional decision where collateral injuries and death occur.

    October 28, 2011 at 9:10 am | Reply
  2. G Man

    Clearly, we need to at least double and possibly triple spending for our military. There are more threats to our national than ever. We need enough military forces available to deploy for the overwhelming avalanche of situations developing including the ones here at home. One of my friends who works at the pentagon thinks that we are going to need at least 15,000 drone operator teams for domestic operations alone and another 38,000 teams combined for Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Syria. Assessments are not even complete yet for what we will need in Korea, Libya and other countries, but I would imagine we are talking quite a few more. In addition the nature of confrontations is changing requiring smarter technologies and better more updated equipment.

    October 28, 2011 at 9:03 am | Reply
  3. Clephas from Austin, TX

    I don't welcome further cuts to the military either... nothing good comes of scaling down the military, as history shows again and again.

    October 28, 2011 at 1:14 am | Reply
  4. bigwilliestyles

    Sorry; the level of waste belies both your story and your crocodile tears. Give me a break, 600 dollar toilet seats, 400 dollar hammers, 16 dollar muffins. Yeah. Don't know how the 'troops' are gonna make it without those necessities. Who the he!! Do you people think you're fooling? The money doesn't go to the troops, it goes to the contractors, lobbiests and their ilk.

    October 27, 2011 at 5:53 pm | Reply

Post a comment


CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.