WASHINGTON (Army News Service, Oct. 13, 2015) -- Caring for the health, happiness and well-being of Army Families is not only a moral obligation, it's a readiness issue. And it's one that is being threatened by budget cuts, senior Army leaders told Family members during a forum at the Association of the United States Army annual meeting here Monday.
The Army can't expect Soldiers to undertake dangerous and vitally important missions if they have to worry about their Families, explained outgoing Army Secretary John M. McHugh.
"Army Family programs do just that: They provide something else for Soldiers to focus on: namely the mission, being safe," he said. "They can rest assured that back home the Army is doing its part to keep their Family members safe and secure."
"If you take care of your people, your people will take care of the mission. I'm committed to that," said new Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley. "It's all about readiness because our Soldiers, when we go overseas and we are in harm's way, we need to, we want to focus on our jobs and destroy our enemies. For us to do that, we have got to know that our children are in good schools and our Families are in good houses, that we've got good medical care."
McHugh noted that even as the Army budget has declined, funding for Family programs has remained consistent at $1.2 billion over the last four years. It's actually up from about $700 million six years ago.
"We spend more time and effort than any other military on this planet making sure that we take care of our Soldiers and their Families," Sgt. Maj. of the Army Daniel A. Dailey said. "That's why they fight. We can't forget that."
However, the next wave of budget cuts under sequestration, which is scheduled to begin in January, would be "devastating," McHugh said.
The Army is already doing more with less, and has taken on new and unexpected missions recently, from maintaining a presence in Eastern Europe to fighting the Islamic State or Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL. Another round of cuts will hurt readiness at all levels. "I don't want to break the force, but," McHugh said, "that next challenge that as we've seen has come up so rapidly in recent months, will place this Army, and ... the nation, in a very, very dangerous place."
As a result, if sequestration goes through, they are going to have to make some very painful choices when it comes to Family programs. Even popular, effective programs like the Chaplain Corps' Strong Bonds could be in jeopardy.
"We want to sustain it. We want to continue it ... but it goes back to the question of sequestration and the continuing resolution," Milley said. "We are now about to, if we continue down the path that we're on, start cutting into readiness. That will be readiness of not only training and manning and equipping forces, but it will also be family readiness, which is fundamental to the readiness of the force. Programs will end up either being cut completely or will be prioritized to the point that they'll be funded at much lower rates than they are right now."
Family members can help, Army leaders said.
One of the most important things Families can do is let leaders know what programs are their favorites and are most beneficial. In that way, budget cuts won't happen in a vacuum. Army leadership would much rather cut ineffective or redundant programs, Dailey said. In addition, what works at one installation or in one command may not work at another, so leaders have given local commanders a lot of leeway.
"That's what our new Family program is about," Dailey said, "tailoring mission and needs with regards to the installation and the environment that exists at the installation. But we need to be informed on that."
Audience member and Army wife Celeste Nelson of Fort Bragg, North Carolina, said she trusts leaders will make the right choices: "I believe they really truly do have the Families in mind when they are looking at the programs and understanding what is going to be the most beneficial to all of us across the board and understanding the needs of the Families."
Milley also encourages Family members to contact their congressmen and other representatives and make sure they understand how sequestration will impact Soldiers and Families.
One other question raised in the forum is less about funding and more about cooperation. That issue concerns education. Education is a huge concern for Army parents, said Milley, explaining that with 300,000 Army kids in school, it's "fundamental" to readiness.
With that in mind, the military has made huge strides with the Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children, and now has agreements in place with all 50 states as far as what credits and even varsity sports requirements transfer from one state to another.
They're still working on obtaining in-state college tuition for dependents nationwide, McHugh said.
Milley added that although these agreements aren't legally binding, if something isn't working, local leaders will meet with local officials to try to work out any differences. And if they can't, Milley said, those leaders should let his office know. The general told Family members he has no problem calling congressmen, senators and governors to fix the problem.
One of the benefits of his new job is that now they actually take his phone calls, he said.
"I pledge to you that I will fight for you and I will fight every inch of the way," Milley told Families.
Related Links:
Chief of Staff of the Army Mark A. Milley
Secretary of the Army John McHugh
Social Sharing