Morning Wire XX
[0] Just this week, the Army announced a massive restructuring effort that would reduce the force by 5 % and reallocate resources across a variety of sectors.
[1] This is the first formal contraction of the Army since the start of the all -volunteer force in 1970.
[2] In this episode of Morning Wire, we hear from an expert about why the U .S. military is taking this action now and how it will likely affect our readiness for war.
[3] I'm Georgia Howe with Daily Wire, editor -in -chief John Bickley.
[4] It's Saturday, March 2nd, and this is an extra edition of Morning Wire.
[5] Joining us to discuss the historic U .S. military contraction is Robert Greenway, director of the Allison Center for National Security at the Heritage Foundation.
[6] Hey, Robert, thanks so much for coming on.
[7] My pleasure.
[8] So the Army recently announced they are doing a major restructure.
[9] They say they're hoping to be better prepared for war.
[10] They've described slashing 24 ,000 positions.
[11] although many of those are already empty, and about 3 ,000 of those cuts are coming from special operations forces.
[12] What are your thoughts on the new restructuring?
[13] So appreciate you, have me on.
[14] So the decision to cut 24 ,000 or roughly 5 % of the force, 32 ,000 over five years, basically solidifies the vacancies left from the worst recruiting crisis in the history of the all -volunteer force.
[15] The Army alone was 10 ,000 short last year.
[16] They'll be short again this year.
[17] And the Army is the lowest size and strength since 1940, since before the Second World War.
[18] About two -thirds of the overall size of the force that we estimate the Heritage Foundation in our Index of U .S. military strength just published.
[19] Now, Army Secretary Christine Wormouth just told reporters that these cuts are going to come from, quote, counterinsurgency operations.
[20] First off, can you describe what counterinsurgency means?
[21] And why do you think these are the places where they're cutting?
[22] So it's a great question.
[23] I think in the end the Army is attempting to state that these are positions that are no longer required because the Army doesn't anticipate it's going to be engaging in counterinsurgency operations.
[24] And so special operations forces and other sustainment functions are part of this envision cut.
[25] But it's a bit of a shell game.
[26] The reality is the Army doesn't have the manpower required to fill the force.
[27] And so the rationale is less important than the fact that our Army is not large enough to do the job that we anticipate under the current circumstances.
[28] in our judgment, it is falling short of the requirement to confront Russia, China, and other aggressors.
[29] And that's the real issue here.
[30] Now, the plan also includes adding about 7 ,500 troops to other areas.
[31] For example, they mentioned air defense, counter drone.
[32] They want to start five new task forces.
[33] They're mentioning enhanced cyber, intelligence, long range, strike capabilities.
[34] So these are specialized units.
[35] How do you anticipate they're going to fill these slots?
[36] Are they going to try to reshuffle from within or try to recruit?
[37] Well, they don't have a whole lot of choice, especially because the skill level required for some of those tasks and jobs take a long time to developing and can require specific recruiting challenges.
[38] So they're going to, I think, at the end, they have to cannibalize within the existing force structure to get there.
[39] And look, they're valid military occupational specialties and they're a critical part of the force.
[40] The reality is the force is too small and it's getting smaller.
[41] And all we're doing with the most recent NDAA and this admission is we're just accepting the fact that the army is too small.
[42] And instead of trying to fix it, we're just trying to live within the boundaries.
[43] Now, what about technological advances?
[44] I know we have other jobs that are being cannibalized by technology.
[45] Are there ways to leverage technology to help fill some of these recruiting gaps?
[46] So there's no question that technology has a critical place on the battlefield.
[47] We're seeing this in Ukraine.
[48] But we're also seeing the fact that technology has historically and now is not a substitute for having manpower.
[49] And ultimately, war is an ugly business requiring a level of brutality that technology can't compensate for.
[50] So there's a place for it to be sure.
[51] It always will be a component of our force.
[52] It can offset the size of our force relative to our adversaries, but it is not a replacement for manpower.
[53] Ultimately, in the army, I think, as to Ukrainians, I think they would be able to tell you exactly the same thing, is that they've got a tremendous amount of technological advantages relative to the Russians, but the Russians have a significant advantage in manpower.
[54] And that's making the difference right now on the battlefield, and it will in any confrontation we have in the future.
[55] Now, all of the armed forces are struggling with recruitment, with the notable exception of the Marines.
[56] What do you think the cause is for that?
[57] And I'll just mention the Army Secretary says these recruiting deficits began in 2014.
[58] So I don't know if that gives a hint as to why this is happening.
[59] Well, so first, the trend might have been visible in 2014, but we really didn't start falling short of goals until about three years ago.
[60] At precisely the time when we reduced our overseas presence, so you would have thought that having a significant portion of our force in activity abroad and confronting active threats would have discouraged some from participating, quite the opposite.
[61] I think we maintain that despite the fact that we were engaged in overseas conflicts for over two decades.
[62] I think the challenge is now is that there's little trust in government as a whole and then within the military leadership in particular.
[63] I think the disastrous, which were off from Afghanistan and decisions to let our troops sit idle in the Middle East and receive incoming fire without adequate response, that continues to be a problem.
[64] Few people, I think, want to sign up for a force that is also prioritizing diversity, equity, inclusion over merit and character, which has historically been the only way to determine perform.
[65] and promotion within the military.
[66] And I think that's undermining the recruiting population without a doubt.
[67] And just a little addendum to my earlier question, is there a reason why the Marines are still successful?
[68] Do you think they're positioning themselves differently in some way?
[69] So they are.
[70] First, they're the smallest among the forces, with the exception to the space force, and so their problem is a little bit more manageable.
[71] Second, is the Marine Corps, to their credit, has always focused on the warfighting principle as an ethic within the force itself.
[72] And also the way they approach the military.
[73] They're not trying to claim to be a jobs program.
[74] They're not trying to say you can see the world and meet different cultures by joining the Marine Corps.
[75] They're pretty clear about the purpose of the Corps.
[76] And as a result, they're attracting a lot of the talent that is not going to the other services, again, because their focus is misplaced.
[77] Now, what about the growing interest in isolationism that we're seeing, particularly on the right?
[78] So Donald Trump was the first president in a long while that didn't engage in new wars.
[79] That was very popular.
[80] Do you think that's affecting recruitment?
[81] Well, I think the way I would look at it is there is a general distrust of the government and its tendency to engage in foreign conflicts.
[82] And at the end of the day, after over 20 years in Afghanistan, we left $83 billion of equipment and infrastructure in the hands of the people we took it from in 2001.
[83] And so I think there's a reasonable reluctance to.
[84] to participate in this.
[85] But at the same time, there's still a strong national commitment that exists in the segment of the population.
[86] But too many schools, I think, are denigrating the country and service to it.
[87] And that's having an impact on recruiting more, I think, than the proclivity to engage in foreign endless wars.
[88] Now, if you were serving the president or the military, what changes would you make?
[89] Well, first, I think, is I would get the military back to where a meritocracy is the only way that character and competence are the only characteristics that we're looking for for promotion and for retention and for recruiting.
[90] Second is I would prioritize recruiting, restore trust in the chain of command, and demonstrate that if you join our armed forces, the purpose of it is to fight and win our nation's wars not to engage in reconstruction efforts and humanitarian causes.
[91] There are other organizations that are expert at doing that.
[92] And then lastly, I would focus ruthlessly on warfighting capabilities within the services.
[93] Again, war is a brutal affair, and we need to be prepared for it.
[94] We need a man, equip, and train for it.
[95] And so our focus has to be ruthlessly in that direction.
[96] All right.
[97] Well, Robert, thank you so much for coming on today.
[98] My pleasure.
[99] Thanks for having me. That was Robert Greenway, director of the Allison Center for National Security at the Heritage Foundation.
[100] And this has been an extra edition of Morning Wire.