In a speech made to the Brookings Institution, about Maintaining Quality in the Force, General Casey made several observations. His comments included this:

“There’s no question that the army is stretched as a result of more than six years of war. And as a result of that stretch, the force and particularly the families are stretched. And I wrestled very hard to find the right word to describe the condition of the army that was stretched and stressed. And the term I came up with was “out of balance.” That the army today is out of balance. We’re consumed by the demands of the current operations and as a result, we’re not able to do the things to prepare for the future and to sustain the all volunteer force. …

“We’re deploying at unsustainable rates. Several months ago, we increased our deployment–“our boots on the ground time” we call it–to 15 months. We needed to do that to support the requirements of our commanders, to give our soldiers and families some predictability and mostly to ensure that the soldiers that were deploying had at least 12 months at home so that they could properly prepare to go. Now, we did that with the full understanding that it was temporary. We can’t sustain that, we have to come off of that and we’re working that very hard and I think you can understand that when we decide to come off it, we going to be darn sure that we don’t have to go back. And so I expect an announcement on that here in the next three or four months as we watch the situation there on the ground. …

He did actually say “We’re deploying at unsustainable rates.” His point, I believe, was that the Congress needs to step up and provide funding for the troops and quit this incessant bickering about redeployment dates. But of course, the enemedia chooses to focus on other things. Their headlines?

Army chief says troops strained, calls pace ‘unsustainable’

By Otto Kreisher CongressDaily December 5, 2007

Contrast that with the take over at Army Times…(posted in full in case it’s removed)

Casey: Lull in Iraq ops will boost conventional training

 

By Gina Cavallaro – Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Dec 5, 2007 6:27:06 EST

 

For six years, the Army has trained for and fought a counterinsurgency fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the Army’s top officer predicts that as soon as the operational tempo allows for brigades to be at home for at least 18 months, some training for conventional warfare will resume.

“I don’t think there’s any question that future conflicts are going to be exponentially different than what we’re seeing now in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey said Tuesday in remarks at the Brookings Institution, a non-partisan think tank.

Casey, who was been in the position since April 10, said the Army needs to be prepared for conventional warfare because the possibility of a return to such a conflict persists in other areas of the world.

He does not, however, believe a Cold War-style war is imminent.

“My personal view,” he said, “is that in the near term the prospect of a major state-on-state conflict is low.”

Still, he reiterated his well-worn message that the Army cannot afford to be as unbalanced in capabilities as it is in an era of globalization, the emergence of terrorist organizations that rely on high technology to recruit new members and increasing evidence of disenfranchised populations in lesser developed countries.

One key to a more broadly trained force, he said, is retaining the junior officers and mid-career noncommissioned officers with war-fighting experience over the past six years.

In addition to bonuses and educational opportunities being offered as retention incentives for captains, Casey said additional opportunities are being made available.

Those include giving those officers the time to develop their careers beyond the operational battlefield with assignments to federal agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security and Federal Bureau of Investigation, and even assignments abroad for up to one year.

“We’re not directing them, but we’re saying here’s a window, you pick something that suits you, something that broadens your experience,” Casey said.

He noted that although the rate of West Point graduates opting to leave the Army after their five-year contractual obligations is higher than the 30 percent who have left in the past decade, it’s only slightly higher at 30.9 percent.

 

Nope – no bias here – move along people. Personally, I trust the Army Times to get it right — moreso than the enemedia.