Cato Institute
Policy Analysis
<<  <  >  >>
The kind of forces
ing armies. In short, the kind of forces truly
question of whether the United States should
needed in today's environment lend them-
really intervene in such crises--which is
truly needed in
selves to what Senator McCain has called a
beyond the scope of this paper34--none of
today's environ-
"tiered readiness" force.
those past responses has required a large
ment lend them-
standing army. Any crisis that needs a
Tiered Readiness: Radical Innovation or
response could be dealt with by the Navy and
selves to what
Reality?
the Air Force. The forces of the Navy and the
Senator McCain
Senator McCain has introduced the notion
Marine Corps have been more than adequate
has called a
of tiered readiness with three different levels of
to respond to most crises since World War II.
military forces:35
There are examples of failures--such as the
"tiered readiness"
capture of the Pueblo, the Israeli attack on the
force.
· Tier
Liberty, and the bombing of the Marine bar-
I--Forward-deployed and crisis
racks in Beirut--but none of them had any-
response  forces:  Forward-deployed
thing to do with readiness. In all those cases,
forces, such as the Navy and Marines, and
American forces were in places where they
quick response forces, such the 82nd
probably should not have been. Those opera-
Airborne division flown in by round-trip-
tions again raise questions about bad leader-
capable aircraft, would be deployed in a
ship and bad foreign policy decisions but do
matter of days.
· Tier II--Force buildup: This buildup
not raise the question of readiness.
Readiness "of What?" Determining the types
would include initial divisions of the
of forces that need to be ready is also impor-
Army's contingency corps--up to two
tant. With the old Soviet threat long gone
divisions--and follow-on naval and air
and no other major power expected until at
forces and reserve components. Tier II
least 2015, General Meyer's Hollow Force
forces would be deployed in a matter of
concerns about rushing five divisions quickly
weeks.
· Tier III--Conflict resolution: These forces,
to Europe are also gone. Rare crises may arise
in which the United States should intervene.
including the remainder of Army units
However, from a readiness viewpoint, if
and more reserves, are needed infrequent-
ground forces are needed to respond, the sit-
ly. They would be deployed after several
uation could be handled by quickly deploy-
months and would thus have time to
ing light Army units, such as the 82nd
fully prepare.
Airborne, backed up by Marines aboard Navy
ships off the coast. It was exactly this force
At first glance, the senator's plan might
that was deployed to dissuade Saddam from
look radical, but there is really nothing new
going into Saudi Arabia; that deployment
about the concept of tiered readiness. Since
made possible a six-month buildup of coali-
ancient times there have always been at least
tion forces. The increased use of preposi-
two tiers of military readiness. Those tiers have
tioned equipment afloat could add to those
consisted of a small standing force and
capabilities. Personnel from heavier mecha-
reserves--usually just citizens--who join the
nized and armor units could be quickly
active military during times of crisis. The rea-
flown in by Air Force C-17s and matched up
sons for the two-tiered system were the same in
with their equipment, which can be disem-
ancient Athens and Rome as they are today.
barked from sealift ships. In about the same
Standing forces are expensive to maintain and
time that it took to deploy Task Force Smith
are really needed only during emergencies. The
to Korea, the United States--with today's
two-tiered system lasted for centuries, ending
capabilities--could deploy a fully capable
at the turn of the 19th century when Napoleon
division.
started raising large standing armies.
Most responses to crises have been by
In more modern times, most military
Navy and Marine Corp units, not large stand-
forces have effectively had five tiers (three in
14