As the US House and Senate Armed Services committees tackle defense reform, operations and sustainment (O&S) costs are a high-profile target for budget cuts. They make up over half the annual defense budget and lack the defense industry’s powerful political support.
Yet, O&S cuts executed without careful consideration of long term-implications seriously harm our military’s future ability to fight and win the nation’s wars.
O&S funding supports the most significant advantages our military brings to battle: proficient soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines operating well-maintained equipment. Tough, realistic and continuous training brings confidence and flexibility to our forces. Battle-ready equipment supported by a robust supply system ensures our war fighters stay in the fight and focus on the mission at hand.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) must ensure that legislators fully appreciate the role and importance of the military’s training and readiness budget. We must not let short-sighted political wins result in long-term battlefield losses.
Despite the strategic significance of O&S costs, they are often the first casualty in budget battles between Congress and the Defense Department. For example, forced retention of the A-10 aircraft fleet and prohibitions on closing unneeded facilities inhibit the Pentagon’s ability to allocate its own budget. Such decisions squeeze O&S funding.
Compounded with the Budget Control Act of 2011, they leave defense leaders with relatively few dollars at their discretion.
Procurement programs enjoy a large constituency. Military leaders like to increase vehicle, ship and aircraft numbers. Elected officials embrace the economic benefits in their districts from a nationwide defense industrial base. In contrast, the benefits of training and readiness funding only become obvious on the battlefield. Their qualitative contributions to national power are difficult to convey in the age of 140 character press releases.
The OSD needs to ensure legislators approach defense reform in full appreciation of the importance of training and readiness. It should work to heighten public awareness and generate a motivated, credible constituency in support of military readiness.
The OSD should clearly articulate the economic benefits of training and maintenance activities to our elected officials. A good place to start is with members of the House and Senate Armed Services Readiness subcommittees on Readiness and senior members of the full Armed Services committees.
Training staff and instructors are only the initial beneficiaries of readiness funds. Facility administration and maintenance staff keep our training grounds open and relevant. Construction and improvement of training facilities generates local demand for labor. Movement of troops and equipment to and from training areas support the transportation industry.
The strongest voices in support of readiness and maintenance should come from the sources best suited to speak of their importance:
• First, The four-star general regional combatant commanders responsible for directing combat military operations. No senior officers are better positioned to observe the war-fighting ability of our forces.
• Second, Recent Medal of Honor recipients, because no one can speak with greater authority about critical factors that determine tactical success on the battlefield.
• Third, The secretary of defense, because prioritizing our war-fighting capabilities must have the full and public support of the nation’s senior defense official.
Should defense reform efforts give a free pass to O&S costs? No. These costs grew faster than our force over the past two decades and, if left unchecked, will overwhelm the defense budget. Like everything else in the defense budget, they need scrutiny. Yet we need to make certain legislators are aware of the repercussions of their budget choices.
Defense reforms should enhance the operational readiness of those we send in harm’s way. A multistep approach is needed, and the secretary of defense should lead the charge to keep at the forefront of reform the best interests of our war fighters.
Chris Cammack is a graduate student at the George Washington University Elliott School for International Affairs, Department of the Navy engineer, and decorated combat veteran.
