[A-List] US military: financial & morale management

["Michael Keaney" <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>]

Costs rise with temperatures for US force on edge of war
By Peter Spiegel
Financial Times; Jan 15, 2003

General Barry McCaffrey, who commanded the US Army's 24th infantry division
during Operation Desert Storm, well remembers the first time he stepped off
his aircraft in the Arabian desert days after Iraq invaded Kuwait.

"It was unbelievably miserable," said Gen McCaffrey, now an instructor at
the US military academy. "When I got off the C-141 in August of 1990, it
felt like I'd been put into a hot-air blower."

As the timetable for possible military action against Iraq continues to slip
amid increasing demands from weapons inspectors for more time, the issue of
whether the US military can fight in the summer heat of the desert has
become a pressing one.

That is not the planners' only worry. Keeping 150,000 troops - many of whom
have already received their marching orders - in the Gulf region for weeks
on end could present a new range of problems for the military, including
raising the costs of deployment by billions of dollars, undermining the
readiness and morale of combat units, and disrupting the army's deployments
elsewhere in the world.

"Because of the way we have cut the number of forces over the last decade,
we have greatly diminished the flexibility of the military for building up
in one region while meeting obligations in others," says Loren Thompson, a
military analyst with the Lexington Institute.

A situation in the Middle East that turns into what one analyst called a
"sits-krieg" could rapidly corrode morale. The most pressing problem,
analysts and former officers say, is the Iraqi heat and whether it presents
a narrowing window for military action. Even as early as May, average high
temperatures in the southern Iraqi city of Basra begin to hit 37°C (98°F).

"Your operational efficiency plummets," says a former senior defence
official familiar with Pentagon planning for the region.

The heat is compounded by the fact that most land troops will need to be
outfitted with chemical warfare suits, which many experts - although not
all - believe make operating in the summer all but impossible.

The US military is better prepared to fight in such conditions than it was
12 years ago. The US Army's national training centre is located at Fort
Irwin, near Death Valley, California, where soldiers routinely train in
searing desert heat. Officials who have seen the Pentagon's defence plans
say a summer war has been extensively prepared for.

"The US Army is so well disciplined and so well trained they can fight in
any kind of conditions," says retired General Gus Pagonis, who was in charge
of logistics during the Gulf war.

Indeed, some experts argue the heat could benefit US soldiers, particularly
since chemical weapons perform best in damp, cool temperatures.

"VX nerve agent at 32°F is like motor oil - it would stay there for 90 days
and if you come into contact, it kills you," he said. "In August north of
Basra, the vapour plume will go straight up and the hot sun will boil up VX
in a minute."

Such optimism is not common among civilian officials. "Whether you are in a
light rubber suit in 120°F or in a heavy rubber suit in 120°F, you're still
in a rubber suit," says one former planner.

Heat is not the only complication. Analysts who have examined the costs of a
potential war believe that to extend the stay of such a large contingent
could add billions to the price of an invasion.

A recent Congressional Budget Office analysis showed that mere personnel
costs - hazardous-duty pay, food and water, clothing, medical support -
would add $1.4bn per month to the cost of the force being moved overseas,
even during the deployment phase.

Operational support costs - which include the incremental increase in flying
hours, fuel consumption and spare parts - while troops sit in the desert
awaiting an invasion could cost $1.8bn more a month. Some experts say that
costs could even rise to $1bn per week.

The most intangible implication of a prolonged deployment is its effect on
readiness and morale. Gen Pagonis argues that the extra time will allow for
more training and would give planners an advantage.

But others say this argument is undermined by the composition of today's
military - which for logistical and support roles relies on reservists, many
of whom could be away from home for months.

"A non-trivial portion of today's military signed up for the peace," says
John Pike, director of the military analysis group GlobalSecurity.org. "They
signed up not to fight a war but to earn a living and get some college
credit."

Mr Thompson argues: "People are away from their families, equipment is away
from maintenance, warriors are away from training. As a practical matter,
the US cannot fully mobilise unless it expects war very soon."