Dana Priest

Wednesday, November 17, 1999

The U.S. Army recently rated two of its ten divisions unprepared for war. Washington Post Pentagon reporter Dana Priest was online to discuss military preparedness and other military news.

A Post reporter for 13 years, Priest started out as an assistant foreign editor and then became a Metro staff reporter. After joining the National staff nine years ago, Priest covered federal regulatory issues and went to Baghdad to write about American hostages being held in Iraq.

Priest has covered the Pentagon for the past four years. Her reporting has taken her to Bosnia to write about U.S. troops stationed there and on overseas trips with defense secretaries William Perry and William Cohen. She has also written extensively about the Army's efforts to integrate women into the workforce.

Read the transcript below:

Washingtonpost.com: Welcome to our live discussion with Dana Priest. We already have a number of questions, so let's get started with this one from Conowingo, Maryland:


Do you feel that this is a new use of the readiness ratings to make a plea for more
funding? Since these units have had elements deployed for some time, why are they all of a sudden dropping in
readiness?

Dana Priest: Since readiness ratings are somewhat subjective on the part of commanders, the system itself is always open to question, Army officials who track it have told me. These two units--the 10th Mountain Division and the 1st ID--have been deployed for several months and it was during this time that their readiness test was taken. Readiness has long been used as a political instrument on Capitol Hill to argue for new funds, new systems and to criticize peacekeeping deployments that Republicans, in particular, do not support. Beyond the obvious politics, though, there are very fundamental questions that neither the Army nor its civilian leaders are answering: Is the Army's structure outdated and, if so, is the new Army chief of staff's proposal to modify it somewhat, really enough?; is the requirement that the Army be ready to fight two high-intensity wars at once realistic in today's world; what is the "enemy" threat that justifies spending $22 billions on a new 110-ton tank system?

Ann Arbor, MI: 1. Why must the armed forces maintain such expensive readiness states in a time of peace? In the past, they have kept some units at full strength and high readiness and the rest at reduced strength & lower readiness. Why not now?

2. Why are our foreign policies and defense policies so imbalanced? At a time when both personnel and materiel costs are skyrocketing, we have stretched our forces by multiple interventions. Why can't the President cut the policy cloth to fit the naked realities of defense costs?

Your 3 articles on Kosovo were wonderfully informative, and useful in teaching.

Dana Priest: Thank you.
The requirement on readiness is not a choice, it's outlined in the national defense strategy which the president promulgates. It can be changed, and was when the Soviet Union collapsed. But downgrading from the two-war requirement is extremely controversial. Many people in the Pentagon who believe it is outdated, only whisper about their feelings. Also, it serves powerful interests to maintain the war plans they way they are. For example, National Guard divisions, which are sacred cows in Congress and with state governors, would probably be the last to go to war--and only the second of the two wars. But even raising questions about the need to maintain them has gotten the Army in hot water on the hill, so they have stopped asking.

On the second question: One answer might be that the military, because it is effective and well-resourced, is the first choice these days for solving foreign problems. There isn't a lighter international police force, for example, that could be on the ground now in East Timor. It's the military. Same goes for Bosnia, four years into that deployment. Funding the U.N. and State Department programs is not popular on Capitol Hill for many reasons (some political, some because these institutions are notoriously inefficient). So everyone turns to the Defense Department.

Dale City, Va: I have worked in Navy training for 14 years and have watched the training resources get cut every year to cover every thing from natural disasters to extensive Search missions for well known persons. Why does the Dept of Defense continue to allow this to happen, knowing it will and perhaps has came back to bite them?

Dana Priest: I don't think they have much choice in the matter. These are decisions made by their civilian leaders. Again, it's the military--not other agencies--that are capable of doing the job because of the funding, discipline, training, people, etc. they have.

Fairfax, VA.: The 2000 DOD budget as presented by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and all the service chiefs had as it's number one priority taking care of the troops. This was in the form of pay increases and fixing the two tiered retirement system. Recent editorials have said this was done despite readiness shortfalls and in fact was not the most effective way to fix our readiness, retention problems. Did the leaders of our military miss the mark or was taking care of our overworked, underpayed troops the best investment in the future?

Dana Priest: Policy makers and members of Congress are hoping the pay package will allow them to compete in the job market, which is a chronic and growing problem for all services, except the Marine Corps. It is only part of the readiness equation.

Washington, DC: Given the booming economy and low unemployment rate, has the U.S. military been able to attract quality recruits in the numbers necessary to support its current mission(s)?

Dana Priest: No. The Army, for one, has an estimated shortfall of 6,300 new troops. All services (expect the Marine Corps which is not having this problem), believe things will only because of the so-called growing gap between the civilian and military worlds and cultures. Fewer and fewer young people have parents or friends who have been in the service and many people who joined previously for the adventure, don't seem to think peacetime deployments offer the same challenges.

washingtonpost.com: We're about half-way through our live discussion with The Post's Dana Priest. Please continue to submit questions.

Herndon, VA: Ms. Priest: The full integration of women into the armed forces - what would you say are the areas of greatest success and greatest failure? As an "old-timer," US Army 1966-72 (Vietnam REMF), I find the idea of women being casualties in an armed conflict is quite upsetting. What is your reading of the U.S. public's view on this? Thanks

Dana Priest: People in uniform often bring up the casualty question and I have to say, I think it is a generational concern. That women are killed brutality everyday is not new or news. They die in the jobs they do these days--on assembly lines, as police, firefighters, at the hands of abusive spouses and boyfriends, as soldiers who are actually on the front line in peacekeeping because the front line has changed, as mothers in refugee camps and victims of recent wars in Kosovo and Bosnia. I think the toughest questions about integrating women more fully into combat roles has to do with: 1-finding women whose physical capabilities are the same as their male counterparts 2-if you open these combat positions, would you then require that women fill them and what if most women did not want to? 3-how long, if ever, would it take for men and women to bond in the way that all-male combat units do now.

Anniston, AL: In your opinion, is the redundancy of the civilian Secretariat and the Service Staffs outdated? Should the Services combine the functions of the military and civilian-led departments?

Dana Priest: No, but I think the service secretariats on the military side are outdated, especially since the ascendancy of the regional Commanders-in-Chiefs. Much of what the services secretariats seem to be there for is to keep jointness from moving forward and to safeguard the interests of their service. Yes, there is redundancy in the civilian and military staffs too.

Washington, DC: Budgets for the State Department and for foreign aid have been slashed, and we are struggling to pay our dues to the United Nations. Yet the Pentagon is awash in money, some 268 million dollars this year, even more than the Clinton administration had requested. Do you see this funding imbalance reflected on the ground in an increased role for the military in the implementation of our foreign policy?

Dana Priest: Yes, in every part of the world. It's not just money, though. It is also because the regional Commanders-in-Chief (the so-called CINCs) are pro-active. They have to be. They are responsible to US officials for maintaining stability in their domains. So they send their troops to train with other countries and their officers to develop relationships with counterparts. Many of these relationships have become as important--and sometimes much more important--than the relationships developed by their State Department counterparts. It is popular these days to ask whether the military is properly structured (see the first several questions today). I would also ask, is the State Department properly organized, trained and staffed to meet the demands of the post-Cold War world?

Phoenix, Az.: Where do you think the first hot spot of trouble that will affect the U.S. will be in the new millennium?

Dana Priest: I hate making predictions, but here goes: The Balkans, Aceh province in Indonesia and northern Iraq.

Washington DC: You mentioned that the military isn't getting the numbers it wants but what about the quality of the troopers? Do you or does the military think the quality of those people who do enlist has changed - either for better or for worse?

Dana Priest: Historically speaking, the quality has never been better, if judged by educational tests recruits have to pass. Physically, I'm not sure they compare. I know the services have had to adopt remedial physical training programs to get recruits in shape even before they enter boot camp. On the flip side, recruits reflect society and bring into the services a load of new social problems, which I'm sure you've read about.

Dana Priest: Thanks for joining me today. I look forward to our next chat. Dana