"Hollow force," a
term coined in the post-Vietnam War era, describes a military force
that lacks the resources to field trained and ready forces, to
support ongoing operations, and to modernize. With mandatory
spending in the U.S. budget projected to increase significantly in
the coming years, the armed forces may well face a tightening
budget. The concern at hand is future defense funding and whether
that funding will be adequate to prevent the return of the hollow
force.
The Heritage
Foundation recently invited Daniel Goure, Vice President of the
Lexington Institute; Col. Chip Leonard (Ret.), Associate Director
for Manpower and Training at the Rand Corporation's Arroyo
Institute; and General Dennis Reimer, former Army Chief of Staff
(Ret.), to address the hollow force. The panel discussed whether
the United States military has adequate resources to educate and
train properly service members in order to maintain a combat-ready
force.
The panelists
agreed on the need for improvements to ensure combat readiness in
future uncertain strategic environment. They disagreed, however, on
the current state of the military. Goure pointed to withering
resources and inadequate spending on training as signs that the
military is already becoming hollow. Leonard and Reimer asserted
that current training and education practices were adequate for
maintaining a combat-ready force.
Hollowed
Out
In future
contingencies, U.S. forces will operate more frequently outside the
borders of conventional conflict and will be deployed to less
familiar areas. "Unforeseen conditions are going to be the future,"
Goure explained.
Goure painted a
grim picture of the long-term consequences that reduced spending
will have on training for these new circumstances. To remedy the
training problem, he suggested that the Defense Department train
more specialists in a wider variety of fields, while strengthening
core competencies and forming alliances in key regions. He added
the military's curriculum currently overemphasizes language skills
and culture education at the expense of "core competencies."
"Adding language training, culture training, civil affairs, good
governance, law, and sociology to the curriculum for the military
is the wrong way to go about [military training]," he
explained.
Something Old, Something New
With operations
becoming increasingly varied, the military leaders must adapt and
acquire new skills. While core characteristics the military seeks
should remain the same, Leonard argued for broadening tactical and
operational skills and enhancing critical thinking abilities of
military leaders. The Defense Department must provide higher
education opportunities, practical exercise tools, and incentives
for lengthened careers to ensure the development of future leaders,
he explained.
Better Than Ever
Gen. Reimer
offered a unique perspective since he served during the last hollow
force. That experience shaped his thinking when he later became
Army Chief of Staff. "When I took over as Chief in [19]95, the one
thing that worried me that most was how do you prevent the Army
from becoming a hollow army," he said.
Reimer is
optimistic about the future of the armed forces. The military is in
the greatest shape ever, he explained. Equipment is in good
condition, the U.S. military has the best leadership the country
has ever seen, and tough, realistic training prepares soldiers for
duty overseas. The quality of the force must decline significantly
before the force becomes hollow, according to Reimer.
Pay Now or Really Pay Later
The United States
military cannot afford to wait until it faces a crisis to act.
Although the panelists disagreed as to when the U.S. military may
become hollow, they did agree that the costs associated with
preventing the problem of a hollow force are far less than the
costs of resolving it.
James
Jay Carafano is Senior Research Fellow for
Defense and Homeland Security, Alane
Kochems is Policy Analyst for National Security,
and David D. Gentilli is a Research Assistant, in the Douglas and
Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the
Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International
Studies, at The Heritage Foundation. Alexis Rudakewych, an
intern in the Davis Institute, contributed to this paper.