| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| More men or more weapons - or more men, more weapons and fewer overseas bases |
| 2004-07-31 |
| G. Carlton Meyer has some really hare-brained ideas - but I think some of this article is sound - although we don't pay rent at many of these bases - physically hauling equipment and supplies from the continental US must be costing us a mint. The question here is whether deterrence can be achieved with radically-shrunk footprints or without troops on-site at all. It's also true that our troops do get valuable experience from having these bases because they get to train on local terrain and work out logistical issues related to supplying troops there. A chart in the 4-22-02 issue of "Aviation Week" explains why the Bush administration opposes increases in active duty manpower. The planned FY2003 defense budget of $379 billion is nearly the same $380 billion in Reagan's FY1983 budget 20 years ago. These figures are adjusted for inflation for current year dollars. However, Bush will spend only $69 billion to procure new weapons compared to Reagan's expenditure of $121 billion. This is because Bush must spend $94 billion in manpower costs for 1.4 million active duty troops, while Reagan spent $84 billion for 2.1 million active troops. So it now costs $67,000 per GI compared to $40,000 per GI in 1983. This amounts to a 67% increase, and remember all these figures have been adjusted for inflation. The actual costs for each GI are over $100,000 each when total costs such as base housing, recreation, veterans benefits, and retirement benefits are included. This is why the big surge in military spending cannot pay for all the new weapons each service wants to buy, and adding manpower and big pay increases worsens the problem. Keep mind that the cost of new weapons has risen much faster than the inflation rate. Most Army and Marine Corps Generals remain fixated with increasing manpower levels. What few can grasp is that every dollar spent on procurement provides equipment that can be used for 30 years, but every dollar spent on manpower disappears each payday. To solve this manpower demand, the Army needs to quickly free manpower and resources by closing several outdated and expensive overseas outposts. Closing overseas bases saves far more than domestic bases since the cost to sustain overseas bases is much higher, especially the PCS moves, and the problems of job losses and economic impact are not a concern. |
| Posted by:Zhang Fei |