In a September 7th speech, then-candidate Donald Trump described his vision for the future of the American military. “As soon as I take office, I will ask Congress to fully eliminate the defense sequester and will submit a new budget to rebuild our military. This will increase certainty in the defense community as to funding and will allow military leaders to plan for our future defense needs.”
The President-elect’s vision of expanding the U.S. armed forces aligns with what many military planners and think tank analysts agree are the forces necessary to meet U.S. security needs and a state of readiness for all branches of the armed forces. However, the issue of readiness cannot be solved simply by expanding force numbers and funding. Each branch of the armed forces has different benchmarks and different challenges that determines its state of readiness. In the first of two features on U.S. military readiness, we examine the U.S. Army and Air Force.
In broad terms, military readiness is defined by a unit’s ability to carry out what it was designed to do, and what it is being asked to do. The criteria include the training of personnel, number of personnel, and equipment quality and quantity. Each branch measures differently based on its core mission, and the platforms and personnel types it has available to it. Increased training and new equipment improve readiness, while extended deployments without adequate rotation of units diminishes readiness. The complexity of determining readiness means there is a variety of opinions, ranging from it being a military-wide crisis to being in need of perennial adjustment and alignment. The bottom line, however, is that the task of maintaining and improving readiness is never complete.
For the armed forces today, the influences that have affected readiness the most are the budget sequestration of 2013 and the longevity of U.S. deployments abroad. This has affected the Air Force and Army in significant ways. The Heritage Foundation’s yearly index on U.S. military strength has assessed that for the last three years, the readiness of both branches has decreased in the case of the Air Force, or remained at a sub-standard level in the case of the Army.
Career flag officers have their concerns as well. Retired Air Force Lieutenant General David Deptula told The Cipher Brief that “The U.S. Air Force (USAF) has been at war not just since 9/11, but since 1991. After 25 years of continuous combat operations, coupled with budget instability and lower-than-planned top lines, have made the USAF the oldest, smallest, and least ready it has ever been in its history.”
From the Army’s perspective, retired Lieutenant General Guy Swan told The Cipher Brief, “Let me say unequivocally that sequestration has had a devastating impact on our military and especially on the United States Army. The most immediate impact has been on current readiness, although modernization and infrastructure readiness also were significantly affected.” While the readiness issues facing each service branch are different, the solution is the same: an end to fiscal uncertainty for the defense budget.
Some in the defense community maintain that the readiness problem may not be as bad as it looks. A recent Wall Street Journal op-ed by retired Army General David Petraeus and Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution argued that, while sequestration and deployment have had long term effects, current spending and training levels—with some tweaking as needed—are up to the task of reestablishing readiness in due time. In a follow-up piece defending his position, O’Hanlon stated: “There is no case for complacency, or for declaring victory. Nor is there a case for cutting readiness budgets.”
A new presidential administration could create the opportunity for a new and forward looking defense budget that could address readiness concerns across the armed forces. While policy details remain scant, the Trump administration has time and again voiced its interest in supporting the armed forces, and creating such a budget would serve the interest of this goal. While there is a spectrum of opinion on the number of troops or the number of fighter aircraft necessary for readiness, there is a unified position that the task is a difficult one in constant need of maintenance.
Will Edwards is an international producer at The Cipher Brief. Follow him on Twitter @_wedwards.
