MILITARY READINESS

September 2000
		Is the U.S. military properly prepared to provide for the national defense? Gore defense adviser Gordon Adams, retired US Army Col. David Hackworth, former Defense Dept. official Lawrence Korb and Bush defense adviser Stephen Hadley take your questions.

Forum introduction Has the definition of readiness changed? How can we ensure the safety of military personnel? Are false readiness reports common? What enemy is the military allegedly unprepared to fight? What can be done to boost military morale? Is mandatory anthrax immunization causing morale to sink?     Sept. 14, 2000: Four experts discuss military readiness. Online Special: Coverage of the Missile Defense Debate August 9, 2000: Whether or not to build a defense system. July 10, 2000: The Pentagon's second failed test of the National Missile Defense System Browse the NewsHour's full coverage of military issues     US Department of Defense

Janis O'Driscoll of Santa Cruz, CA asks: I am concerned about the safety of military personnel. The work of the military is dangerous by definition, but we should not add to its peril with poorly maintained equipment and insufficient training. A serviceman of my acquaintance tells me of experiences with tired pilots and shoddy equipment and has lost four buddies in four years due to training accidents. Is this situation common, and, if so, what should be done to adequately equip and prepare our troops?   Gordon Adams responds: Training accidents are always a worry; no training program can afford to have them happen. I have no evidence that there are more training accidents today than in the past; the experience seems to be that training is constantly safer than it has been. The current administration has taken two steps that help deal with the stresses that result from deployments, and to adequately equip and train troops. 1) It has added resources ($112 billion in 1998) to defense plans, more than 75 percent of it for readiness, training, pay, spares and quality of life. 2) It has begun to restructure the forces, Air Force and Army, to provide for tolerable levels of deployment and rotation, while ensuring existing training continues and the force remains ready. Readiness, recruitment and retention numbers are all improving, as a result.   Stephen Hadley responds: You were right to be concerned. There have been a lot of reports about inadequate equipment, insufficient training, and low morale in today's military. This notwithstanding the fact that the US military continues to be the best in the world. But if America's sons and daughters are to put their lives on the line by serving in the US military, we owe them the best the nation can provide in terms of equipment, training, and support. This is part of what Governor Bush has in mind when he talks about the readiness of US military forces. This is why he has proposed to increase military pay, improve military housing and education, and improve training. If we are going to send US military forces overseas to engage in military operations, we must be willing to spend the money to make sure those forces are properly supported. The Clinton-Gore Administration has been all too ready to use US military forces overseas, but has not been willing to provide adequate funding to support these operations. This is why it fell to a Republican Congress to add over $50 billion over the last six years to the military budgets submitted to Congress by the Clinton-Gore Administration - money that provided a pay raise for military personnel, increased funding for military health care, improved housing on military bases, and increased funds for spare parts.   Col. David Hackworth responds: It is extremely common. It occurs on a daily basis in all services. Again, there's just not enough defense dollars to go along to support this huge, obsolete, bloated organization. What needs to be done is that the military needs to be streamlined and modernized. And that comes with saying: "What is the threat? How do we defend against that threat and organize our force accordingly?" To do this, what's going to be needed, not only in the White House, but in the most important appointment that can be made by a new president -- the Secretary of Defense. And that should be someone who's not going to just go along to get along, who's not going to be into supporting the pork base that's been around forever and ever. Someone with vision, with imagination, with integrity, and with boldness that has the courage of his convictions to stand behind a reorganization. It won't be easy, because all of the admirals and generals from all of the different services have their vested interests: the admiral wants more ships, the air force general wants more airplanes, the army general wants more ground troops and more tanks. It's going to take somebody who will be able to take these very self-serving senior officers and thump their heads together and say "we're not concerned with what is important to your service, but what is important to the security of our country."   Lawrence Korb responds: As you already noted, by definition, the military is a dangerous occupation. During the Cold War, about 1,000 military people died each year from accidents. The accident rate today is at its lowest point since the end of World War II. There is more than enough money in the defense budget to replace outdated equipment and maintain existing stocks. Unfortunately, the Pentagon has continued its Cold War habit of buying new, sophisticated and very expensive equipment to stay ahead of the Soviet Union. Since there is no Soviet Union, the services could buy the current generation of equipment for about 1/4 the price of the new equipment, use the savings to replace older equipment more rapidly, and put more money into maintenance.