Posted by
Noel Gibeson on Sunday, December 14, 2008 1:30:12 PM
In 1995 the entire Marine Corps budget comprised only 6 percent of the entire Defense Department budget. For that price, the nation got 11 percent of its active forces, 20 percent of the active divisions and 18 percent of all tactical aviation. Further, Marines operated tactical aviation more efficiently on a yearly basis.
The 1995 Commission on the Roles and Missions of the Armed Services had its work cut out for it. Given the uncertain international security environment, developing and making recommendations for reduction or reorganization within the Pentagon is a matter of choice among capabilities.
Direct comparisons of contributions to national security by the different services are very difficult to assess, as are comparisons regarding the inputs and outputs of each service. Rather, in this article I will make a gross macro-level comparison of Total Obligational Authority (TOA) and operational forces.
One comparison of “military efficiency” between the resource inputs of the Army and Marine Corps can be made using a simple formula that compares the relative ratios of some form of measurable combat power over the TOA or budget of each service. At a basic level, the simplest form of combat power to be measured is the soldier or Marine in the field, assigned to operational forces. The formula captures the total costs the nation incurs in terms of organizing, training and equipping combat forces. The TOA comparison also captures service investment practices and its infrastructure or overhead.
The comparison uses Army force structure data presented in an Army budget brief, and Marine data found in the latest approved Marine Corps manpower database dated April 1994. This data was then compared to the 1994 fiscal year budget levels for each service to produce an efficiency ratio.
I also looked at two types of Marine data: one for the Marine Corps budget as presented in Marine Corps appropriations and another that incorporates additional resources found in Navy appropriations that directly benefit the Marine Corps. This second level does not include amphibious lift resources. In the same manner, to maintain an “apples to apples” comparison, the Army’s resource total does not include any measure of strategic mobility expenditures by the Air Force or Navy.
The figures indicate that the Army puts 234,000 soldiers into operational billets for its relatively larger share ($61.0 billion) of the Defense budget. This equates to the production of 3.8 trained and equipped soldiers for every $1.0 million of TOA. The Marine Corps puts 108,507 Marines into operational billets for $8.7 billion—or 12.5 trained and equipped Marines for every $1.0 million of TOA. In even simpler terms, for every trained soldier the Army fields, the Marine Corps places 3.23 Marines.
Using these rough measures of efficiency, the Marine Corps would seem to be more than three times more efficient. When taking into account those dollars the Navy invests directly for the Marine Corps into aviation assets ($12.0 billion), the Marines remain two and a half times more efficient than the Army in providing trained warriors in the operating forces to serve the Nation’s interests. And the Marine forces include tactical aviation, fixed wing as well as helicopters, amphibious assault vehicles, and 30 days’ logistical sustainability—all in the sticker price!
The entire Marine Corps budget comprises only 6 percent of the entire Defense Department budget. For that price, the nation gets 11 percent of its active forces, 20 percent of the active divisions and 18 percent of all tactical aviation. Further, Marines operate tactical aviation more efficiently on a yearly basis. In part, this efficiency is a result of the leanest officer-to-enlisted ratio of any of the services. The Air Force ratio is roughly 1:4, the Army 1:5, the Navy 1:6 and the Marine Corps is 1:9.
The comparison between Army and Marine TOA is only one perspective on effectiveness. Many others are possible. More important, effectiveness in the different functions of the Army and the Marine Corps counts for more than pure efficiency. The Commission on Roles and Mission will take more factors into consideration than just saving money. However, when it comes to matching effectiveness with efficiency, the Marine Corps will still take the prize.
© Noel Gibeson 1995