Threats we face. Our guest is dakota wood, Heritage Foundations Defense ProgramSenior Research fellow, served two decades in the marine corps. Assessing u. S. Military strength, a pretty major undertaking. How does the Heritage Foundation try to do that . Guest we gather all publicly available information we can come across, official testimony from the pentagon, acquisition reports on major programs, general news reporting from the defense reporting community, our own personal contacts in the services and the pentagon and on capitol hill, and we gather all that all year long, go through a several month analysis and writing process, compare last years information to this years information, and then basically issue a report card on the military, and this year on a scale of one to five, we would give it a three, or in the words we use, we call it marginal, and we feel that the u. S. Military writ large is marginally able to meet the demands of u. S. National security requirements, meaning they can handle one major conflict in one part of the world, but not much more than that. We think it needs to be more than that, because the u. S. Has global interests and global responsibilities. Host the u. S. Military budget is increased under the trump administration. Had that made an impact . Guest it actually has. Weve seen that mostly in readiness. Things like building new ships and airplanes, these are multiyear efforts, and it takes a while to expand or grow the size of the military. The same thing on man power, the number of people that you have in there as well. But readiness, where you get people you have with the equipment they have into the field to train and fly and shoot and drive and all those sorts of things, to be competent incident in what theyre doing, that has really improved over the last two or three years. So if we were going to have one high point in this years report card, its increased readiness of the force we currently have. Host its the 2021 index of u. S. Military strength. You can find it at heritage. Org. Thats what were going to talk about in this 45 minutes of the washington journal. Phone lines split up this way. If you want to join this conversation this morning with dakota wood, democrats can demall at 2027488000. Republicans, 2027488001. Independents, 2027488002. Zpive retired members of the military, special line for you, doment to hear from you, 2027488003 is that number. The report, to want dive into it, mr. Wood. One of the key topics, assessing the Global Operating environment. Thats the threats were facing in the world, where are they coming from . Guest its actual two parts youre talking about. The world, is it easier or difficult for the American Military to do what we were called upon to do. In that we look at our friends and allies, where we have forces at. Do they know how to work in a particular area. The threat section is really, to your point, and we look at russia, china, iran, north korea, and then kind of the general destabilizing influence of terrorism in key parts of the world. And we assess the threat environment in general as high, not the highest category of four on our score of one to five, but in that high category, because the main competitors, like china and russia, have really made serious investments in their military capabilities, expanding their reach, more of a power projection, really improve the capability of the forces with longer range, guide munitions, a lot more attention to training for readiness, combat, competencies, iran has expanded its portfolio of missiles to 3,000 Ballistic Missiles. Certainly youve seen the headlines with china and what theyve been doing in the South China Sea. Its a worrisome environment from a threats perspective. From the ally and partner perspective, they have been making some progress, especially in the last year or two, and among nato members, making more investments in their own defense. But theyre still falling far short of where they need to be. Host encourage viewers to go to heritage. Org, open up this very easy to navigate index, because you can follow along with some of the easy to read charts that were going to go through for our visual learners. Were showing them the capability of the threats around the world, you talked about russia and china as being rated as formidable threats. On the lower end of the threat scale, are those that you consider to be capable threats, middle east terrorism falls into that, as well as afghanistan and pakistan terrorism. Explain that y thats on the lower level of capability. Guest right, in those tables, we try to use zrip active words. What is a two or four mean . So using our language to convey a sense, is it something you really need to be concerned about, or is this something, you know, that generates a sense of urgency . So when we look at threats, its a combination of intense and capability. You cant measure intents the way you look at observed behavior. How has a country been behaving, and as its been behaving more or less aggressively, what are the tools that it has . When you look at terror groups, they dont possess submarines and combat aircraft fleets and large land forces with Ballistic Missiles and those sorts of things, right . But they do pose an on the ground immediate threat, especially in a politically destabilizing way. So you could have a terror group like al qaeda or Islamic State or alshabab that is very aggressive in its rhetoric, but their capability is limited to small arms, manufactured bombs, maybe some smaller gauge rockets. So we give them a lower score on the capability side even if their activities have been very aggressive. Host heres a part that have report that those called the active and retired Military Lines would happen most interested or most respond to, talking about the capabilities, the readiness and capacity of the military branches in this country. And just taking a look at the comparison between the army and the navy, the army rated very high when it comes to readiness, weak when it comes to its capacity. You can see the comparison to the navy here. Weak when it comes to capacity, readiness more on the marginal level. Explain the differences to that and why you chose those rankings. Guest on capacity, its very important to understand our scoring. We think the u. S. Military needs to be able to handle two major problems. So if you got tied up in the asia pacific region, you know, some kind of a problem or a conflict with china, its not that you can leave the middle east or europe when youve got iran and russia, so you have to have a sufficiently large capability that you can address u. S. Interests in multiple regions, and thats why we think theres capacity is so critical. When we look at the u. S. Navy, we look at the army, they just dont have the numbers of units. It doesnt mean that the individuals, say soldiers, or anything like that, extraordinarily competent incident people. We just dont have enough of them. The army has paid a lot of attention to the readiness of its forces, sending its brigade combat teams to its National Training centers, really making the shift from Counter Terrorism sorts of focus operations to readying itself if it had to go into a largescale conventional conflict against a major opponent like a russia or a china, Something Like that. So their readiness is almost off the charts. I mean, them spent a lot of time getting their units back up to speed. Whereas the navy has had some really problematic maintenance areas, you know, keeping ships out at sea, doing a quick turn to shipyards and all the back log maintenance that occurred over many years. So when you look at those scores, the force we have today, not the one five years from now, if it was called upon to go to war, the forces are too small for the task that we think they would have, and they really need to do a lot more focus on modernizing their equipment, which is a lot of money from congress thats needed, and then spending time and attention to make those forces competent and proficient. So thats kind of explaining some of the scoring metology we used in those charts. Host if you agree or disagree, take it one dakota wood directly, Defense Programs Senior Research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. That line for active and retired military, again, 2027488003. Mr. Wood, thats where were going to start, ed from jacksonville, florida, retired military. Go ahead, ed. Caller good morning. I was just wondering if your report looked at the reserve component included in your report. Guest we addressed the criticality of reserve forces, especially in that introduction chapter, if haup to download it at heritage. Org military. Theres so much complexity in the political establishment of our National Guard and our reserve forces. A lot of variability in different units across the country, depending on what their particular focus might be and whether youre talking individual Ready Reserve or actually selected units. So what we do is we look at the active component in these scores, and we use those active combat units as kind of a bellwether. There are representative components of the total force. So our active units would be those probably first thrown into the breach. We have to make sure theyre there, but they cant do anything over a sustained period without the reserve forces. The ones we score in those tables are the active component elements. Host one of the topline conclusions from the report, it notes that americas leadership remains in question, and its security interests are under significant pressure. Challenges continue to grow, longstanding allies are not what they once were, and the u. S. Is increasingly bedeviled by debt that can strain its ability to sustain its forces commensurate with its interests, that from the 2021 index of u. S. Military strength. Focus on longstanding allies are not what they once were. Guest when you think about nato, nato members and the forces they used to have, at the end of the cold war, west germany alone had 5,000 main battle tanks, pretty sufficient navy, very competent air force. Today the combined germany, 20, 30 years later, has fewer than 300 tanks. So 5,000 for west german, only 300, actually fewer than that today. Two years ago, they had no operationally deployable submarines. They had to contract out to civilian dops get their military pilots sufficient time and helicopter cockpits to maintain certifications. So its an example. The british military, the totality, the size of the british military, air power, navy, royal marines, and the army, the total of that is smaller than the United States marine corps alone. They only have 17 surface ships in their navy. China has added that number of ships to its navy just in the last two years or so. So when we look at the investments of our partners and our friends, they have really fallen short for about 20 to 25 years. Theres a lot of ground to make up. And we talk about the importance of allies. If youre going to go to war, you want people helping you out, and you want to be there to help people. But theyre not doing what they should be doing, its a greater burden on the United States, which increased our costs and necessarily increased our risks. Host chris in massachusetts is next, line for democrats. Good morning. Caller hi, quick question. Unlike iran and russia, United States is in jury without an invitation from the internationally recognized government. But the United States is in syria without congressional approval. The United States is in syria without United NationsSecurity Council authorization. In fact, the United States is there as an occupying force, and it appears to be looking after the interests of the emirates, the saudis and israelis. Do you have any commonets that any comments on my observations . Guest sure, talking policy decision, right . So policy, the use of military force is different than the condition of military forces. So the policy debate that has gone on in washington, Congress Continues to fund the defense department. They havent forbidden the use of military forces. So almost by default we have the u. S. Congress, representative branch of the American People going along with this use of military power. When those forces were introduced in syria, it was absolute chaos. You had a lot of civilians who ere being massacred by the recognized government under Bashar Alassad, use of chlorine gas. It was just mayhem. So there was an international effort, at least by coalition partners, to try to introduce forces, keep back some of the wars parties, support the civilians that were really under assault, and really a lot of freedom fighters, if you wanted to call them that, that were a representative form of government. Things have consolidated a bit in the last year or two, especially because russia and iran came in to help support the assad regime. But i dont think anybody is saying that Bashar Alassad and his military are advocates of peace, stability, helping out their own population. So from my understanding of the role of u. S. Forces, its so combat the remnants of the Islamic State to try to provide some kind of a peaceful enclave to try to facilitate the support of humanitarian assistance thats flowing into that region, things that the Syrian Government wouldnt be supporting. So i think that there are sometimes situations in which, if you cant get consensus among the international community, the right thing to do is go in, use military force for the right reasons, and then see how the situation evolves. Host our sarasota, florida, steven, republican, good morning. Caller good morning. Thank you for taking my call. I was wondering, it seems like some of the news, some programs seem to be a form of propaganda to help other countries and why we dont see or havent heard much in the last several years, other than maybe some of the conservative channels, i watch both conservative and liberal channels, and i hear things like the russians targeting americans, and sort of like propaganda, nothing they dont talk about any of the good things thats going on in our military. I was always wondering why are we being used to hurt ourselves or why is our left, some of the socialist not socialist, but some of the networks that are almost antiamerican. It seems strange to me that were hurting ourselves. Guest well, i think the past year has pointed out the differences of opinion across the United States. Well see what the Electoral College decides on who the next president is. It does appear to be remaining in joe bidens favor on that. But even with that said, 74 Million People or so voted for the current president. Obviously more voted for the contender. So its just an example that people hold very strongly held views. There are differences of opinion on the role of the United States in the world and how it executes that role. Is it primarily economic and diplomatic . Is it primarily military . Is it a mixture of all of those sorts of things . And i think what weve seen in the news Media Establishment writ large is really kind of picking sides on that, that there is a political philosophy that pervades across of the reporting based on either the journalist involved or the Editorial Board or whoever is writing the checks for a particular news outlet, and we see this kind of preference for viewpoints coming through that. So i think a really educated consumer of information, as you appear to be, taking in multiple different streams, left leaning, right leaning, whats going on on the web, looking at international reporting. You know, what are the germans and brits and japanese and australians writing about . I think its really the only way to get a holistic view of whats going on in the world. And then you throw your voice in as youve done on this particular program. Host coming back to the issue of assessing u. S. Military strength, and the trump administration, one person said america has been told that we are the strongest. You seem to have a more negative position on that. Guest well, strength is relative. So fern for person, unit for unit, we would dominate, i believe, on any battlefield. We just have really good people, good leadership, kind of the american model where we punish initiative down to the lower ranks, as opposed to other models, which are much more authoritarian. They dont have the kind of free play where personal initiative really comes up. And they dont, frankly, have the experience. The last time china went to war with anybody was against vietnam in 1979, i believe, and they didnt fare too well. That doesnt mean you dont recognize your shortfalls and try to improve your situation, which is what china is doing. So where we have a negative view on these things is, if you had to go more than one place at one time, we just dont have the capacity. The military skills we have are great, but were using equipment that is 30 and 40 years old. The average age of an air force Fighter Aircraft that we see flying around on the news is 30 years old. More than half of the navy ships are greater than 20 years old. Mat reason core still uses ones purchased in the 197 owes. Its a comparison thing. Where would you put a u. S. Force on a map against an opposing force if thats all they have to be concerned about, were pretty sure that they would win in that conflict. But if it was more than that, if you had to be more than one place, oldie quiment and too small capacity to handle those sorts of challenges. Host we have a space. What can you say about assessing the strength of the space force . Guest it was an easy move to take individuals in the u. S. Air force who focus on Space Operations and carve them out into a separate service, but we still have 20,000 or more spaceoriented Service Personnel in the army and the navy that are not part of that space force. So its a great first step. We think its needed because of the unique nature of space, Space Operations and the different sorts of platforms you can put up there for various reasons, but it needs to continue to expand. And thats just in the military service. You still have the Intelligence Community that are huge consumers of space and space products that arent part of that space force. So we think that the initiative is good, theyve been very aggressive in trying to get their feet under them and develop an sandeist culture, which will take time. But the efforts l effort needs to continue and it needs to be a much more comprehensive. Host its the index of military strength, the yearly index put out by the Heritage Foundation. Dakota wood is the Senior Research fellow there, served two decades in the marine corps, taking your phone calls this morning as we talk about that report. Up next, woodbridge, virginia, independent. Good morning. Caller good morning, sir. Thank you for taking my call. Ive been trying to get a hold of cspan for the last seven months. Host well, youre on now, lynn. Whats your question or comment for dakota wood . Caller i have a comment. Civilian n ordinary citizen. And i just have a comment about our military system. I am so proud and impressed of what our President Trump has one for the last four years. Even though that im a very citizen, but i watch the correct news, and even you can feel it, you know it, that we are in much safer place for the last four years than for a long, long time. That is just my simple comment. Host are we in a safer place . Guest i think were more realistic. So in that sense, yes, we are. But during that period of time, the world doesnt stand still. So you do have a china that has dramatically expanded its capabilities and improved its skill levels. I mean, theyve gotten more serious about a power projection sort of force, to secure its commercial routes from china proper through the South China Sea into the indian ocean, the middle east. So its a much different china. While we have gotten better in terms of our focus, less Counter Terrorism, counter insurgency, in places like afghanistan and iraq, and much more on this Great Power Competition that people will talk about, our adversaries, our competitors, have also made improvements. So the first step in dealing with any kind of problem is recognizing that you have a problem. Now its what am i going to do about that . So weve talked about improvements and readiness, very important. The military services have really matured their requirements. You know, what they believe they would need to prevail in a larger scale conventional conflict. So thats great. Were much better off there. Where we still fall short is the funding for the programs needed to give the forces what they need. And defense spending, twhile does increase in real dollars, it does not keep pace with the ravages of inflation or the premature wearing out of equipment that has occurred in these continuing operations for the last nearly 20 years. The price of outfitting the average soldier has increased 16 times the rate of inflation since the vietnam war. Its five times the rate of inflation, more expensive to buy an armored vehicle, a tank, for example, in that time period as well. I think the realities of these numbers just have not been shared with the american public, so it seems odd that 700 billion isnt enough, but it falls far short of what we had to spend, lets say during the cold war, when you had a global contest against one competitor, and today we still have a global contest with four major competitors in very different parts of the world. Our government just has not done a good job at conveying that reality, and so people find it kind of shocking that our military is falling short in terms of what it has in zperms capabilities. Host dave is in seattle, a democrat. Good morning. Youre on with dakota wood. Caller hello, yes. I had a couple of things to say. When i was in the army a number of years ago, i was in an infantry unit, and it seemed like we did a lot of training. It wasnt individual enough. We didnt learn other peoples jobs well enough. In combat, you can lose a squad leader or machine gun or n no time at all. The other people in the squad didnt know anything about a squad leader or machine gunner or working the radio. But it seemed like everything was for show. Lets go out and put a good show on, and the officers would say, gee, look at that practice attack, thats just wonderful. Thats not real combat, i didnt think. There was a deficiency in our training. And also, my dad, he worked for a shipyard for a number of years, and they used to make destroyer escorts, lot of them. That was nothing. I dont think the shipyards even is in seattle anymore. But you dont hear anything about making ships or anything. Host dave, lets take up the two subjects. Dakota wood . Guest were talking about professionalism of the force. Spent 20 years, u. S. Marine, really, really well led. Other offices or units that i was in, you kind of scratch your head, and we thought we were going to get something a bit better, and thats just human nature, differences between companies, sports teams, family members. Its people being people. So when we talk about small unit leadership, small unit training, whether its individual or aggregated up to larger size units, its incumbent upon that service, the operating forces, various levels of command to try to figure out what it is they should be doing, and do you have quality people who are held accountable for how well theyre training their forces. And that will vary from year year, unit to unit, person to person. On average, we have really good people trying to do the right things for the right reasons. But you can always find shortfalls where something has gone wrong. You have the skipper of a ship thats relieved of command because the higher command structure has lost confidence or something really bizarre happens in the operating space. So there will be those instances because were talking about human beings. But i think were lot better postured today than we were perhaps in past years. As far as the industrial capacity, this is a 30year problem. Sort the end of the cold war, no soviet union, no major competitor, china wasnt a Global Economic power that it is technology today. Technology didnt enable other countries to become an aspiring Nuclear Power with longrange Ballistic Missiles. The u. S. Military shrank dramatic until the 1990s. We went from 770,000 soldiers to now today of 480,000. 550 ships in the yeave. Today, fewer than 300. I think its 298 or so. The air force is 2 3 the size in some cases one half the size behalf it was than we had in the early 1990s. So if you dont have as big of force, you will dont need as Many Companies making as many things. And if you dont have business, you go out of business. So our Defense Industrial base in terms of major manufacturers if we take you live to nevada where the Supreme Court is certified the results of the president ial election, where joe biden one by 33,000 v