I took that in layman's terms to be some tough choices we're going to have to make.

We want to make sure that you and your soldiers have everything that you need to carry out the missions that our country is asking you to fulfill.

I assume that you're both doing a great job of making sure the soldiers on the front line are getting what they need, but that's at the expense of our preparedness to meet some future unexpected contingency.

You can't meet an increased demand with a constant supply.

I don't want that to be any part of this subcommittee.

General, thank you for your devotion to both your soldiers and to our country.

I believe our depots and arsenals are a national treasure and provide with a truly unique capability critical to our national security.

If they were called upon today to deploy, just what would your response be?

It puts you in a position of trying to cut and paste and make do, and that's certainly not an optimal situation for us to be in.

if the preparedness of our forces has come at the expense of strategic depth for some potential future missions, how does this affect our National Military Strategy (NMS) and our ability to respond to various operation plans and unforeseen…

General Chiarelli, General Schoomaker used to talk a lot about restoring the strategic depth of the Army.

Does this concern either of you? There are some alternative routes we've explored.