Posted by Veek
What I wonder about is why are we now spending more on the military in adjusted dollars than we were spending under Reagan. The cold war is over!
Jim,
The obvious answer is that we have funded two major operations in Southwest Asia, intervened in Libya as well as deploying troops in four countries in Africa and are committing more to the Southwest Pacific. Couple that with the massive cost of stealth technology integrated into all weapons systems, the cost of fuel (DoD is the largest single consumer of energy in the United States), a dramatic rise in personnel initiatives and costs ($377K per bunk to convert submarines to accommodate female sailors-more on that later, health care expense as baby boomer military retirees (like me) are now in the medical and pension systems) and it's gotten a lot more expensive than in Regan's time.
I had three tours as an Army Inspector General and trust me; there are plenty of places to cut the defense budget. The problem is that the administration is cutting combat power when they should (as should the entire Federal Government) cut the administrative overhead, pet projects and earmarked acquisitions the Pentagon doesn't need.
In military terms this is referred to as the “Tooth to Tail” ratio (T3R) of warfighters to support personnel and this is why the comparison from 1940 to today is valid and useful. Based on the table of organization, the combat component of a line World War II division (we had 89 of them) had a T3R ratio of 68 percent. This is much better than the Korean War’s 33 percent (including support based in Japan). In Vietnam, we had approximately 35 percent. In the European Cold War structure, we had 27 percent. In Desert Storm it improved slightly to 30 percent. By Iraq 2005 on the surface it seems to have improved to 40 percent unless you include contractor support and then it falls to 25% and therein lies the rub. We have too much "tail" and not enough "tooth" and this is the basis for my objections to the administration's proposals.
A great summation of the problem was summarized in a 2010 report by the consulting firm McKinsey & Co. The United States scored last in a recent study that examined how 33 major militaries spend funds on weapon systems - while potential U.S. rival Russia ranked third. The evaluation was published as a special defense issue of the firm's "McKinsey On Government" publication, which focuses on government management practices. The study examined how efficiently 33 nations that account for 90 percent of worldwide defense expenditures covering a range of functions. On personnel, the study examined the nations' tooth-to-tail ratios. Norway had the most favorable tooth-to-tail ratio, with its personnel breaking down as 54 percent tooth, 36 percent non-combat and 11 percent combat support. The United States was second-to-last with 16 percent tooth and 84 percent of its personnel in non-combat or combat support positions.
The average of all 33 nations was 26 percent tooth, 63 percent non-combat and 11 percent combat support. The McKinsey report also notes that some nations, such as France, are attempting to bring about a "dramatic reduction of administrative personnel through investment in IT systems and outsourcing of certain non-combat operations to the private sector." This is exactly what we need to do here.
A recent post about the British Navy was really funny, I took the liberty of sending it to some friends who are retired sailors and they said there was actually some truth to it. The British are installing special ventilation systems in submarines to accommodate pregnant sailors. I've served with women I'd have in combat with me in a minute, but PC goes a bit too far when you want to put pregnant troops in combat. I can't imagine how much it costs to refit a sub with maternity provisions.
If you have any interest in reading any of these studies or have serious problems sleeping, PM me and I can send some material your way.
