{ "id": "R42493", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R42493", "active": false, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 428526, "date": "2014-02-28", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T23:05:37.635405", "title": "Army Drawdown and Restructuring: Background and Issues for Congress", "summary": "On January 26, 2012, senior DOD leadership unveiled a new defense strategy based on a review of potential future security challenges, current defense strategy, and budgetary constraints. This new strategy envisions a smaller, leaner Army that is agile, flexible, rapidly deployable, and technologically advanced. This strategy will rebalance the Army\u2019s global posture and presence, emphasizing where potential problems are likely to arise, such as the Asia-Pacific region and the Middle East.\nAs part of the Administration\u2019s original proposal, two armored brigade combat teams (ABCTs) in Europe were to be eliminated out of a total of eight BCTs that would be cut from Active Army force structure. The Army had originally stated that it might cut more than eight BCTs from the Army\u2019s current 44 Active BCTs. Army endstrength would go from 570,000 in 2010 to 490,000 by the end of 2017. As part of this reduction, the Army would no longer be sized to conduct large-scale, protracted stability operations but would continue to be a full-spectrum force capable of addressing a wide range of national security challenges. The Army National Guard and Army Reserves were not targeted for significant cuts. \nOn June 25, 2013, the Army announced it would cut 12 BCTs from the Active Army as well as a number of unspecified support and headquarters units. As part of this initiative, infantry and armored BCTs would receive a third maneuver battalion plus additional engineering and fires capabilities. In addition, National Guard BCTs would also be restructured in a similar fashion. Due to the impact of sequestration, the Army also decided to accelerate the Active Army drawdown to 490,000 soldiers by two years\u2014these cuts would now need to be completed by the end of 2015. In an effort to reduce costs, the Army also announced that it would examine cutting all two-star and higher headquarters staffs by 25%\u2014a figure that includes soldiers, Army civilians, and contractors. \nIn January 2014, it was reported that the Administration\u2019s FY2015 Budget Guidance will direct the Army to reduce its Active Component end strength to 420,000 soldiers\u2014a level that Army leadership has stated will not permit it to implement the nation\u2019s defense strategy. The Army is also proposing reducing and restructuring its Aviation brigades, and there are concerns about the Army National Guard losing all of its AH-64 Apache attack helicopters under this proposal. \nOn February 24, 2014, Secretary of Defense Hagel announced that he would recommend reducing Army active endstrength to between 450,000 to 440,000 soldiers, and if sequestration-level cuts were imposed in 2016, the Army would be required to drawdown to a 420,000 soldier active force.\nThe Army drawdown will likely be achieved in large degree by controlling accessions (i.e., the number of people allowed to join the Army). If limiting accessions is not enough to achieve the desired endstrength targets, the Army can employ a variety of involuntary and voluntary drawdown tools authorized by Congress, such as Selective Early Retirement Boards (SERBs) and Reduction-in-Force (RIF). Voluntary tools that the Army might use include the Voluntary Retirement Incentive, the Voluntary Separation Incentive, Special Separation Bonuses, Temporary Early Retirement Authority, the Voluntary Early Release/Retirement Program, and Early Outs. \nPotential issues for Congress include what is the appropriate size of the active component force and the balance between active and reserve components. This report will be updated.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R42493", "sha1": "1498b2a09f417c642d77f33fb80e6ece5bdd7b34", "filename": "files/20140228_R42493_1498b2a09f417c642d77f33fb80e6ece5bdd7b34.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R42493", "sha1": "34350b3e351f0c8b1590553ba5ab77b387ab448a", "filename": "files/20140228_R42493_34350b3e351f0c8b1590553ba5ab77b387ab448a.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc267856/", "id": "R42493_2013Oct25", "date": "2013-10-25", "retrieved": "2013-12-03T12:16:12", "title": "Army Drawdown and Restructuring: Background and Issues for Congress", "summary": "This report discusses the new defense strategy, which was unveiled by senior DOD leadership based on a review of potential future security challenges, current defense strategy, and budgetary constraints. This strategy will rebalance the Army's global posture and presence, emphasizing where potential problems are likely to arise, such as the Asia-Pacific region and the Middle East", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20131025_R42493_e2c0d10ca78c249c5c1d91b5036373569837d8fb.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20131025_R42493_e2c0d10ca78c249c5c1d91b5036373569837d8fb.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense policy", "name": "Defense policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense burdensharing", "name": "Defense burdensharing" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Congress and military policy", "name": "Congress and military policy" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc463052/", "id": "R42493_2013Mar05", "date": "2013-03-05", "retrieved": "2014-12-05T09:57:41", "title": "Army Drawdown and Restructuring: Background and Issues for Congress", "summary": "This report discusses the new defense strategy, which was unveiled by senior Department of Defense (DOD) leadership based on a review of potential future security challenges, current defense strategy, and budgetary constraints. This strategy will rebalance the Army's global posture and presence, emphasizing where potential problems are likely to arise, such as the Asia-Pacific region and the Middle East.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20130305_R42493_234cc1b01daa386d5c069dbed5ecc17579d9a80c.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20130305_R42493_234cc1b01daa386d5c069dbed5ecc17579d9a80c.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense policy", "name": "Defense policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense burdensharing", "name": "Defense burdensharing" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Congress and military policy", "name": "Congress and military policy" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc462900/", "id": "R42493_2013Jan03", "date": "2013-01-03", "retrieved": "2014-12-05T09:57:41", "title": "Army Drawdown and Restructuring: Background and Issues for Congress", "summary": "This report discusses the new defense strategy, which was unveiled by senior Department of Defense (DOD) leadership based on a review of potential future security challenges, current defense strategy, and budgetary constraints. This strategy will rebalance the Army's global posture and presence, emphasizing where potential problems are likely to arise, such as the Asia-Pacific region and the Middle East.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20130103_R42493_47a3d5d4ef4425975a5bb279a55bf469e316ec37.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20130103_R42493_47a3d5d4ef4425975a5bb279a55bf469e316ec37.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense policy", "name": "Defense policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense burdensharing", "name": "Defense burdensharing" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Congress and military policy", "name": "Congress and military policy" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc818153/", "id": "R42493_2012May18", "date": "2012-05-18", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Army Drawdown and Restructuring: Background and Issues for Congress", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20120518_R42493_7c9cf15b1fc853a1b55a4322b6ab0ee0c658e0a9.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20120518_R42493_7c9cf15b1fc853a1b55a4322b6ab0ee0c658e0a9.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc85407/", "id": "R42493_2012Apr20", "date": "2012-04-20", "retrieved": "2012-06-06T14:34:05", "title": "Army Drawdown and Restructuring: Background and Issues for Congress", "summary": "On January 26, 2012, senior DOD leadership unveiled a new defense strategy based on a review of potential future security challenges, current defense strategy, and budgetary constraints. This new strategy envisions a smaller, leaner Army that is agile, flexible, rapidly deployable, and technologically advanced. This strategy will rebalance the Army's global posture and presence, emphasizing where potential problems are likely to arise, such as the Asia-Pacific region and the Middle East. Potential issues for Congress include the strategic risk posed by a smaller and restructured Army; the \"health\" of the Army given the impending downsizing; where the force will be based; the role of the National Guard and Reserves; and should the enrollment at the service academies (West Point) be reduced to pre-9/11 levels. This report will be updated as circumstances warrant.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20120420_R42493_f75ae3f6a26164e702fc23b0ecc448f8e80497e0.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20120420_R42493_f75ae3f6a26164e702fc23b0ecc448f8e80497e0.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "National defense", "name": "National defense" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Military strategy", "name": "Military strategy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense policy", "name": "Defense policy" } ] } ], "topics": [ "National Defense" ] }