Commission Established

The Pentagon today issued the official announcement establishing the congressionally mandated Commission on the Future of the United States Army, according to a Federal Register notice:

The Commission is a non-discretionary Federal advisory committee that shall undertake a comprehensive study of the structure of the Army, and policy assumptions related to the size and force mixture of the Army, in order (a) to make an assessment of the size and force structure of the active component of the Army and the reserve components of the Army; and (b) to make recommendations on the modifications, if any, of the structure of the Army related to current and anticipated mission requirements for the Army at acceptable levels of national risk and in a manner consistent with available resources and anticipated future resources. The Commission shall also conduct a study of a transfer of Army National Guard AH-64 Apache aircraft from the Army National Guard to the regular Army.

Last week, the Obama administration and congressional leaders announced their commissioner choices.

According to the legislation, the commissioners should have experience in national security matters and, specifically, in "reserve forces policy." The panel's prescribed duties are heavily focused on finding a mix between the active and reserve component that would yield maximum capability at minimum cost. Behind the benign-sounding objective is a plethora of contested questions about how capabilities are measured and costs counted on both sides. As Inside the Army reported last December:

Perhaps in a telling show of hands by lawmakers is a requirement that commissioners study maintaining the reserve components "as an operational reserve in order to maintain as much as possible the level of expertise and experience developed since Sept. 11, 2011."

That position is not shared by all in the active Army, with some arguing that keeping the reserves at the same readiness level as they were during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is neither necessary nor affordable. Reserve advocates, meanwhile, contend that cost savings lie in reducing the active component while boosting the Guard and Reserve.

"Commissions of this nature, in general, are sympathetic to the Guard arguments and positions -- just like politicians," said Mackenzie Eaglen of the conservative American Enterprise Institute. "I would expect they will come out favorable to the Guard position without entirely endorsing it or recommending total abolition of the restructure."

The term "restructure" alludes to an Army initiative to concentrate all Apache attack helicopters in the active component. The plan envisions transferring Apaches from the reserves beginning in FY-16. The reserve units would receive Black Hawks in return.

Eaglen said politics likely will be a major roadblock for the expert panel's work. "The commissioners will be lobbied hard by all parties but most earnestly by the National Guard proponents and supporters," she said. "They will have to work to stay impartial and keep emotions out of it."

The National Guard Association, for its part, expressed hope in its statement that open-mindedness among panelists would prevail over component-level politics. The lobbyists also are "confident that eight objective individuals will see Army National Guard capabilities and cost-effectiveness as a major solution to the defense and security challenges ahead."

The commission is required to submit a report to lawmakers no later than Feb. 1, 2016.