Tell Us Something We Didn’t Already Know, General
The headline says it all, but the article is fairly short and worth reading:
Current funding makes hollow force ‘inevitable,’ 3-star says
No surprise, really. Some of us are old enough to remember post-Vietnam and the Carter years.
Looks like it’s gonna be, in the words of Yogi Berra, “Déjà vu all over again.”
Category: "The Floggings Will Continue Until Morale Improves", Defense cuts, Military issues
Or in the words of Gomer, “Sur-prise, sur-prise.”
I wonder how many times we have to make the same mistakes, before we learn?
OldSoldier54, until we learn not to?
See, this is why we should reinstate the draft and require military service of everyone, including women. It does two things: gets you out of your cocoon-like existence in your neighborhood, and teaches you a work ethic. And can we just eliminate the PC crap? It’s the military, for pete’s sake!
Military: (n) 1) Social experimentation live test 2) Venue for pursuing political agenda 3) Despised baby-killer group unfit for polite society, preferably underfunded and undisciplined 4) The last ones you call when you need them.
Now all you peons know why the generals make the big bucks….
MasterGuns: I actually have to give the guys in the article some credit for telling the truth publicly.
Whether anyone will listen to them or not is another story.
@2: Those that don’t remember their history are doomed to repeat it.
It’s hard to avoid the truth when it spreads its’ legs and hops onto your face Hondo….eventually everyone sees it.
Whining about a 90% equipment readiness posture slipping to 80% while the Federal government is giving away barely used combat vehicles and other tacticool equipment, including small arms uniforms and armor, to civilian police agencies.
Sorry, but I smell a rat.
Carter was my first CinC.
Half of all Navy ships failed INSURV (Congressionally mandated inspection).
Half of all aircraft could not fly. Of the the quarter that were flying, it was because the balance of aircraft were used for parts.
Recruiting was down to historic levels and everyone was high!
Reagan and Weinberger changed all that.
All I can say is “Well, *DUUUUUUHHHHH!*”
Maybe. But with Defense spending still at an inflation-adjusted 150% of 2001 spending, I think the general might be a little dramatic. In constant dollars we’re spending more now than we did at the height of the Cold War for cripes sake. And we’d have to cut defense spending by a whopping 50% to get back to where we were in the early 90’s.
The Carter military had more Troops and more equipment.
The equipment was lower tech requiring less maintenance and the Troops needed less training to operate it. It cost less money.
The Clintons slashed the military and training, but it was still operational to fight at least one war, even if they only planned to hold off the hordes, not win, on a second front. Most of the combat experienced of Desert Storm left or was kicked out. The Clintons pinned readiness on civilians, stripping the military of the ability to cook its own food, or man its own gates, creating the need for contractors like KBR to conduct maintenance operations in combat zones that DoD civilians wouldn’t go. The Clintons were honest enough to state that their goal was to convert the military from warriors to peacekeepers, and hence selected Shinseki who proposed doing away with tracked vehicles and going to lightly armored wheeled vehicles.
The Obama military was slashed again, to levels unseen since before WWII, without the technical advancements the Clintons had relied on to provide an edge against numerically superior enemies.
Neither Sequestration, nor the Budget impasse is the cause of the hollowed force. Requests by the Obama Administration to cut pay, charge Troops for healthcare, cut new weapons, man ships with civilians, cut Troops, and put combat experienced Troops out of the military are the direct reason that we now have a hollow force. Sequestration actually cut less (though faster) than the Obama Admin had asked for.
Hondo, I agree that the honesty is refreshing, but I don’t think this is anything that was not expected. The government runs up the debt and deficit, spending like a whore with unlimited credit and then we are in budget trouble and the first cuts always come at the expense of the military. We hollow out the force, cut maintenance and training funding, screw the troops and retirees out of benefits they were promised, and repeat this cycle over and over again.
I came in the Marine Corps in 1982 and we were still feeling the effects of the Carter years. The Reagan buildup had not yet begun in earnest. Our gear was shit and so was our maintenance budget. We made do. The military always does. Despite the constant tinkering of politicians who don’t know a rifle from an MRE we always make do. Well, some day, we are not going to be able to make do any more. Be it from too much attempted social engineering which makes us too soft to fight, or a lack of equipment or being unable to recruit quality people. We are going to eventually be worn to the point where we are not able to do what the country asks of us. This shit has got to stop. It is the job of the federal government to provide for the common defense. Not to feed and clothe scumbags and provide phones for the downtrodden. This countries priorities are so turned around I cannot recognize what I fought for any more.
@12–Uh, no.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/assets/hist.pdf
In the late 1990’s under Clinton, DoD spending was barely 3 percent of GDP. Compare that to 4.8 percent under Carter (the “hollow force”), the 6 percent under Reagan, 4.8 percent under Bush 41, and 4.1 percent under Bush 43, which to be fair had climbed to 4.7 percent of GDP in the FY2009 budget.
Under Obama, in FY2010, we had DoD spending at 4.8 percent, but we’re now at an estimated 3.4 percent. It’s estimated because they haven’t passed a budget in going on five years now, and the projected DoD budget will hit 2.8 percent by FY2018.
In terms of “absolute” (non-inflation adjusted) dollars, you are correct in saying that we’d have to cut by 50 percent to get back to 2001 levels. However that’s not feasable due to the incredibly low (I’d say too low) spending level in the late 90’s/early 2000’s, couple with that whole little 9/11 thingy going on.
Remember, what we had to deal with under Clinton was in many ways WORSE than what troops had to deal with under Carter, and what the troops under Obama are dealing with is going to be an order of magnitude worse than what I had to deal with under Clinton.
#12:
A 1988 $1 is worth .51 today.
Troops in uniform: 2.17 Million AD and 1.19 RC
6.1% of GNP (Non-DoD Fed spending: 15.5% of GNP)
Budget: $303 Billion ($599 Billion in today’s dollars)
A 1992 $1 is worth .60 today.
Troops in uniform: 1.89 Million AD and 1.12 RC
5.9% of GNP (Non-DoD Fed spending: 16.3% of GNP)
Budget: $286.5 Billion ($477.6 Billion in todays dollars)
A 2000 $1 is worth .74 today.
Troops in uniform: 1.38 Million AD and .86 RC
Budget $280 Billion (Less than 4% GDP) (($380 Billion in today’s dollars)
2012 Budget Request by POTUS for DoD: 553 Billion + $118 Billion in “Overseas Contingency Operations”, better known as wars being fought without the goal of winning.
2014 Budget Reguest by POTUS: $526.6 Billion
Troops in uniform: 1.32 Million AD and .83 RC
One might ask the question of how we can have less capacity with a larger budget. In 1989, the cost of equipment issued to an individual Solder was about $350.00. In 2012, that equipment costs well over $5000.00. A CUCV cost about $25,000 in 1989 (one of the primary small vehicle for Troops). An MRAP costs well over $500,000 today. A cook cost the military an E4’s salary, with an E7 running the operations of the kitchen. Today, that’s a contractor position, with significantly greater cost. A few E4’s ran the ID card section, for a base of tens of thousands. A few more ran the personnel section. Today those are DoD civilians getting 3x the salary, +benefits.
In 1989, Troops used maps and compasses. In 2003, they had a DAGR to go with it ($6k). Now they have a Blue Force Tracker (a few hundred thousand dollars), plus the DAGR.
In 89, our allies in NATO (and other places) had militaries that could fight their own wars and could be relied on to help us fight ours.
In 2012, all of Europe has ?one? aircraft carrier? Together, they couldn’t take out Qaddaffi without our help. Today, we cannot count on allies to help us in any significant way.
@14. I came in a year after you in 83. One of the more common sayings in the 82nd at the time was, “We have gone so long with so little that, now, we can make anything with nothing.”
My son is in an SBCT out in HI. The Strykers remain in the MoPo while his battalion road marches out to East Range for training.
@17 Sounds familiar. We had a rule in the 2nd Marine Division for years where if you were going less than I believe it was 10 miles to a training area, you humped. We never rode anywhere.
>In 1989, Troops used maps and compasses. In 2003, they had a DAGR to go with it ($6k). Now they have a Blue Force Tracker (a few hundred thousand dollars), plus the DAGR.
…plus the civilian GPS they bought with their own money because the DAGR and BFT are both shite.
I’m not saying the levels of the ’90s were adequate (I ETSd during the Clinton RIF), I’m just saying when we’re spending TWICE as much now (and yes, that’s in inflation adjusted dollars) and we still think we’re going to be “hollowed out” we need to look at if that’s really true, and if so, why. I agree with y’all that the “no casualty” mindset of increased drone and MRAP use plays a big role. Is all the new technology a good value versus troop spending? Harder question.
@7 “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.”
—- Mark Twain
In inflation adjusted dollars, the 1988 DoD budget would be $599 Billion. The budget projection/request from the Obama Admin for 2014 is $526 Billion (2013 dollars). That’s a cut of $73 Billion.
In 1988, we were NOT at war, the equipment cost less, and less training was needed to operate it.
The source for these numbers are the actual budget requests of 1988 and 2012 and the inflation calculator here: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
As per the DoD, the attrition rate (those not completing their agreed upon 3 yr initial enlistments) was 28% in 1979 with a 17% desertion rate in 1978. ((Carter DoD report to Congress 1980))
The 1980 Budget Request was for $122.7 Billion. That’s $346.3 in 2013 Dollars. The military had 2 Million AD Troops and 985,000 RC Troops. A Jeep was considerably cheaper than an MRAP.
I remember Oct 1973…we were about to go to war against the “1st team”. We were so hollow that we were counting the artillery pieces at the various post’s headquarters. This was under a Republican president.
NHSparky: worse under Clinton than Carter? Have to disagree, amigo. I saw some of both, and I’d have to say things were worse under Carter. Both were bad.
Beretverde: yeah, things got pretty bad under Nixon and Ford. A fair amount of that was the normal post-war drawdown effect. But a good chunk was due to the fact that by mid-1973, Nixon couldn’t get the time of day from Congress (and couldn’t get much in the way of cooperation from them before then, either). Ending the draft and the pre- and early VOLAR pay raises IMO had a lot to do with that, too.
And don’t forget: LBJ intentionally diverted resources from Europe and other locations DURING Vietnam, in part to avoid having to ask Congress for enough $$$ to fully fund Vietnam plus other existing DoD commitments. He did so so he could start his “Great Society” at the same time he was fighting a war. By early 1969, outside the training base things already were reportedly getting pretty damn thin and shopworn all over CONUS and Europe. So Nixon inherited a Defense Department that was hurting in many areas already when he became POTUS in Jan 1969.
I don’t think we’re really disagreeing about anything, TN. 1988 was the last year before a long slide in military spending. We’re getting way past blog level detail, but using your inflation calculator and OMB table 4.1 you can see that as recently as 1999, spending was “only” $367 Billion in 2013 dollars. Your 2014 number is WITHOUT Overseas Contingency Operations (Afghanistan) so you’ll need to add another $70 Billion or so if you want to talk about war costs(OMB 2014 number = $598 Billion). Finally, I agree today’s force has more expensive technology…which theoretically lets us be just as effective with a smaller force, yes? Anyways, I know this will all be argued out above my paygrade, I just don’t take the general’s reflexive chicken-littling about a “hollowed out” force at face value when military spending remains historically high.
Charges of adultery, misuse of government credit card, and fostering a hostile work environment against the general in 3…2…
I’ll grant you SOME of the points, Hondo–while in 1998 versus 1978 we weren’t dealing with the drug, race, and discipline problems we were then, the OPTEMPO was, IMO, higher in the Clinton era than under Carter, at least based on the folks who were there. (I joined when Reagan was president.)
And given Clinton’s penchant for sending troops anywhere at the drop of a hat (read: more than the previous five presidents COMBINED) I can believe it.
Finally, while again anecdotal, I never heard of boats doing cannibalizing, especially back aft, during the Carter years. Not only did I hear about it during the Clinton era, I saw that shit–scary.
But I still stand by my assertion that what our folks are going to be facing in the next few years is going to make both the Carter and Clinton years pale in comparison to what we’re going to face. Hell, we’re facing it now, with two carriers sitting idle, awaiting refueling, the F-35/F-22 debacle continuing, etc., etc…(insert wasteful unnecessary program here) but SRB’s are all but gone. Navy SRB is nearly non-existent unless you’re a nuke or a SEAL, and I’d imagine the other services are similar.
@24 Hey, beretverde, I remember the fall of ’73, too. I was sent over to the Med with a reinforced platoon of tanks – M48A3modBs. When I got back six months later, was told that the 2 shop had placed bets on how long my platoon would last if we had to make an opposed landing – and the times were running from fifteen minutes to an hour and a half.
#26: The force was bare bones in 2000 & 2001. Hence the electorate was riled that Troops had thin skinned vehicles and no body armor. That was a direct result of the Clinton cuts. It led to a year on/year off tours in combat. The force was too small then and it’s too small now.
Neither dollars, nor technology (alone) can win a war, and hence the current POTUS won’t even use the word “Victory” as he has no desire to win.
The Carter military brought us the Iran Hostage Crisis, and nearly to war with the Warsaw Pact.
No, we are NOT agreeing. We are most definitely disagreeing. We ALREADY have a hollow force, and that’s only going to get worse.
Or perhaps, you think that Donald Rumsfeld’s “Small Footprint” is a good idea?
Well TN, I most certainly think “Global Police Force” is a BAD idea.
When any reduction from the recent record-high spending equals “hollowed out”, you’ve entered a seriously hyperbolic state of speech usually reserved for Democrats.
Calypso: The Foreign Aid budget demonstrates that throwing dollars at the enemy does not win wars, or even the hearts and minds. Pakistan demonstrates that technology alone does not win wars. (drone attacks) The ONLY way to win is boots on the ground. Everything else is support of that. Everything else leverages the Boots on the Ground, either protecting their lives, or taking the lives of the enemy. The fewer Combat Arms Troops you have, the more leverage (technology) you need, but there is a point where all the technology in the world won’t be sufficient to support too few Infantrymen. Currently, the Admin is trying to cut more Troops, while also cutting the pay of the remaining Troops, and the benefits, and cutting the technology that supports those Troops. Is there fat that could be cut? Yes, but that is not what this Admin will cut. In fact, they are cutting the meat and the bone to add to the fat. They are cutting combat experienced Troops so they can buy more inflated green energy (at a cost of 20 (or more) to one of current, working technology. (See bio fuels, solar, etc.) They are giving out stateside union contracts for construction that isn’t needed, while cutting weapons systems. They are cutting training and adding PC powerpoints. They are moving Flag Officer positions to SES civilian positions, which costs more, without the experience. And Calypso, a Global Police Force is precisely what they want the military to be. Clinton was at least honest enough to say so (Peacekeeping force), while Obama is instead pretending that GIVING away our highest technology (such as Global Hawk, to NATO) to “allies” that don’t have a operational military anymore is a “defense strategy.” But, regardless of any cuts of the fat, even if the meat and bone were preserved, we must face the fact that the equipment costs more now, than in the 80’s, by multipliers greater than inflation. And we must admit that as a percentage of GDP, the DoD budget is far smaller. But, if we were to return to the… Read more »
I don’t disagree with anything you just said. As a former Ranger, I’m a firm believer that boots on the ground win wars. AND I agree that the biggest piece of the expense problem is the mission creep of US military assignments far beyond providing for the common defense of these United States.
Hopefully budget pressures combine with other factors to lead to reassessment of the role and methods of the military in today’s threat environment.