Pentagon Readiness Crisis: Where Should the Blame Be Placed?
When the Senate recently considered the annual National Defense Authorization bill, the rhetoric was heated, particularly from Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Their target: what they described as a glaring need for increased readiness funding for the military. The vehicle for the debate: A McCain amendment, strongly backed by Graham, to add $18 billion to the bill reported out of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
During the June 9 Senate floor debate, McCain charged: “Planes can’t fly; parts of the military can’t train and equip. Only two of our brigade combat teams are fully ready to fight.”
If the Senate sent his amendment down to defeat, he argued, there would be new attacks in Europe and in the U.S. Indeed, he charged that opponents of his amendment “are taking on a heavy burden of responsibility of incurring significantly increased U.S. casualties in case of an emergency.”
Graham, if anything, was fiercer. “If we say no to this amendment, God help us all. And you own it. You own the state of high risk. If you vote no, then as far as I am concerned, you better never say ‘I love the military’ anymore.” The implication was clear: those Senators voting “no” would be charged with being anti-military and responsible for increased U.S. casualties.
But the highly respected ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, Adam Smith, took a different view. Though Smith agrees there is a readiness crisis caused by the years of overseas wars and budget limits adopted by Congress, he also sees a different problem: the very body where he sits.
The Pentagon has proposed some budget cuts to prioritize money for more important programs. But Congress has rejected most of these changes. For example, the Pentagon has frequently proposed a new round of closures for bases the military has deemed unnecessary at this time. This year, McCain’s committee once again rejected the Pentagon’s proposal. The House did too.
The Air Force has tried to retire the A-10 Warthog, a close air support aircraft. McCain’s committee said no. The Department of Energy has tried to move away from the highly over budget Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, but Senator Graham not only blocked that move but convinced the committee to add $70 million more than requested — a sum that could pay for a lot of bullets or training hours.
Representative Smith pointed to other programs that cut into readiness funding, highlighting what he called a $1 trillion, 30-year program to overhaul our entire nuclear force. The United States already has thousands of nuclear weapons for use on nuclear submarines, long-range bombers, and land-based missiles.
There is no doubt that many of the systems are aging and need some form of modernization for safety. But by insisting on an all-of-the above plan to rebuild all these weapons during the same time period, the Pentagon has embarked on a strategy that will leach funding needed for readiness, training, and spare parts.
If more funding for readiness is needed, the problem does not lie in the stars, but rather in the halls of Congress and some areas of the Pentagon where the preference is to buy expensive new planes and ships, creating jobs in districts and states rather than taking care of existing equipment and soldiers.
Physicians say, “First, do no harm.” Yet Congress — both parties — does harm and then denies it.
