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

Ken Cason of Norfolk, VA asks: I understand from friends in the military that false military readiness reports are common, reporting a greater readiness percentage than they can actually field. Is this understood as fact when computing the actual state of the military?   Gordon Adams responds: Actually, the Pentagon measures and tracks readiness at a level of detail that far surpasses any past monitoring effort. I have seen the reports and they are of the unvarnished variety. One of the reasons the Republicans can engage in a scavenger hunt for readiness problems is that there is so much truthful, official information. What's more, the administration has responded to the problems they have found with significant additional funding for training, spares, pay and quality of life.   Stephen Hadley responds: There are a lot of problems in measuring something like military readiness with statistics. Readiness depends in part on things like morale, leadership, and other factors that are hard to measure. But even the statistics over the last four or five years suggest that the readiness of the US military is not what it should be. This conclusion finds support in reports from men and women in uniform who have both recently left the service or are still serving. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is testifying before Congress today [Sept. 27]. He apparently will tell Senators that recent efforts have stemmed the decline in short term readiness. But even he can see that more needs to be done. In addition, there is the longer term readiness problem of whether we are doing enough today to ensure that the military of tomorrow will be able to meet the challenges it faces. This longer term "readiness" problem was an issue that Governor Bush first talked about one year ago in a speech he gave at the Citadel on Sept. 23, 1999. A lot of current military equipment was bought during the Reagan Administration. It is getting old and needs to be replaced. In addition, Governor Bush has called for beginning to transform the current military to a lighter, more mobile, more lethal, and more effective force that takes advantage of the enormous promise of information technologies to provide our military with significant advantage over its adversaries. That is just as important as ensuring the near-term readiness of our current force.   Col. David Hackworth responds: What happens is that liars figure, and they make the combat readiness reports look very good with a very sharp pencil. This is a great problem in that the readiness system that allows you to grade whether you're C4, C3, C2… C1 being totally combat-effective, C4 being not combat effective. The system is corrupt. And it's not just the people operating the pencils, but the system was designed for another era -- for post-World War II, for the Cold War. What's needed is to have a system that's more reflective of today's situation. One that, when a commander swears to it, he's putting his career on the line if he submits a false report. At the same time, there needs to be an inspection system, probably coming out of the Defense Dept.'s Inspector General department, that can whip down and immediately take a readiness report on a spot check basis.   Lawrence Korb responds: From my own experience on active duty and as a Pentagon civilian, I know that pressure is often applied to those filling out readiness reports. But overall, our military is more than ready to deal with any mission they may be called upon to undertake.