Debate on military readiness mixes myth, reality

By Jim Mannion

WASHINGTON (AFP): Republican charges that the U.S. military is in decline -- underfunded, underpaid and unready to fight after eight years of Democratic leadership -- is a mixture of myth and reality but points to some difficult choices facing whoever is elected in November, analysts say.

Underlying the backward-looking campaign debate are questions about future priorities: what security challenges lie ahead for the United States and what kind of force is needed to meet them?

"Today's force is reasonably ready. It is closer to a Desert Storm force than a Desert One force," said military analyst Andrew Krepinevich, referring to the ill-fated hostage rescue mission in Iran that came to symbolize the so-called "hollow army" of the 1970s.

"We have succeeded in moving toward a smaller military than we had in the Cold War," said Krepinevich, who heads the private Center for Strategic and Budgetary Analysis here.

"We have failed abysmally in moving toward a different kind of military than we had in the Cold War to deal with different kinds of challenges that are now confronting us."

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. military force has shrunk from about 2.2 million active duty personnel to about 1.4 million in 2000.

The army contracted from 18 active duty divisions to 10, the navy from 13 carrier battle groups to 12, and the air force from 22 air wings to 12.

Calibrated to preserve the military's ability to fight major theater wars in Korea and the Gulf in quick succession, the drawdown has left the military grumbling that it is being pinched by other contingency operations, notably in the Balkans.

Worried about an exodus of pilots, spare parts shortages and army training deficiencies, the military chiefs confronted Clinton two years ago with demands for more money to stem a decline in readiness and morale.

The administration responded with the first-long term increase in defense spending since the end of the Cold War -- US$112 billion over five years beginning in 2000.

Military pay was hiked 4.8 percent this year and the troops are due for another 3.7 percent raise next year.

Pentagon officials say recruitment and retention rates are showing signs of improving after intensive efforts by the services to compete better for people in a booming economy.

The air force and the army have begun to make changes in the way they deploy their forces to relieve some of the stress on troops and their families of frequent and unpredictable absences.

Two army divisions that had been declared unready for a major theater war because a major portion of their forces were tied down in peacekeeping missions in the Balkans were restored earlier this year to war fighting status.

"We are ready. We're prepared. As a matter of fact, I think morale is increasing," U.S. Defense Secretary William Cohen, a Republican, told reporters last week.

Charges that underfunding has hollowed out the U.S. military "is a myth because what you're doing is comparing the military of today to the golden age of the Reagan buildup and saying it's not as good," says Lawrence Korb, an expert at the Council on Foreign Affairs and former assistant secretary of the Defense Department.

At a time when the United States faces no real military rival, the U.S. defense budget is far and away the world's biggest at $289 billion in 2000.

By comparison, China and Russia together spent only about $117 billion in 1997, according to a State Department survey. France spent $42 billion on its military that year, the survey found.

Where analysts agree that the Pentagon does face a future funding crunch -- and hard choices -- is in financing procurement of new weapons to replace old ones.

Krepinevich sees a mismatch of $75 to $100 billion between current programs and projected funding levels through 2007.

But he and others say the Pentagon's big spending priorities -- particularly its costly new fleets of short range combat aircraft -- reflect outmoded assumptions about the threats it faces.

"The question of 'ready for what' is an important question that is being missed here," he said.