The U.S. military is only marginally able to meet a growing array of global threats, stretched thin by budget cuts, the stress of years of war and poorly executed modernization programs, according to a new study released Tuesday.
The Heritage Foundation’s 2015 Index of U.S. Military Strength measured each service’s capacity, capability and readiness to defend three key U.S. interests in the face of elevated threats:
• Defending the homeland.
• Fighting and winning two major regional wars at the same time.
• Preserving freedom of movement at sea, in the air, in space and the cyber domain.
It’s the first in an annual series of reports by the conservative think tank designed to set a consistent, nonpartisan benchmark for the debate on how to reshape and fund defense in the future, a benchmark the report’s authors say does not currently exist.
“Washington is awash in a flood of papers offering opinions on these matters, but they lack coherence, consistency, repeatability and objectivity,” they said.
The more-than-300-page study found that only the Air Force could be considered “strong,” on a five-point scale from “very weak” to “very strong,” with the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and the nuclear forces considered “marginal.”
For the study, U.S. nuclear forces were treated as a separate service, though they are part of the Navy and Air Force.
“The common theme across the services and the United States’ nuclear enterprise is one of force degradation resulting from many years of underinvestment, poor execution of modernization programs, and the negative effects of budget sequestration … on readiness and capacity,” the study said.
“The cumulative effect of such factors has resulted in a U.S. military that is marginally able to meet the demands of defending America’s vital national interests.”
Of the services, the Army received the lowest score, primarily for lack of readiness; the report concluded that only 32 percent of the active Army is ready for combat. The report noted that the Marine Corps was too small to fight two major regional wars at the same time — which its authors considered a serious lack of capacity — and also found that nuclear modernization programs lagged behind what was needed to maintain an effective deterrent to potential enemies.
The Air Force scored highest because of the size and readiness level of it aircraft fleet, though the advancing age of the fleet is problematic. Maintaining a high level of readiness now leaves the service less able to respond to future threats because of cuts to maintenance and modernization programs, the study said.
“This is now a military beset by challenges on all sides. It is worn out from overuse and inadequate modernization. There is a clear and growing negative tilt in the strategic military balance between the United States and its allies on one side of the scales and rogue states and prospective adversaries on the other side,” the study said.
Though the study is a bid to offer a much-needed answer to key concerns about how current U.S. military forces stack up against the tasks they are expected to perform, its findings are unlikely to break the political stalemate over Pentagon spending.
The political will to repeal sequestration cuts mandated by the 2011 Budget Control Act has eluded both Congress and the Obama administration, even though just about every politician in Washington — up to and including President Obama — says that’s what should be done.
The law called for a $487 billion reduction in planned spending over 10 years, through 2023. A two-year budget deal reached at the end of 2013 gave partial relief of that requirement, but it’s set to return if Congress doesn’t act this year to reverse it.
