Transcripts For CSPAN Heritage Discussion On U.S. Military Strength 20240711

Foundations executive Vice President dr. Kim holmes. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Heritage Foundation. Welcome to all of you here in the auditorium and everyone online as well. Its a great pleasure for us to be back in the building of the Heritage Foundation. We have been away for some time teleworking. This is my first day back for a while, but i am very pleased to be back here today for this very important event of launching the Heritage Foundations 2021 index of u. S. Military strength. This is the seventh addition of the index and the index has become one of Heritage Foundations flagship publications. Our goal is unchanged from the very first issue. It is to provide both the leaders of this country and also premierican public a opensource and authoritative assessment of Americas Armed forces and their ability to protect the nation. Our goal is unchanged from the very first issue. Its to provide both the leaders of this country, and also the American Public a premier open source and authoritative assessment of Americas Armed forces and their ability to protect the nation. On i think that weve not only achieved that ball but we have continued with this effort this years addition is the best ever. In addition to its usual breadth of subjects our index always incorporates new National Security concerns one of these is the emerging concern of space, and the work of the new space source. We have a chapter on space this year and we look forward to hearing more from dakota, would the editor of the index Office Material in his presentation later. On today as part of our index launch we warmly welcome our speaker with decades of experience and events matters, representative Mac Thornberry. A native texan, he was first elected into congress in 1984. And has supported a Strong National defense since. He is currently the Ranking Member of the house on Services Committee and he has served as the Committee Chairmen into thousand 15 and 2019. He has sponsored or cosponsored a number of bills to make the department of defense not only more effective, but also more innovative and its work. He has consistently endeavor to ensure our Armed Services receive the funding the need to mend the nation. Congressman thornberry has made it his mission to help educate the American Public about his military. An end to that, and he has written extensively about the importance of our military and its status. There is quite simply no other member of congress who is more respected on respected or thoughtful on defense matters. It therefore comes or should come as no surprise that this years National Defense authorization act is actually named after him. On mr. Thornberry is retiring from congress this year. So we are grateful to have the opportunity to hear his thoughts about how he sees the military in years to come. Its now my great pleasure to welcome congressman Mac Thornberry to the stage. Thank you doctor holmes. I appreciate that very kind introduction. And i would also like to congratulate the defense team here at heritage for producing the 2021 index of military strength. It is always quite an undertaking, and an accomplishment that gives all of us a better understanding of where we are and what we face. I think the 2021 snapshot is important in its own right but its particularly helpful because its the seventh one and it helps us all see trends and where we are not making up ground perhaps the way we should. They make the point that in the National Security equation what we can control is us and our capabilities. We should not hide from a candid objective analysis of exactly where we are. To me, the fundamental point here is we are not where we should be. Or to put it another way. The federal government is not fulfilling its first responsibility to the American People, and to future generations to provide for the comment defense. Now of course, that doesnt mean that the story is all negative as the report shows. We have definitely made up some ground recently on readiness, but there are still some significant gaps. We have accelerated our development of essential technologies and applications of them. But were not yet outpacing our adversaries the way we should. Well congress has given the Department New tools and authorities, and in some instances they are being used to greater effect, there is still too much resistance to change. Both in the department and within congress. So with this impressive body of work before us my mind naturally goes to okay what we do about it. So i thought i might offer a way out of public life as dr. Combs mentioned. That i might offer a suggested to do list, for congress, for the executive legislative branch, and for the National Security team at large. Ive had to narrow it down to the top ten. Obviously, im just going to be able to give some headlines. But these are to me, the ten things that we should work on to try to improve our situation. Item number one is key people first. The demographics, the skills we need, the importance of families in career decisions. The training and professional educational card. The standards for training all of that is changing. And yet if we get the people, wrong none of the rest of it is going to matter much. Number one i have to say keep people first. Number two is to provide stable, reliable funding that grows at three to 5 above inflation. I think the National Defense Strategy Commission had it exactly right. Thats what it takes to defend the country, and if we choose to do less than that than on has to shoulder the blame for the consequences. And just because we are in one again, i have to say no crs regardless of the amount at the continuing resolution, it does damage every time. And i can give you a laundry list of ways this cr will do damage if it goes past number two, provide greater flexibility of funding. The days of reading hundreds of days of requirements, going on a bid on who can build that precise thing. Having protests and then buying thousands of them over years, those things are vastly going by the wayside. Congress. Especially the appropriators have to get more comfortable with a kind of money being available for a particular purpose, and then full transparency on how those funds are used. Flexibility is the key to help attract more suppliers to do business with the department of defense, to overcome that infamous valley of death, to enable more prototypeing and experimentation, and to get technology in the field faster. Sticking to traditional approaches makes all of those things much harder. Item number four is be relentless in changing whatever needs to be changed to get the best technology that our country can produce into the hands of the war fighters faster. That means the whole resources of the nation have to be brought to bear. Private industry and academia, as well as a government. Private capital as well as government funding. We have made progress, and hopefully we will make a little more progress in this years nnda that were negotiating in cunning nontraditional suppliers to help, getting small and mid sized Companies Bring their innovation to the table. And help all of that move at a greater rate of speed, but there still a lot more that needs to be done. And i have to say, updating our approaches to things has to go beyond d. O. D. For example, a story in the wall street journal last week says that china is no longer leading the u. S. When it comes to 5g, its running away with the game. And just a few weeks ago, d. O. D. Proposed to gather ideas on other ways we can deploy 5g, and utilize spectrum and you would think that the sky was about to fallen. National security is no longer about planes and tanks and ships, being able to pursue other issues is going to make a huge difference in our countrys ability to defend itself. Now we are down to number five. That is have a lot of public discussion about new technologies, and their applications for defense. In 2011, the then speaker had a test for us on cybersecurity where we had representatives from nine different communities. We were able to come together with a pretty good set of recommendations but just as were releasing the recommendations we had snow leaks, we had wikileaks, and everybody decided that the government was reading your emails to grandma. That made it politically impossible to consider any cyber related legislation in congress for many years. We, the adversaries, dont have any concerns, but we can paralyze ourselves by misinformation or lack of understanding when it comes to artificial intelligence, robotics, Human Performance advancement. So i believe that its important to have a little inoculation with hearings, with think tank seminars, with papers, agreed are public discussion about these technologies. About what they mean and what they dont mean to help prevent this sort of process from setting in. Number six, sure up the Industrial Base. I think we are making significant progress because of covid in understanding how suppliers and components of the various Defense Systems come from, and the vulnerability of some of those things. But its complicated. And we havent gotten our arms around the problem completely. I think our Defense Industrial base has to include trusted companies, and allied partnered nations as well. We need to understand it and it may require some targeted government actions to ensure that it will be available to us. Number seven is nurture our alliances and partnerships. Theres some repair that needs to occur in those relationships. We should be candid about our differences and our expectations when it comes to allies and partners, but a lot of that candid talk can better be handled behind closed doors rather than out in the public. Item number eight on my list is dont neglect the nukes. Im glad to see in this years index that heritage has set aside our Nuclear Deterrent as a category in and of itself. Hes the me be somewhat were terrible in the evaluation of where we are that i would be, because on both the weapons and the Delivery Systems theres absolutely no margin for error. And to be fair, the index notes that. We have allowed everything to age out at once. Im going to say im particularly concerned about where the chinese are headed with their size and capability of their nuclear program. Like a lot of things related to the chinese, we have probably been too complacent when we look at that issue. But all of our other defense efforts for the country rests upon a foundation of a safe, reliable, effective Nuclear Deterrent. And this is another one. If we get this wrong, then probably the rest of these things isnt going to matter much. Item number nine is make every effort to keep defense on partisan. Look, theres always good to be differences on particular issues, but somehow, even through all of this differences, over the Years Congress is and publishes of both party have been able to come together and enact a Defense Authorization bill for 59 straight years. Good lord willing, we will have another 60 years before too long. But that fact in and of itself is important for allies, and adversaries, and especially the men and women who are risking their lives for us. They need to know that the country stands together behind them, in support of their mission. To do that sometimes youve got to bite your tongue. Sometimes have to accept the things that you disagree with sometimes you have to compromise. But we should never forget that the top goal and of russia and other adversaries is to divide, us to sow division. I dont worry about our ability to overcome any outside adversary. The only thing that keeps me up at night are the decisions we make for ourselves. The only ones who can defeat the United States are americans, ourselves. With item number ten, every one of us must make a concerted effort to educate and remind each other the reasons that a Strong Defense is important. By any measure, the last 70 years has been a time of unmatched human progress. Life expectancy, living standards, poverty rate, the number of people to say in the government. The number of people who have been killed in war. Any metric you use highlights the last 70 years has been special. I believe all of that progress was made possible by two basic decisions headed states made after world war ii, to keep a Strong Defense and state engaged in the world. And yet today, both of these decisions are under attack in both political parties. Im afraid that too many of us have lost sight of what it takes to keep this unparalleled eight prosperity and security. Too many people dont realize its not just our safety, its our jobs, our quality of life, our whole society the depends on the security that is provided by the u. S. Military. Ronald reagan said that all great change in america begins around the dinner table. So if i could weave a magic wand and get only one of the ten items that im suggesting for my to do list it would be to have a conversation around every dinner table in america but what we achieved over the last 70 years. But it took to achieve it. The sacrifice that has been made. And the dangers of letting it all slip away. If we are negligent, im afraid that our children and maybe ourselves, are going to inhabit a world that is less prosperous, more dangerous, and that we could even see civilization step backward as has happened before in history. The United States of america is the greatest force for good in the history of the world. We are the indispensable nation because americans decided we have to be. The alternative was too terrible now we have to decide whether to continue, or to abandon those two crucial decisions that have guided us, with both parties for the last 70 years, and has done so much, not just for ourselves, but for all of mankind. As i depart congress, i hope and i pray that we choose wisely. Thank you. Congressman thornberry, thank you very much for that passionate reminder of how important National Defense is to really get our american way of life. I mean it touches everything about our experience as americans, our history, and unfortunately our future. We were talking of course before we came on here shortly about 2001, and i remember on september 13th i think it was, 2001, downstairs in a auditorium before this auditorium was built i had to bring the Heritage Foundation staff together but two days before the attack, the smoke was still rising from the pentagon at the time. There were people crying. It was a shock. It was a similar situation where we had taken a vacation from the world for about a decade in this so called peace dividend of the 19 nineties. We thought that we could kind of come home and go back to normal, and of course the normal is as precisely as you described it, we have to remain engaged, we have to remain strong. Thats normal and thats what has given us peace for over 70 years and i thank you very, very much for that statement. Now we get to turn to a very special event. On behalf of the Heritage Foundation, our president , it is my pleasure to integrate a new Heritage Foundation award. An award that we call the guardian of the gate award. The Heritage Foundations guardian of the gate award will recognize careers in the Public Service with emphasize on supporters for our armed forces. If you think about it, again it is a twoway thing. Obviously, the things that are bad must be stopped getting past the gate. But joseph to let the good in as well. You have to be able to commit freely. In some cases, even be welcomed. A guardian is constantly vigilant in meeting this challenge by guarding the gate of our nations interest. Support and honor those who have carried this heavy responsibility throughout their careers, and who have distinguished themselves and their charge of the guardian of the public trust. We can think of no better honor than to be the first recipient of the Heritage Foundations guardian award. Representative thornberry, many years of service to our country and congress, and youre unaware foring support to this nations military makes this award a unique and fitting tribute to your accomplishments. America is safer in the world because of you, and because of your efforts. And we thank you for your dedication and your leadership over the course of your very long career. You have been a inspiration to the Heritage Foundations work you see here from the military index which was very much inspired by the collaboration with the over the years. But we also look forward to your continued impact on defense issues even after you leave congress. You have been a true guardian of the gate. Will you please join me in picking up your award . [applause] [inaudible] were going to shift onto the part of the program here where we talk about index. What a honor it has been to have congressman thornbury with us especially at the beginning of his stellar career, continued interaction not only with the Heritage Foundation but the American People on the important topic of military strength. When i would like to do is talk about the impacts, touch very briefly and then we will get into what the index says about the state of military power. And what we try to keep in mind is that you can have a discussion about a ship, a, plane or a tank, and whether you want five santa or ten. What is out there in the world . Is it easy to work in the . World more difficult to work in the world . Are your competitors very aggressive or less so. That really tells you whether you need more military power or less. So its that context, and we tried to provide within the contract of the index itself. So as mentioned in many ways we have a military for a reason. Its not for a parade or looking at or providing appointment opportunities. Its for defending the country. Going all the way, back if you have any history buff in the audience, im going to butcher the name there, but all the way back to the fifth century a. D. , a roman philosopher talked about if you want peace prepare for war. In various leaders sconed that s ways for centuries. On in when you think about the funding that country. If you go back to our constitution defending the country and keeping a safe is one of the few specify tasks of the federal government. It gets involved and a lot of things that it wants to do, and to play well with a popular electorate. But one of the very few things that it must to defend the country. So new talk about defense budgets, its not a nice to have, think its a obligatory function of government and again we have to start thinking about who we support. We spend lots of money on our military. 700, 740 billion. We run deficits because of the tax revenue in income and how we are spending the money, and the additional obligations we take on, but thats a lot of money. But we wanted to hear from heritage just explain to the American People what they are getting on. Are they getting a competent, criti so we illustrate that within the index. We believe that in surveying the landscape there is no other comparable effort undertaken by anyone, especially on the public domain. Scholars to bring together insights on the nature of the world, the nature of military, and to write this in a accessible way. Its footnoted throughout. Ill give you statistics in just a minute. But we want to make the American People and for him to make staff and members of congress informed. These are conversations that need to be heard or had and people have some idea of what theyre talking about. It can come from a comment from a reference, and this again is another purpose for the front of index. Im going to go through a lot of slides here. Im no expecting a reviewers to try to look at all of the dots and graphs, all of the graphics are available on the website, heritage that orgs lash military. Couple tabs that are easy to find. If you really want to dive into any of the graphics just click on the, linked it opens right up, you can download and chair, would have you. But by the, number 20 others contributed their talent to make this thing possible. Nearly 2000 footnotes, such a big deal in such a scholarly world . Its because we are seeing, something providing characterizg someone in one way, whats the south korean army doing, United States army, great britain, we link that to a source that you the reader can take your time and read through it, peak your curiosity and read the same thing that we are reading and perhaps ravage your own conclusions. So this for noting as a great way to lend credibility and a reference to the index. Its replete with graphics throughout with maps and charts, and all sorts of things, tables, 62 of those in addition to all of the programs that are looked at as well. You heard mentioned earlier today about the major acquisition programs. But what is the status of those . Things are the amtrak . Are they reducing the issue . We address those components as well. Since we have the index, we distribute but a useful mechanism to help inform the debate. To talk about things that are really important to National Security and the status, and the use of military power. So again i talk about a tenth. What does that really mean . Can i make more of them . You have a Industrial Base . Am i experimenting . David training regiment in place to make sure that my tank crew is effective . How do our tanks late to other tanks of other countries . In each edition of the index we provide four to six essays that address certain topics. Whether it is a operational concept, talent management, mobility. In the set right here we have a sales that have been written on the status of the american Intelligence Community. On strategic mobility. John did a great essay. If you need to get military power for the United States and how authorities have a reset for . That dr. Harry has provided us with a excellent essay on alliances. We talked a lot about alliances and what they can provide. So weve got a very easy to read as a say on that. Jeremy has provided one about the Industrial Defense base and its ability to serve production and to make up that we might see, and finally the general has address this idea that we might see of navy and army marines, will they play well together . Are we developing ways to utilize military power thats much more effective than it would be otherwise in the world of experimentation as with thats all about. Who really understand it . Not many people. Tsa did a fine job in addressing those kinds of things. I mentioned the programs. Again, dont try to read the slide. You can download it and try to look at it at your leisure but for every additional additive weathers 15 fighter or world class destroyer, whats the status of that current capability . How old is it . How many do we have . We have a new capability coming along the line to replace those sorts of things . Is it under funded . Is it problematic or is it doing very well . So for each one of the services, hundred four of these are programs. We have made this readily accessible to the public and we hope that you spent some time looking at that. Finally, as we look at this front matter its really thinking about military power and understanding what that means. For me, the big takeaways are always time, temporal component. How long it actually takes to do things in the world of military affairs and acceptable risk. If i had the ability to generate power overnight, then perhaps a link to take some risk and not funding one thing or fun Something Else because i know i can quickly catch up. But thats not the reality of defense matters. It takes five years to develop a aircraft here. Two years to develop surface worship. The army can just establish a Brigade Combat Team almost overnight to get it back together again. To make sure that it is run well and competent and takes two and a half years. So this idea of time really infuses the entire document. We know that in utilizing military power, this is always a political decision. If you dont have the military available to use, that option has been taken off the table. And if the person youre trying to influence or guard against is not wanting to come to a table to talk about this in a very diplomatic way, or if they want to try to impose Economic System on the world that is to our disadvantage and you dont have a military option that would buttress diplomacy, and make aligning with the United States a very good idea economically, then you find yourself really shorthanded. So thinking about military power, how events in the world continue to confirm events in historical realities that the world is a dynamic place. The chief competing interests, competing powers that are looking for their own room, their own access to resources whether its fisheries or gold mines or what have you, its going to result in friction, and countries and regions pushing against each other. So if you want to shape things in a direction that benefits you as a country, and your friends and allies. If you want to deter bad behavior, if you want to mitigate risks because you cannot predict the future you have to have some heading strategy. And a strong, Capable Military that needs requirements, that again, history shows are consistent across time is one way to deal with our world. A good way to deal with our world. Again, if you have peace, preparing for war so it deters a competitor from taking action against you. It reassures allies to make sure that you have prosperity and security at home and we hope to shape a more orderly world that helps to benefit so many people around the world. So if you are going to go to the executive summary in the stock meant, it would quickly highlight the pieces that we talk about. The world is operating environment. Is it easy or difficult for the United States to do the kinds of things in needs to do to defend its interests . Can you assure a ally when you cant get there or you dont have a military presence there and theyre not good but a lot of stock on political or diplomatic promises because you know nothing to put back them up . We look at the status of our allies and partners, our experience in working in various regions, again is it easy or hard . Again, in that perspective the world is a favorite place. It eases or aids the abilities within when we do have to respond to a crisis we are better able to do that then if we were stuck here, isolated at home, and you had to create new capabilities abroad. In terms of the threat and permit, we are sure that everybody tracks the news headlines. How rapidly is China Growing and expanding its military capabilities . What has russia been up to in the middle east . Specifically in syria and Northern Africa and incredible where it had taken away from the country of ukraine is supporting separatist rebels in the antarctic region. So we see these big major countries that are very restive, they are very confident and aggressive in pushing forward with their own capabilities, and regardless of their own Economic Situation back home, for them it appears that it is important enough to dedicate a significant amount of their military resources to develop military capabilities and imperfect them. So militarily, theyre incorporating technologies in a hyper velocity munitions, fits generation stealth aircraft. All of these things that we talk about here in the United States that are important to the conduct of modern warfare to prepare for the future. Or competitors are doing the same thing. Solely find across the board with china, russia, north korea, and iran in particular are very confident, forward leaning, aggressive regional actors. So we view the threat standpoint from high, is there war tomorrow . I dont think so. Part of that is because we have had a competent military that cues bad actors from doing bad things. But as you see the military decline it great opportunities for others to step in. As for our military, we dont need to diminish the skills, competence, or willingness for any with the serve. In fact its the opposite. When you have a small military, the people who inhabit the military and make it work become that much the more important. So at the small unit level, leadership level, etc, incredible United States military. So when we talk about marginal u. S. Military, is preparing that military against with the total requirement is. Where do you want to be in the world . We will kind of posture do not have . Do want to be using new equipment or old equipment . How is your Readiness Level . From that standpoint, looking at the desire from our standpoint of having a military establishment that can be won more than one place at a time, so if you have a russia problem and you have a china problem, we dont want to be limited to just focusing on the one, because if you do finding yourself having to get engaged and takes all that you have to do that engagement, than the areas where you cannot be president become a major strategic risk. So this to conflict capacity force allows you to deter if you have to respond, you can do so effectively, while also continued to defer opportunistic behavior in other parts of the world. So when we talk about marginal it really has to do with capacity, the age of the equipment that our military forces are using. And the level to what theyve been able to train not only keep current skills sharp but also to develop new skills as new equipment capabilities come in. Some of the things we just talked about, robotics, energy, those types of things. What weve seen overall in the past few years in particular, tremendous gains in readiness. When you think about shifting from a purely counterterrorism sort of focus, going up against enemies that have no army, no navy, no air power capabilities, the u. S. Military can pretty much do what it wanted to do. The risk really being on the ground and person to person contact. In the big scheme of things you can flow forces with satellites, use bombers, all those things that are at very low risk. Now that we think about this return too great power competition, that is a whole different ball game, it requires different ways, different sorts of training and flying and formations we would put in the field. The funding that we have had up to this point has been invested in trying to make the current military as capable as possible. But modernization has usually been neglected because of that. Quickly going through this, dont try to read the small print, we talk about allies and if you know theres a lot of push on nato members as an example. We could also be talking about japan, south korea and other great allies as well. And trying to push them along to invest more into their own defense capabilities. This chart is taken from nato spending data, it shows there has been improvement in those meeting that nato goal and how much of that has been spent on modernization. Improvements yet most members are still lagging way behind. Some greater investment meaning they are more secure, confident, and it lessens the burden on the United States. Trying to help every one out in key regions not idealistically, though that is part of, it but because american jobs and prosperity are dependent on that as well. Again, an example of us digging into the data, providing some insights into the nature of things. Heres a graphical depiction on some of the spending. It is interesting to see that those countries who are closest to what they consider real threats are more serious about the investments they made in their own National Security posture. The u. S. Separated by oceans, physically separated from some of these very troubled regions, it is a big more challenge to convince the American Public and lawmakers that necessary investments in defense are needed. If we were on the frontlines, facing the competitor with the that say china or russia, the American Public might think differently. Warfare can unfold quickly, we have to push military forces that great range and allies when they are doing what they should be doing, it makes it more of a challenge for just about everybody. Turning to the threat section, these are representative graphics of the nature of the world, as we walk through each region, meaning europe, middle east and the indo pacific, we see with these major competitors are up to. China has really been busy, with their road initiative, in developing their trading relationships, new military presence in african middle east and up into portions of asia. Theyre investing heavily in this capability. What we have shown here on the map is just a representation of physical activity on the ground, to think that the u. S. Can stay home and the world remains a nice and Peaceful Place with lots of trading pavel partners we dont have to invest much, that is nonsense. We have to accept the world as it is and if we been to maintain a positive environment or shape something that would be challenging, you have to be engaged. Our competitors are focused, they are capable and they are active. As we look at a country like iran, 3000 Ballistic Missiles, they have them for some reason and they have them pointed in certain directions. We cannot ignore the ranges of these weapons systems, again it helps to inform our understanding of the capability, capacity and readiness of the u. S. Military if they were going to have to go into a region like this. North korea provides another example. I believe in march alone for this year, conducted nine major missile tests. Developing a submarine launch of Ballistic Missile capabilities, they can easily range to the u. S. Itself. Whether they have ten nuclear weapons, 100 or going into 1000, it is clearly a priority for the north korean regime to invest wet resources they have into these very capable long range offensive systems. It is another indicator that our competitors are not standing still in the u. S. And we cannot afford to do that either. As we turn to a summary of these threats, we talk about two things, one their actual capability, today have modern capable systems, does it appear that they are effective, and then we look at their behavior as well. If they were quiet, perhaps not as big of an issue. Behavior can change on a dime. Are they much more aggressive . This is the type of chart we used to provide a summary for this, what we see is that competitors often exploit opportunity where the u. S. Is absent or we dont have much capability. They do not take a break. Unfortunately for our country, and again, domestic issues back at home that we cannot refuse to take a break. Does that mean we are always on a war footing . Absolutely not. But what you are telling competitors and reassuring allies is that you have the means and wherewithal and the will to engage when and where you need to to support our interest and those around us. To get into the military services, it is all about money. Money not just for money sake but funding makes it possible to replace all the equipment that gets worn out. Stable funding allows the court allows air force pilots to get in to his working aircraft, that it has been fueled up, spare parts have been applied and go out and fly the types of flights that they would need to be effective in combat. As has been discussed, we see this divergence between how much is being spent on the military and the effect of inflation and how we have under invested for a number of years. This isnt something for just the last six or ten, this is a 38 year story. At the end of the cold war with the collapse of the soviet union, we had the happy decade of the nineties where we didnt spent a lot on anything in terms of modernization. Almost ten years of not buying Fighter Aircrafts and yet continuing to fly those airplanes to keep skills up. You are prematurely wearing out those aircrafts without something coming in. 2001 comes in with terrorist attacks in that we have 15 to 20 years of constant operations, dealing with terrorism organizations in different parts of the world. You are continuing to use up those resources that we did have and procured in that 18 but not really replenishing those equipments that need to be done. As you walk through the very services the army is a great example, theyve really dedicated themselves to increase in readiness of the force that they have, knowing that man power is very expensive, they have tried to better proof their skill sets, their readiness and they do have a phenomenal job. In some ways, they are too ready. You could spend a dollar and have another soldier or another unit more ready when perhaps you have some sufficient number of brigades to deal with the world as it is today. And not spend that dollar on replacing a very old piece of armored equipment which is more problematic. Readiness wise, the army is doing great. We think they have probably improved their readiness, even at the expense of modernization programs and incapacity. It again, it is difficult to increase the capacity of the service. We know that based on historical stories, it takes about 21 brigades to fight a war, if you want twice that so that you could do that and still be able to double it, and then some rounding areas for training and units that are not available, that is how we get your number of 50. Right now the army is 31, far short of what the army needs to have. How would they be able to go . Theres recruiting challenges. Funding challenges. And it is something that Army Leadership is aware of. In terms of modernization, one graph for many that are in the army section, talks about how competitors are making Major Investments in improving large wage fire capabilities, whether it is artillery, missile, something along those lines. In the United States, it is not kept pace. What it means on the battlefield, your opponent can engage to a greater distance. You cannot even get close enough to bring your firepower in. Technology brings new capabilities into the marketplace, people use those things to see if they can improve their military posture. Competitors have been serious about this and we have not made the same sort of progress in the last few years. One more example, this is about the army in particular. It is illustrative to services at large. That has to do with the cost of inflation. If you keep funding level, when it goes to a surface, inflation is on the rise, purchasing power of that dollar that you received just does not give you as much as he used to get. We went back with a study to 1870 and in the vietnam era and found that the price of a tank has increased three times the rate of inflation. Ships and aircraft have increased five times the rate, if you want to encrypt the average soldier with the new weapons system, communication system, it takes 16 times the rate of inflation to equip that soldier than it did 1970. The American Public is not just apprized of how these things are occurring within the world of National Security. We find ourselves today with the military that is too small for what we expected to do, and it continues to use old equipment. Heres an example from the navy. This is various types of ships and it shows how much lifespan is associated with each one of these platforms. What we have today is a navy with fewer than 300 ships and half of those ships that are greater than 20 years old. I dont know how many of you take vacations in a car that is 20 years old, most people would want to do that. Our young sailors are out there with equipment that is 20 and 30 years old. On this line, there is a ten year mark. You would think that them it takes two to three years to bring a new Surface Combatant platform, if we have to introduce new submarines to replace the old ones, this element of time and Stable Funding does not paint a pretty picture. And then when we think about the world, i mentioned this earlier, it takes about three weeks to get naval power from the u. S. To where it might be used, the indian ocean, south china sea, ships can move 30 knots, 35 not so how many hours do you need to cross the notion that could be 3000 miles wide . Again, this element of time, if you dont have forces deployed, it takes a good long while to get them there. Have those 300 ships you have the navy which has only 100 available on a daily basis, of those 100 perhaps 60 are deployed into the pacific, 60 United States ships going up against the chinese navy of 350 ships, quickly growing to 400 the next few years. Also, it is their home train so they have all the land based capabilities that can affect operations. When you start juggling these numbers, you see that it is aging capability. We soon find ourselves at five or six to one disadvantage when you compare our capabilities with those competitors who we would be going up against. On the air force side, it is 47 capacity, just under half the capacity we, in 2017, it was the first time in the history of the United States air force that we spent more on research and development than and buying new airplanes. So when we consider for a moment that the average air force fighter is 30 years old, with the air force has decided to do is focus 20 years down the road in their r d efforts and holding at risk current modernization like corrupt problems with an air force half a size for the used to have. We think that is problematic. There is a reality in the services in terms of racing, it is great power competition. But we havent really made the changes necessary to come up to speed on that. They are currently unable to meet the full refuelling requirements, given theiry age and yet the casey 46 has significant problems. Therefore still is deciding to retire existing, replacements which has really been in the field that you have to question some of the decisionmaking processes behind that. One more example. Flight hours. If youre not driving youre not gonna be a good driver, if youre not shooting youre not gonna be a good sportsman, were not flying a aircraft you dont really gain and regain, and sustain those skills of being competent in a combat environment. Just put organs on target to defend yourself or fight against the opposing aircraft. What we have seen is a decline in the number of flight hours per air force pilot for the past couple of years. So we would just want to wake folks up to the reality of, that during the cold war, air force naval pilots would fly upwards of 200 plus hours per year. If they were at 1 50 or so they were not considered deployable, but that number is where we are at today and it is on the decline. Again, the individual people are fantastic. The rate at which we are funding the military to give them better equipment, debility to train at the level they need to train at, and to have larger capacity so we arent prematurely wearing at the force is where we are, and why we have assessed we have a marginal military at the moment. But the marine corps is a fascinating story and it is doing its own great reorientation. It feels that given the size of the service, were the United States needs capability and it has to be within this weapons engagement zone. The ability of Chinese Forces to really dominate a broad. You might hear military terminologies talk about the if you look at the map around the first china see there is this area that is kind of banded by mainland and violence and all. Because of modern weapons and those capabilities, and extremely difficult to operate in the kind of world, and marines have decided they want to do that. But recognizing that funding is probably not going to increase from their perspective, they are going to have to make these payments of divesting old equipment thats relevant in that kind of warfare, in order to develop new capabilities that equipments. So you are training current things to those types of things that you think are going to be essential and is distributed warfare environment. When i was in the marine several years ago the infantry numbers were 27. The budget control act of 27 kicked, in dropped from 24 to 21. They rebuilt back to 24 but the come number has indicated that the government going to reduce against 21. So again when you look at averages of warfare when the marine corps is needed to invest 15 to 16 battalions on all infrastructure to fight big battles. If you only have 21 it doesnt really give you the ability to go big and have sustained operations in the face of opposition overtime. Another indicator. As congressman thornbury at mentioned, we really spent a lot of time looking at Nuclear Capabilities on this chart shows you when a strategic system was introduced into the force, when it was projected to exit, those little circles on bring it up on the computer and home, and we are italians today. Virtually the entirety of the u. S. Nuclear weapons and delivery capabilities are outdated, and yet we continue to extend them as we continue to have this debate. In the United States about Nuclear Power, nuclear weaponry, nuclear and whether this remains violent. For me in the same year, if russia, china and north korea are investing heavily in Nuclear Capabilities and iran seems to be a aspirational Nuclear Power there must be value to that. So if we want to continue to extend the Nuclear Assurance and provide Nuclear Deterrence against those who may wish to oppose their own will, we simply have to modernize our Nuclear Capabilities. As a move to Ballistic Missile defense, a great graphic that shows us where we have capabilities, and more importantly where we do not. If you want to get a weapon before it gets into a hard to engage zone in the United States or where its screaming at the target, wed like to get it while its still at the platform or in the portion of its rise or its ascent into orbit. But right now we have no capability. We theres a practical reason for that. How do you get in close enough so that the weapony would want to use against the target is able to do that . But theres also a political problem. That means that youre executing a strike on someone sovereign territory, which seems to be a bit different than taking out eight missile in midflight. But the problem becomes more pronounced the further along the missile gets towards a target, perhaps in the United States. We feel that we have a shortfall in the boost phase, melissa dyck defense option that really needs to be looked at. Finally as we look at space capabilities, but extraordinary shift from a pure military world to commercial launch vehicles. We are lifting more things in the coming year with our commercial partners here in the u. S. Than we have ever seen before. Its really the story of 2020 with excellent trend lines. Its still a sliver though. I think the congressman had mentioned in shifting u. S. Air force personnels operations into the u. S. Space force, but that is just half of what exists in the department of defense. You still have another 20,000 personnel in the army and navy that we would need to conquer it some way if we want to have comprehensive, cohesive sort of space capability, and that doesnt address the different agencies and the Intelligence Community which really ought to be looked at as. Well its a good news story overall. Me in conclusion, i would like to ask or talk with audiences as, well people are usually looking for easy answers for difficult problems. With i mentioned, a 30year story that post 2001 our military was consuming every dollar it received in current operations. Nations, fuel, replacing blown up equipment, dealing with the medical problems that come with men and women in harms way. So not a lot was spent modernizing u. S. Military capabilities. So what we need to do moving forward is just acknowledge to the public that easy answers arent here. On the stopping the business of continuing resolutions which absolutely disrupts, funding and programs, actually wastes money overtime is really something we need to get away from. Theres also the reality that the world suggests it on its hunches waiting for the United States to do something, there are other agendas that. Playing a very dynamic and not static affair. There are always new opportunities and challenges so we have to account for. So to think that we blocked one airplane in one year and that we fix the military problem, just doesnt make sense. Each new year brings new opportunities and challenges, and our defense spending patterns need to account for that. With the military is a central tool. Not that we are right to be dominant in every measure. Not that we use the military as a bludgeon but the military is seen as capable and ready to respond to challenges of u. S. Interests and those of our allies is actually a back stop. It enhances the power of diplomacy. And it ensures trading partners, make sure that the notice has access to markets. That the people can move freely, and not be challenged by countries like china who may be wanting to dominate and oppose their own ideologies, those sorts of things. Importantly, effective military power cant be constituted. It cant be generated on a very short notes. If we have one aircraft final Assembly Facility in texas, thats the only facility of its kind in the country or the world. If theres only one shipyard that builds aircraft carriers it tells you it kind of gives you an idea of how quickly we would be able to respond to replace something that may be damaged. And the answer to that is not very quickly at all. On so military affairs take time. They take consistent, sustained funding, and the attention of congress and any me how much military power we need is really dependent on the capabilities of our allies. Theyve been investing. Its very dependent on the capability of our competitors. Much more capable today than theyve been in the past. Much more aggressive and confident and finally those who have reached in the heavens past. So we will leave that the military we have is populated with great people and really has been focused with approving that which you have seen it in the last two or three years, it remains too small for the world as it is. On and the task before. It its still settled with old equipment that has to be recapitalized and replaced, and that will take sustained funding. Everything from the new bomber to the b21 muse, ships coming in, and that would be in addition to new things like unmanned systems, all the things that we talk about. A future war will be like. They arent here yet, so it appears that capabilities today remain as important with ever have been. So that is the message that we have for todays 2021s index. The world is a pretty good placed operate in. Our competitors are much more capable and aggressive than they have been in the last several years, the United States military is doing the absolute best it can with the resource it has but its probably two thirds this as it should be. Any to replace aging equipment and trains to the people we have are able to do what we expect them to do with lower risk and greater effectiveness. On an so john i think you mention no questions on that. We appreciate your time today. Everything that i talk about is in there, its a wonderful website, its attracted Something Like 3. 3 Million Viewers or page views over the last few years and we ask you to really check that out. On and these briefing slides if anyone is interested in them, will also be posted to the website when the final video, on this particular presentation is posted on. Me this for tuning in. Thanks for congressman thornberry for his crew effort in supporting the journal,s washington every day we are taking your calls on the air of the news of the day and the policy issues that impact you. Morning, thes state of the Republican Party following the 2020 elections. Then john lawrence, the former chief of staff to nancy pelosi talks about House Democrats agenda and this weeks leadership agenda. Watch washington journal is 7 00 a. M. Eastern and join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages, and tweets. Morning, a second panel holds a confirmation hearing for three nominees to the federal election commission. Wat live coverage from the Senate Committee at cspan. Org, or the free cspan radio app. Cspan, yourching unfiltered view of government, created by americas Cable Television company as a Public Service and brought to you by your television provider. Actinghe pentagon, defense secretary Christopher Miller outlined plans to draw down u. S. Troops in afghanistan and iraq by midjanuary to less than 3000 Service Members in each country. The announcement came nearly a week after secretary miller replaced mark esper as the head of the Defense Department under the direction of president trump. Im chris miller, acting secretary of defense and im here today to update you on president trumps plan to bring the wars in afghanistan and iraq to a successful and responsible conclusion and to bring our brave serce