Hearing of the House Armed Services Committee on Army Transformation - Transcript

HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE

SUBJECT: ARMY TRANSFORMATION

CHAIRED: REPRESENTATIVE DUNCAN HUNTER (R-CA)

WITNESSES: GENERAL PETER SCHOOMAKER, U.S. ARMY CHIEF OF STAFF LIEUTENANT GENERAL BENJAMIN S. GRIFFIN, U.S. ARMY, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR FORCE DEVELOPMENT; LIEUTENANT GENERAL JOHN M. CURRAN, U.S. ARMY, DEPUTY COMMANDING GENERAL FUTURES, TRAINING AND DOCTRINE COMMAND

LOCATION: 2118 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.

BODY:

REP. HUNTER: The committee will come to order.

This is the committee's second hearing on Army Transformation. We began the series last week with a panel of distinguished outside witnesses, and today we're going to hear from the Army's senior uniformed leadership. Our witnesses this morning are General Peter Schoomaker, United States Army Chief of Staff, United States Army; Lieutenant General Benjamin S. Griffin, United States Army, Deputy Chief of Staff for Force Development; and Lieutenant General John M. Curran, United States Army, Deputy Commanding General Futures, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. ED SCHROCK (R-VA): Well, while you're taking the tally, I'll start.

Let me make one comment before I ask my question. I want to follow up on something Dr. Snyder said. He talked about lessons learned, and that's something we've heard a lot about recently. I would suggest maybe it's not lessons learned but just lessons. If we'd learn them, we probably wouldn't be having the same pay problems with the Reserve and Guard folks now that we had in Gulf I. That's just a comment.

I'm probably going to address this to General Curran mainly. But how do you balance education, getting the guys back into the field, or in the case of the Navy, back into the fleet? Do you believe that the career path of today's Army officer allows enough time to fit in a meaningful graduate education? Is there value to increased time for the study of warfare and cultures of other countries? Like Congressman Reyes said, you know, does somebody want to have a whole career field in civil affairs or cultures or language?

I know, during my career in the Navy, a lot of officers looked down on a lot of education, as did the detailers who pretty much discouraged you from doing that, because the career path you were on did not support it if you wanted to get promoted; too many wickets, as we used to call it, ticket-punching. And I'm just wondering if you'd be willing to comment on that. Where's the balance? Where's the balance so we make sure people aren't so overeducated that they're going to keep them in the education realm for their whole careers?

GEN. CURRAN: Thank you very much. The way we tend to approach this in the training and (doctrine ?) command, but also throughout the Army, is to look at it from really three ways that we learn and we train. We train first in units. We train in the institution. And then we have self-learning. We as professionals will spend some time studying our profession not in the institution, nor necessarily the unit.

When you look at the pace of operations that we have going on right now, we are training and learning an awful lot. And we're learning most of it on operations. You know, some people call it a laboratory of unbelievable dimensions in Iraq and Afghanistan. But essentially, when you look at how our force is maturing and learning, the majority of it is occurring on operation.

Where we're leveraging that in the institution is by bringing those officers and those non-commissioned officers back into their education process in the institution, and they're exchanging that information with their fellow officers and NCOs.

So, even in the institution we're bringing in the lessons, if you will, from the combat veterans, and instilling it into our instruction. We're making changes to some of our tactics, techniques and procedures. They're being applied in our institutions based on what the lessons we're picking up from the force, and it's not just our combat veterans, but it's also the lessons that we are picking up from those combat units that are not coming into the schoolhouse, but are we're reading their lessons learned, and from the joint forces command and the work we do with them to collect joint lessons learned. So, we're plowing that all back into the institutional base, but you have to realize we have a force right now that's learning exponentially in experience.

GEN. SCHOOMAKER: Sir, if I could just add to that. There are differences in each service in terms of what their philosophy is on education. In the United States Army, the Non-Commissioned Officer Education System, and the Officer Education System are mandatory programs. To proceed through the non-commissioned officer ranks, or to proceed up the officer ranks, we have mandatory education requirements that we do. So, all the way up through the intermediate level schooling for officers, that is 100 percent of the officers are required to accomplish that goal. And then, of course, it becomes more selective to the War College, et cetera, but I'll tell you from the basic course through the advanced courses, through the intermediate level schools, those are mandatory courses, and they will not advance without it, and it's part of the program.

REP. SCHROCK: I thank you all very much. I'm privileged to have TRADOC in the district I represent, and if I have my way it will be there for a long, long, long time. Thank you very much.

END