If it can do so without partisan rancor, the incoming Congress ought to take a hard look at the readiness of the nation's armed forces. There is cause for concern that the military, particularly the Army, is not fully prepared to carry out the varied missions it could be called on to accomplish. The answer may be that it is capable of doing anything it is realistically called on to do. So the first question for Congress, and for civilian and military leaders in the Pentagon, is: Ready for what?
Present military doctrine calls for armed forces capable of fighting two regional conflicts at the same time. What's the likelihood of that happening? Even if the odds are against it, there's the possibility a Saddam Hussein would be tempted to attack a neighbor in the belief a preoccupied U.S. couldn't respond. An Army that is strained by the airlift to Kuwait and rescue operations like Rwanda followed quickly by the Haiti occupation may not be able to fight even a substantial regional conflict.
Part of the blame for the inadequate readiness of some front-line Army units is Congress' dilatory handling of supplemental appropriations to pay for the unexpected overseas operations. Still, when the Army has to dip even temporarily into funds for training and equipment to pay for missions like this year's, its budget is tight. Whether it is too tight in the light of the nation's foreign obligations is something a defense-minded but also economy-minded Republican majority needs to ponder.
Yet the recent focus on readiness of Army units slated for immediate deployment or quick reinforcement misses a key point. Even crack units at peak readiness are not effective unless they get to the trouble spot quickly and can be reinforced and resupplied efficiently. Neither the military's airlift capacity nor sealift capability is up to that task. In a serious threat to a vital U.S. interest, ground forces could be moved with a wartime effort. But for lesser challenges, moving the sort of overwhelming force now demanded in U.S. military doctrine would be a daunting task.
One answer is pre-positioning heavy equipment and supplies at key points, as is being done in the Persian Gulf and has long been the practice in Europe. But an Army that can't keep its first-line units prepared for all contingencies doesn't have money to spare for duplicate armaments.
It all comes down to money. President Clinton has already scrambled to provide $25 billion more over the next six years. Congress needs to decide whether it's well spent and sufficient.