Lehman was able to report that the bins were
studied the problem, such as James Kitfield.
full.32 In the future, in the unlikely event of a
In his book, he follows the careers of Gen.
Colin Powell of the Army, Adm. Stan Arthur
rising and aggressive great power, the United
of the Navy, Gen. Chuck Horner of the Air
States--by infusing money into a military
Force, and many others who were the "gener-
with lower readiness--could rapidly increase
ation of officers born of Vietnam [who] revo-
the readiness of U.S. forces by buying added
lutionized the American style of War." That
equipment and spare parts.
new style of war led to the victory in Desert
Although no Korean War arose to necessi-
Storm.
tate an increase in readiness in a matter of
One of the best examples of the new lead-
weeks and months, the Hollow Force
ership style was Chief of Naval Operations
required only a couple of years to be fleshed
Adm. Thomas P. Hayward's simple set of
out. All the problems faced by the military in
standards--promulgated in 1980--known
the 1970s were not rectified overnight, but
collectively as "Not in my Navy." For exam-
solving them in two to three years was still
ple, as part that program, Hayward instituted
quick. Few militaries have recovered so fast. It
random drug testing. As a result, drug use--
took the French army years to recover from
by up to 50 percent of personnel on some
the Franco-Prussian War and the social prob-
Readiness "for
ships--disappeared immediately. The truly
lems of the 19th century. The once-formida-
what?" There are
important point about all those actions was
ble Soviet military has been in disarray for
that they required leadership and not more
years with no end in sight.
simply no major
funds.
threats.
Implications
Personnel Problems Solved Quickly.
According to both Price and Korb, as soon as
Readiness: For What? Of What?
the miscategorization of mental groups was
corrected, the quality of recruits improved
During the Cold War the readiness ques-
quickly. Major increases in pay for the troops
tions raised by Richard Betts--"for what?"
also helped. The Carter administration
and "of what?"--were easily answered. The
increased pay by 9.7 percent for 1981. It then
"for what" was the Soviet Union and, to a
recommended an 11.3 percent increase for
lesser extent, China (especially after the
1982, which the Reagan administration
Korean War experience). The "of what" was
increased to 14.3 percent. Thus, in two years
simple--everything. According to the specu-
pay went up more than 20 percent. Sharply
lation of most military strategists, if World
declining inflation after 1980 allowed sol-
War III had broken out, it would have been a
diers to keep more of those pay increases. The
very short, intense conflict. The readiness of
combination of intolerance for drug use, bet-
current forces would have been crucial. There
ter recruits (the vast majority now high-
would not have been another Sitzkrieg in
school graduates), and major increases in pay
Europe, or a slow island-hopping operation
solved most of the personnel problems in
in the Pacific, or a two- to three-year buildup.
two to three years.
Rather, World War III would probably have
Bins Filled. During the Reagan administra-
been over in a matter of weeks. But, with the
tion, the problem of empty bins was solved in
end of the Cold War, the international envi-
approximately two years. Because it took sev-
ronment has changed and so should current
eral years for major weapons procurement to
readiness requirements. The change of envi-
get under way, the emphasis during the first
ronment makes Betts's questions very rele-
two years of the Reagan defense buildup was
vant.
placed on buying spare parts and restocking
Readiness "for What?" There are simply no
weapons. Thus, in 1985, instead of cross-
major threats. Even the normally pessimistic
decking equipment between incoming and
Pentagon acknowledges that no serious
outgoing ships, Secretary of the Navy John
potential threat exists until at least 2015. And
12