GOP debaters need to stick to facts on military: Michael O'Hanlon
Michael O'Hanlon 9:30 a.m. EST January 28, 2016
President Obama made military smaller, but it remains mighty.
Republicans have been lambasting President Obama over the state of the U.S. armed forces with increasing intensity in recent weeks. In Thursday night's debate, there's little doubt we're in for more of the same.
Obama has been accused of “eviscerating our military,” having “destroyed our military” and leaving the nation with a historically small Air Force and Navy. The president’s response has been somewhat more accurate but not that much more helpful to the debate. In his State of the Union Address, for example, he said the U.S. outspends the next eight nations combined on its military, and is therefore the most powerful fighting force in the world. If the former is true (as it is), the latter seems to be damning with faint praise, and perhaps not a high enough standard of excellence.
There is ample room for debate about whether the U.S. military, now about 40% smaller than at the end of the Cold War, is big enough for today’s complex and dangerous world. There is much to discuss about whether we are focused intently on the most pressing threats. But there can and should be little debate about the quality of our armed forces, or the general adequacy of their resources. A few facts and figures need to stay central in any informed discussion:
America’s national defense budget, slightly more than $600 billion a year (including war costs and nuclear weapons costs, but not Veterans Affairs or Homeland Security), is down considerably from late Bush and early Obama periods. But it remains $100 billion greater than the Cold War inflation-adjusted average. President Reagan, widely seen as establishing the gold standard in modern U.S. national security policy, had only one defense budget greater than today’s on his watch. Former president George H.W. Bush had none.
Today’s equipment inventories are indeed aging, but on balance the Department of Defense is doing such a good job refurbishing and maintaining them that their readiness remains moderate to high. For example, Army equipment readiness is near modern-era peaks. That said, some aircraft inventories are showing strain, and the Obama Pentagon has resembled the Bush/Rumsfeld team in its disdain for releasing data that would reveal such problems. This should change.
The Air Force and Navy are historically small, in terms of weapons platforms, it is true. But today’s aircraft cost multiple times what their recent predecessors did. And the Navy, while modest in size, is made up of such large ships that our combined fleet tonnage is still three times that of China.
Military compensation remains quite robust (relative to individuals of similar age, experience and education levels in the private sector). Specifically, without even counting DoD’s generous pension system, military personnel make more than about 85% of similar individuals in the private sector, averaged across all specialties. Given what we ask of them, that is as it should be.
Training regimens are returning to normal after a decade of intense war — followed by a few years of ongoing, if smaller, overseas operations coupled with shenanigans such as sequestration. Repairing gaps in readiness will take time. But the services are generally on track to have completed remedial actions by about 2020. For example, the Army is sending about 10 brigade combat teams a year to its signature high-end training centers in Louisiana and California (out of some 30 in the active force and 28 in the Army National Guard).
POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media
The Air Force and Navy are each funding maintenance budgets at about 80% of the estimated steady-state requirement. That is, admittedly, 20% short of optimal levels. But it implies that major ships and planes will have “mission capable rates of perhaps 70% to 80% on average" — reasonably good, even if not superb, by historical standards.
As a result of high training and maintenance standards, today’s military accident rates are lower than at virtually any point in modern history, including the Reagan years. Suicide rates, however, remain higher than in the Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton years, perhaps reflecting the burden we are putting on a small and war-tested force.
Recruiting and retention look quite good overall. Only the Army had trouble meeting its recruiting goals while maintaining high personnel standards in 2015, for example, and by year’s end it, too, had attained them.
To be sure, there is plenty for the Republicans (and Democrats) to challenge about the state of our military. While individual units are typically excellent, there might not be enough of them, and strain on personnel remains considerable, even after the major downsizing in Iraq and Afghanistan. While most equipment is in quite functional shape, some are not, and a good deal of it is becoming rather old. While our troopers are top-notch in capability and generally well compensated, many are also tired and overworked. Certainly, the way our military is being employed against the Islamic State terrorist group can be debated. And long-term modernization strategy should be controversial because none of us can accurately see the future or the course of technological innovation.
So let the debate rage on. But please ground it in facts, and make it real.
Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, is author of The Future of Land Warfare.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/01/28/us-military-today-small-excellent-republican-criticism-obama-column/79342392/
