I think it's more a function of the military being asked to do too much for too long... maintenance and training get pushed to the side when operational costs take precedence.
But there comes a point where no amount of maintenance will help. The equipment is simply old.
There is a reason companies like FedEx and UPS generally replace their vehicles after 5 years. It literally gets to the point where maintaining the older equipment takes more work (and ultimately money) than simply replacing them. And that is the point we are at now. As soon as we fix one part, another part breaks.
And for a great deal of this equipment, it has not been made in decades. So we are paying civilian contractors to "re-manufacture" the old parts, which is never as good as the original. And by now, a great many coming back as replacement parts have been rebuilt 4 and 5 times.
One of my Privates and I walked the motor pool this weekend to inspect the M-998 HMMWVs (we had 5 of them). And I asked him to point out the ones that were younger than he was. He thought I was pulling his leg (he is 22), until after checking all 5, the newest one was built in 1989 (the oldest in 1986).
Yes, maintenance can be pushed back. But you can also only push back actual replacement for only so long.
Fighting Islamic extremism doesn't require a big conventional footprint, though. It's not like a big Reagan-style Cold War military waiting for the Soviets to cross over into the Fulda Gap with nothing to fill the time but train and do maintenance. We need a military that's lean, mean, and dispersed. That means more emphasis on intelligence and surveillance, logistical support and pinpoint raids by Special Forces... and probably less emphasis on more traditional muscle-bound conventional options like armored, artillery, and infantry units.
Most of the equipment in use during the early Reagan era was younger than what the military is expected to use today.
For example, the M1A1 was built from 1980-1996. That means the newest one is 21 years old, the oldest one is 37 years old.
Now let's pick a year from the first Reagan administration, say 1983. What was the main battle tank at that point?
Well, that would be some variant of the M60 Pershing. First fielded in 1961. By 1983, they were 22 years old.
Just think about what that means. The oldest M60 Tank at about the half-way point of Reagan's first term were the age of the newest M1A1 tank in use today.
And no, we do not need a military that's "lean and mean". We have tried that, and it has failed. Lean and mean means that you do not have the manpower and equipment for any kind of sustained operations. That is why even to this day your average PATRIOT crewman spends 1 in 3 years deployed. And people have been getting completely burned out doing 3 deployments in 6 years.
And when equipment breaks down or is lost, there is not enough to replace it so we have holes in our equipment rosters.
Agreed... now we come to the crux of the matter. How much ought we be spending on National Defense? I've done a little analysis on Federal Budgets going back to the Carter Administration, and here is how average spending (by function) as a percentage of GDP looked for each Administration (with the Trump Administration's projections going forward):
Ahhhh, the Robert MacNamera Bean Counting School of Defense.
You know how well that worked out last time, right?
I actually think this strategic shift is what is behind Trump's amping up the pressure on North Korea. On one hand, he's escalating the tensions in the region, but on the other, he's doing nothing to increase our military capabilities in the region.
You have not seen the increased deployments in the region? The increasing of both THAAD and PATRIOT in Japan and South Korea? The increased Naval presence in the region?
But yes, there is little he is really doing to increase the military or military presence. And that is simply because he can't.
He is still working off of the last budget of the Obama Administration.
It is not until next year that he can really start to make changes in budget, allocation, and manpower. Until then, he is stuck using what he was left by the last administration. That is why a great many (like me) have delayed reenlisting until now, to see what the new budget would allow.
