{"id":41313,"date":"2017-10-05T02:00:28","date_gmt":"2017-10-05T02:00:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/defensenews\/uncategorized\/2017\/10\/05\/a-significantly-weaker-america-major-study-warns-of-eroding-us-military\/"},"modified":"2026-08-07T23:21:18","modified_gmt":"2026-08-07T23:21:18","slug":"a-significantly-weaker-america-major-study-warns-of-eroding-us-military","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/defensenews\/pentagon\/2017\/10\/05\/a-significantly-weaker-america-major-study-warns-of-eroding-us-military\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018A significantly weaker America\u2019: Major study warns of eroding US military"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

WASHINGTON \u2014 U.S. military capabilities continued to stand still or erode as world threats proliferated during 2017, a new study is warning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Those are the findings of The Heritage Foundation\u2019s 2018 Index of U.S. Military Strength, which offers reviews of the past year\u2019s defense issues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The index, which will be released Oct. 5, may take on extra influence this year. While previous editions were well regarded, Heritage is the think tank with the closest ties to the Trump administration and is viewed as having a major influence on discussions within the White House and conservative members of Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The report comes as several major policy reviews of the Trump Pentagon are pending, including a broader national security review, a missile defense review and a nuclear posture review.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Broadly speaking, the index covers two pots of information \u2014 a look at the global operating environment and an internal assessment of U.S. military strength. All topics are rated on a one-to-five scale with various descriptions, such as \u201cvery weak\u201d or \u201cmarginal\u201d attached.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Defense News was given an exclusive interview with Heritage expert Dakota Wood, who edited the over 400-page report, ahead of its formal release. The full report can be read here<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

International instability<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cFor decades, the perception of American strength and resolve has served as a deterrent to adventurous bad actors and tyrannical dictators,\u201d the report reads. \u201cRegrettably, both that perception and, as a consequence, its deterrent effect are eroding. The result is an increasingly dangerous world threatening a significantly weaker America.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Statements like that are certainly eye-grabbing, but for the most part, the Heritage report shows a world that has not changed much from 2017.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cUnless someone drops a nuke on New York City, events kind of move slowly,\u201d Wood said. \u201cYou want to see a significant change in order to say, all things considered, out of a full year, this is a meaningful shift.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A good example of that thinking shows in the fact that Heritage did not change North Korea\u2019s threat ranking from 2017 despite a series of missile and nuclear tests and increasingly heated rhetoric.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThey haven\u2019t moved any different types of forces closer to the South Korean border. They haven\u2019t shelled an island or sunk a ship. The missile shots are clearly very provocative, but they haven\u2019t put a warhead on the end of them, even a conventional warhead, to blow something up,\u201d explained Wood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cDo we look at testing and improving their nuclear sets of capabilities as worrisome? Absolutely. Does it look like it\u2019s heading in a direction we\u2019d rather not see it go? Absolutely,\u201d he continued. \u201cDoes it shift it into the worst category in terms of a threat to the United States? We weren\u2019t quite ready to make that leap.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, changes did occur, particularly in the Asia Pacific region. Overall, Heritage downgraded alliances in the region from \u201cexcellent\u201d to \u201cfavorable\u201d and political stability from \u201cfavorable\u201d to \u201cmoderate.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tied into that is a change in posture from China, which saw its capability raised by its threat downgraded. In essence, Wood said, China has stopped being as aggressive towards its neighbors since it has successfully militarized islands around the South China Sea.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cYou can get more capable and your behavior becomes less worrisome,\u201d Wood noted. \u201cYou can do that once you\u2019ve established your positions.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In positive news, Heritage judges that the behavior of threats of Middle Eastern terrorism actually decreased over the last year from \u201chostile\u201d to \u201caggressive.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Graphic from the Heritage Foundation’s 2018 Military Strength Index showing the shift from 2015 to now. (Heritage Foundation)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Service questions<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The index gauged America\u2019s armed forces\u2019 as \u201cmarginal\u201d in their ability to win wars against two major adversaries simultaneously, its yardstick for what the nation needs. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the report, Heritage calls for an Army of 50 brigade combat teams, a Navy of 346 ships and 624 strike aircraft, an Air Force of 1,200 fighter\/attack aircraft and a Marine Corps of 36 battalions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Any buildup would be a tall order under current Capitol Hill dynamics. Lawmakers championing a larger military have for years run into the cross-currents of Republican opponents of deficit spending and Democratic allies of nondefense spending \u2014 all pressurized by statutory budget caps passed in 2011.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Heritage gave the Navy, Air Force and nuclear suite a collective grade of \u201cmarginal\u201d for total power \u2014 a kind of D grade \u2014 compared with a top score of \u201cvery strong.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Marine Corps, meant to be the nation\u2019s expeditionary armed force, which sustained decreases in amphibious ships and available aircraft as aging aircraft have been decommissioned. The index downgraded its readiness from \u201cmarginal\u201d to \u201cweak,\u201d alongside its capacity \u2014 attributed to a number of aging air and land platforms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe Marine Corps dropped because of their aircraft woes and its general readiness,\u201d Wood said. The index cited the USMC\u2019s reporting at the end of 2016 that only 41 percent of its fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft were flyable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Heritage index judged the Army\u2019s capacity and readiness as \u201cweak\u201d and its capability as \u201cmarginal.\u201d Despite end-strength increases, modest progress with the Oshkosh Joint Light Tactical Vehicle and the BAE Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle and inadequate procurement budget levels won the Army a \u201cweak\u201d for \u201ccapability of equipment.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Heritage cited congressional testimony from Gen. Daniel Allyn, who served as Army vice chief of staff from August 2014 to June 2017. According to Allyn, a third of its BCTs, a quarter of its combat aviation brigades and half of its division headquarters are ready \u2014 and only three BCTs would be ready to \u201cfight tonight.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The 2017 defense policy bill reversed the Obama administration\u2019s planned cuts to set the active Army\u2019s authorized end strength to 476,000, the Reserve to 199,000 and the National Guard to 343,000. Still, the Army has decreased to 31 BCTs, with only 10 considered \u201cready.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Heritage calls the 276-ship Navy\u2019s capacity \u201cmarginal\u201d and pushes for increases of aircraft carriers from 11 to 12, large surface combatants from 88 to 104, attack submarines from 48 to 66 and amphibious ships from 34 to 38.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Its readiness was downgraded from \u201cstrong\u201d for 2017 to \u201cmarginal,\u201d and its ability to surge to meet combat requirements went from \u201cweak\u201d to \u201cvery weak,\u201d as the service has sacrificed long-term readiness to meet heavy operational demands.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Navy experienced three ship collisions and one grounding during 2017, where 17 sailors were killed. That led to a brief operational stand down and fueled calls on Capitol Hill to increase defense spending.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cPeople were really quick to talk about readiness, and it was too low in the defense budget or [budget caps], but we did not make that jump because the investigation isn\u2019t complete yet,\u201d Wood said. \u201cBut it does indicate [a deficiency] in basic attention and ship-handling skills.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\t