The other day I heard a joke about Americans spending more on Viagra and breast implants then on Alzheimer’s disease research. You can imagine the punch line. But, it led me to do some digging on the how much we, as a nation, spend on various things. Below is a small chart that details how much money was spent in the US on the times listed:
Ship Procurement (the US Navy) $9.8 Billion 2006
Aircraft Procurement (All services) $26.5 Billion 2006
Dog and Cat food $16.9 Billion 2006
Viagra/Cialis/Levitra $3 Billion 2006
Barbecue Sauce $15 Billion 2006
Note: all the DOD numbers are from the DOD Budget for 2006
(http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2006/fy2006_summary_tables_part1.pdf)
What does this mean? Obviously, it means we, as a nation, are incredibly rich. And, while these numbers are from several years ago, and we are now in the middle of a severe recession, we remain very rich.
But, there is more here than that. Some would argue that it suggests misplaced emphasis. One could argue that the people miss-spend their money and are ‘to blame.’ Frankly, I think that under estimates the wisdom of most of the people. I think most people are quite capable of making the right choices, even when they are hard choices. That is the essence of democracy, isn’t it? That people are wise enough to make the right choices for themselves. But, democracy requires not simply the consent of the majority, it requires informed consent. And in the case of the military services, it requires the chiefs of the services, the admirals and generals, to stand up and tell the American people why they – the citizens, NOT the admirals and generals - need to spend a certain amount of money for ships or planes or tanks.
But, it is more than simply saying ‘We need more tanks (ships, airplanes, etc.)’ The generals and admirals have been given a substantial portion of the treasure of this nation, and more importantly, have been given the trust of this nation, in the form of the sons and daughters of America; our security and our future has been placed in the hands of the military. To a degree nearly unheard of with respect to any other profession or niche of society, the American people trust the uniformed leadership of the services.
Yet, time and again over the past several years (and more) we have read of this or that admiral or general talking about two issues: 1) we don’t have enough ships (planes, tanks, etc.), and 2) we need new strategies for the future.
I submit the two are not simply linked; they are opposite sides of the same coin.
Let us go back to the figures mentioned above. Are we as a nation spending too much on our pets? The real beauty of a free market is that it allows us to spend just exactly as much as we want on each item. So, $16 billion or so on food for our pets (as of 2006) is exactly right. But, the same cannot be said of our ship and aircraft and tank procurement (and other things) because, simply put, the American people are kept in the dark because the military service chiefs do not know how to communicate with the people about what this nation needs. They do communicate with Congress, which, interestingly, is one of the least trusted organizations in the country. And Congress appropriates money as often as not based on parochial reasons rather than for any other.
The argument might be advanced that the American people spend money on Viagra and dog food and breast implants but not ships and aircraft because they are selfish, that they don’t care about the nation as a whole, or that they spend out of a sense of entitlement. To a certain extent, and perhaps to an extent greater now then any time in our past, that is true. But it is not true of the majority of Americans. Most Americans are hard working and believe that the only thing they are entitled to is a hard working government that provides them the basic services expected; the principal one being security.
Further, this sense of ‘entitlement’ is in fact correct when it comes to national security: the American people HAVE committed huge assets to the Department of Defense, they HAVE trusted their security to the admirals and generals of the E-Ring, they HAVE placed their sons and daughters lives in the hands of those same admirals and generals.
Nevertheless, the generals and admirals continue to argue as to not only how many of a certain weapon they need, but what they need them for. This is not to say that these questions are simple; there are some real complexities involved. But, to give just one example, the inability for the Chief of Naval Operations to articulate a strategy for the Navy.* Now, what the CNO is trying to describe is both the specific purpose of the Navy – its assigned tasks; how it will accomplish those tasks; and what assets (people, ships, weapons, etc.) it needs to accomplish those tasks. For those who have not read Title 10 (that section of US law that governs all things having to do with the Armed Forces), the mission of the Navy (and the other services – each has a section) is spelled out for all to see.**
Of course, prompt and sustained combat operations at sea doesn’t tell you against whom, or how or a number of other things. That’s why, ostensibly, we have professionals in naval operations and intelligence who work together to answer these issues. And there are, in fact, some simple rules in this regard. First, plan for worst case. Second, plan for a long war. Third, leave room for errors (like someone else doing something asymmetric forcing you into the reaction role).
While this discussion continues in Washington, the American people are left outside of the conversation, not because they cannot and do not understand, but because the folks in Washington, in and out of uniform, are apparently unable to articulate to the American people what Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps we the nation need, and why. Perhaps the admirals and generals don’t know what the nation needs. If this isn’t so, how else do we explain that in the past three years we have had two service chiefs in a row for one of the services unable to articulate a service strategy and continually asking for help in formulating one?
I would submit that the services are, indeed, under-funded in regards the procurement of major weapon systems, but the fault lies not with the citizens of this country and their unwillingness to support the services. The fault lies with the leadership of the services and their inability to either understand their real mission, and their inability to explain that mission to the citizenry. The American people are not stupid. My experience has been, in fact, that the average citizen on the streets of middle America has more sense then the average bureaucrat in Washington – uniformed or civilian.
When someone stands up and says “We need to spend $10 billion on ships,” but can’t articulate a strategy, that is, can’t articulate a reason why, then it is going to be a hard sell to the American people. Conversely, if the admirals and generals could explain why, if they had a strategy, the American people would, and could support spending substantially more than the amount we are now spending on these weapons. The fault lies not with the people or the economy, nor with Congress, the fault lies with the admirals and generals.
Next: Some Thoughts on Force Structure
* The term strategy is misapplied, but it is miss-used regularly in Washington and so we repeat the linguistic abuse.
** TITLE 10 > Subtitle C > PART I > CHAPTER 507 > § 5062 (a) The Navy, within the Department of the Navy, includes, in general, naval combat and service forces and such aviation as may be organic therein. The Navy shall be organized, trained, and equipped primarily for prompt and sustained combat incident to operations at sea. It is responsible for the preparation of naval forces necessary for the effective prosecution of war except as otherwise assigned and, in accordance with integrated joint mobilization plans, for the expansion of the peacetime components of the Navy to meet the needs of war.
No comments:
Post a Comment