Specter of a “Hollow Force” Called Into Question
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and other officials have warned that if U.S. military spending is cut significantly, the unacceptable result would be a “a hollow force incapable of sustaining the missions it is assigned.”
But a new critique from the Congressional Research Service suggests that the use of the term “hollow force” is inappropriate and unwarranted.
“Historically, there were two periods– post-Vietnam and again in the 1990s– when the term ‘hollow force’ was used to describe the U.S. armed forces.” It referred to “forces that appear mission-ready but, upon examination, suffer from shortages of personnel and equipment, and from deficiencies in training.”
But a close review of the circumstances that generated a hollow force in the past does not support the use of the term today, the CRS said. “Most of the conditions that existed in the 1970s do not exist today.”
Among other things, defense procurement spending has surged in recent years to enable significant modernization of military forces.
“Even if modernization funds become more limited in future defense budgets, overall budget data suggest the Services would enter this period after having invested in modernized forces about as substantially as in the weapons-driven buildup of the 1980s.”
“CRS has calculated that when recent amounts for weapons modernization are compared to amounts in the mid-1980s, the total inflation-adjusted dollar value of relatively modern equipment available to forces today (i.e., equipment purchased within the past 10 years) appears relatively robust.”
“Given these conditions, it can be argued that the use of the term ‘hollow force’ is inappropriate under present circumstances,” the CRS report said.
A copy of the new CRS report was obtained by Secrecy News. See A Historical Perspective on “Hollow Forces,” January 31, 2012.
This rule gives agencies significantly more authority over certain career policy roles. Whether that authority improves accountability or creates new risks depends almost entirely on how agencies interrupt and apply it.
Our environmental system was built for 1970s-era pollution control, but today it needs stable, integrated, multi-level governance that can make tradeoffs, share and use evidence, and deliver infrastructure while demonstrating that improved trust and participation are essential to future progress.
Durable and legitimate climate action requires a government capable of clearly weighting, explaining, and managing cost tradeoffs to the widest away of audiences, which in turn requires strong technocratic competency.
FAS is launching the Center for Regulatory Ingenuity (CRI) to build a new, transpartisan vision of government that works – that has the capacity to achieve ambitious goals while adeptly responding to people’s basic needs.