Defining Readiness: Background and Issues for Congress (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (18 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
June 14, 2017 |
| Report Number |
R44867 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
Patrick A. Garvey |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Summary:
Many defense observers and government officials, including some Members of Congress, are
concerned that the U.S. military faces a readiness crisis. The Department of Defense has used
readiness as a central justification for its FY2017 and FY2018 funding requests. Yet what makes
the U.S. military ready is debated.
This report explains how differing uses of the term readiness cloud the debate on whether a
readiness crisis exists and, if so, what funding effort would best address it.
CRS has identified two principal uses of the term readiness. One, readiness is used in a broad
sense to describe whether military forces are able to do what the nation asks of them. In this
sense, readiness encompasses almost every aspect of the military. Two, readiness is used more
narrowly to mean only one component of what makes military forces able. In this second sense,
readiness is parallel to other military considerations, like force structure and modernization,
which usually refer to the size of the military and the sophistication of its weaponry. Both uses
embody accepted concepts: the broader use capturing the military’s ability to accomplish its
overall goals and the narrower use capturing the military’s ability when its size and type of
weaponry are held steady.
These two senses of the term are interdependent. Today, most observers assume the military
should be as ready as possible in the narrow sense, but in past eras some favored accepting lower
readiness in a narrow sense in order to redirect resources in ways they felt improved the military’s
readiness in the broad sense (to include funding a larger force or newer equipment).
Use of either sense of readiness affects Congress’s evaluation of certain key issues:
Is there a readiness crisis? Most observers who see a crisis tend to use readiness
in a broad sense, asserting the U.S. military is not prepared for the challenges it
faces largely because of its size or the sophistication of its weapons. Most
observers who do not see a crisis tend to use readiness in a narrow sense,
assessing only the state of training and the status of current equipment.
For what scenarios, contingencies, and threats should the U.S. military be ready?
Some senior officials express confidence in the military’s readiness for the
missions it is executing today—although other observers are not as confident—
but express concern over the military’s readiness for potential missions in the
future.
How is readiness measured? Because of the two uses of the term, measuring
readiness is difficult; despite ongoing efforts, many observers do not find DOD’s
readiness reporting useful.
How might DOD’s FY2018 budget request improve readiness? DOD’s request
increases operating accounts more than procurement accounts. If readiness is
used in a narrow sense, these funding increases may be the best way to improve
the military’s readiness. If readiness is used in a broader sense, that funding may
not be sufficient, or at least the best way to improve readiness.
