Combat Power, Conflict Resolution, and US Economy

[Dayuhan]

So far, the data suggests that independent of which threats exist, US military capacity now is less than in 1973, and the purchasing power for military capacity is also reduced. Again, this is the real security problem.

I don't see how you can determine "the real security problem" without assessing current capacity relative to current threat. Current capacity relative to 1973 capacity is irrelevant, the Cold War is over and the threat environment has changed. Once you decide that the analysis must be "independent of which threats exist" the analysis begins to float off on thin air, because any analysis of security is fundamentally dependent on which threats exist.

I don't think anyone doubts that military power ultimately stems from economic power, and that as the US loses absolute economic superiority (that doesn't necessarily mean US decline, as others can also rise) it will necessarily lose absolute military superiority. That doesn't necessarily have unmanageable security implications, it just means we have to learn to manage the new security environment. Is absolute superiority to everyone, everywhere, all the time essential to our security?

I don't think anyone doubts that reforms in US military procurement would be desirable; that's close to being self-evident. It would be interesting to know if any concrete, practical changes have been proposed...

[Ken White]

I don't see how you can determine "the real security problem" without assessing current capacity relative to current threat... Is absolute superiority to everyone, everywhere, all the time essential to our security...I don't think anyone doubts that reforms in US military procurement would be desirable; that's close to being self-evident...

Quite accurate, as well.

[Fuchs]

Two countries in today's world have a problem with the classic line that goes approx. like this:

One countries' perfect security is all other countries' insecurity.

One country seeks perfect security for itself only in its own region, the other has completely lost its mind.

[AmericanPride]

I don't see how you can determine "the real security problem" without assessing current capacity relative to current threat. Current capacity relative to 1973 capacity is irrelevant, the Cold War is over and the threat environment has changed. Once you decide that the analysis must be "independent of which threats exist" the analysis begins to float off on thin air, because any analysis of security is fundamentally dependent on which threats exist.

As I have repeatedly stated, this has nothing to do with the first part of my analysis which, I stress again, is about measuring US military capacity. Yes, it is a major issue if US purchasing power is decreasing. In order to maintain the same level of military power, the US must increasingly spend more money. This decline is not related to the existence of other security threats or the development of other national military forces. The fact that other national powers may represent future threats only highlights the underlying economic problems that are reducing US military capacity. In other words, it is possible that US military is reducing relative both to US economic capacity and to foreign national threats (the former is what I have been discussing, the latter I have not looked at).

I don't think anyone doubts that military power ultimately stems from economic power, and that as the US loses absolute economic superiority (that doesn't necessarily mean US decline, as others can also rise) it will necessarily lose absolute military superiority. That doesn't necessarily have unmanageable security implications, it just means we have to learn to manage the new security environment. Is absolute superiority to everyone, everywhere, all the time essential to our security?

You mean relative "economic superiority" since US GDP growth is outpacing the growth of the DoD budget. Nor has my analysis even addressed this problem yet, which, again, I said I would investigate when I explore conflict resolution. Right now, the data indicates that US purchasing power is decreasing. This decrease is not dependent on the existence of any threat.

Allow me to say that your choice of 'believable' sources is, er, interesting and they certainly generally are supportive of your views

My sources in this thread have been:
- General Dempsey's speech
- DNI Clapper's congressional testimony
- Frank Spinney's congressional testimony
- OPM's federal employment statistics
- Naval History and Heritage Command (USN inventory)
- Arsenal of Airpower: USAF Inventory
- FY2010 DoD Green Book on national defense estimates
- World Bank

These are all primary sources so I doubt the substance of your objections about my sources. My conclusions are based on the numbers provided by these sources.

[Fuchs]

You mean relative "economic superiority" since US GDP growth is outpacing the growth of the DoD budget.

That is a very, very recent development.
The spending craze of the Bush Jr administration when the U.S. applied its classic strategy (of throwing resources at a problem till it drowns) looked very different.

http://blogs.cfr.org/geographics/201...ense-spending/

[Ken White]

These are all primary sources so I doubt the substance of your objections about my sources. My conclusions are based on the numbers provided by these sources.

I'm sure you do doubt, no surprise there. However, after listening to, reading and watching all those you cite and / or their predecessors, cohorts, sycophants and fellow travelers as a highly interested and even involved party for a great many years, I'm far more comfortable with my assessment of their questionable overall credibility on the matters at hand.

Even OPM. As a former DAC and Civil Service retiree as well as a military retiree, they. IMO, are probably the most credible source you cite and they are far from being error or bias free. They, like most of the others, have to agree (or strongly disagree, individually and incumbent administration political party dependent) with each current administration no matter what they believe or think

Question everything, not just things that annoy you. Agendas abound...

[Dayuhan]

As I have repeatedly stated, this has nothing to do with the first part of my analysis which, I stress again, is about measuring US military capacity.

And as I have repeatedly stated, I see no point in measuring military capacity in ways that do not measure capacity against actual or realistically expected threats. The point is to have as much as you need, not as much as you once had. Maintaining or buying more capacity than needed is in itself an economic threat.

To be frank, it looks a bit like you've selected study parameters that make the outcome a foregone conclusion: the desired end point seems to be that US capacity to purchase military power is declining, that this represents a great threat to our security, and that the economy, the military procurement system, and possibly a few other things are broken and need to be fixed.

I'll be interested to see what repairs you recommend.

Question everything, not just things that annoy you. Agendas abound...

Amen.

[AmericanPride]

I thought I'd address some recent developments, given the inclusion of the 1% reduction in military pensions in the FY14 budget. SECDEF Hagel claims that reform of the military pay system is necessary because of runaway growth. Let's examine that claim.



Here is the DoD TOA from FY48 to FY18. The budget categories are operations and maintenance (O&M), military personnel (milper), procurement (pro), and research and development (RDT&E). The other category includes retirement, military construction, and other miscellaneous expenditures. The two most evident trends: (1) the growth of O&M as a proportion of the DoD budget from 34% to 40% from FY48 to FY14; and (2) the shrinking of milper as a proportion from 45% in FY48 to 26% in FY14.

As seen in previous posts, the number of active duty uniformed personnel has declined dramatically from a peak of over 3.5 million to a little over 1.5 million. Simultaneously, the dollars spent on military personnel, when adjusted for inflation, has remained relatively steady when controlled for the Vietnam War, Reagan’s military buildup, and the War on Terrorism. The DoD budget, when adjusted for inflation, up until several years ago was higher than at any time during the Cold War. As the TOA increased, must of the gains were captured by O&M while personnel costs remained relatively stable.

Here is the O&M budget as a proportion of DoD TOA since FY48.



The end of Vietnam, the Cold War, and the Iraq War have done little to slow the growth of O&M as a proportion of the DoD budget; in fact, it probably encouraged it. With every drawdown, it's personnel, not operations and maintenance, that are cut. But the gains made by O&M in the budget when the US enters a new conflict are not restored to pay and benefits. This has been true since 1965. The comparison is more stark when we look at the 3 year averages of O&M and military personnel expenditures.



Nine of the last ten years have seen the lowest military personnel spending 3-year averages since FY48. In contrast nine of ten years of highest O&M expenditures were between FY02 and FY14. Are benefits being cut to protect the O&M budget? I think it's pretty clear, given that the other budget categories are relatively untouched. But is this necessarily a bad thing?

I think in light of the data in the previous posts highlighting the increased service costs but decreased combat capacity, the answer is an unqualified "yes". It seems to me that before long we won't have anyone to operate or maintain the latest generations of warships, aircraft, and armored fighting vehicles because it's becoming increasingly expensive to actually operate and maintain them. And the equipment that is fielded won't be in sufficient number to address the wide array of threats that the services say we need them for.