DATE: Sunday, March 9, 1997                 TAG: 9703070013

SECTION: COMMENTARY              PAGE: J4   EDITION: FINAL 

TYPE: Editorial

                                            LENGTH:   57 lines

RECIPE FOR DISASTER

Modern high-tech weapons cannot be effectively manned by low-tech personnel.

Unless the quality of the soldiers, sailors and airmen matches the quality of their weapons, our military cannot perform the global tasks demanded of it.

But here's the rub: Advanced weapons cost more, leaving less to pay the people; low pay, coupled with overwork, inevitably erodes the quality of personnel.

On Monday in Hampton, top-level officers and senior enlisted men told a congressional subcommittee on military readiness that better pay and living conditions are needed to retain adequate personnel.

Staff writer Earl Swift summarized their reports: ``The military could fight and win a war tomorrow, but its ability to do so in years to come is being eroded by low pay, lousy base housing, poor family services and a too-busy schedule of deployment and exercises.''

This is at a time of low civilian unemployment and high civilian demand for employees with many of the managerial and technical skills that soldiers, sailors and airmen acquire. Computer skills, for example, are a hot commodity on the job market.

The day after the subcommittee hearing, as though to underscore what witnesses said, the Army reported that it was accepting more recruits who have not finished high school, though they still must earn a general equivalency degree. The Army didn't want more soldiers who hadn't finished high school, but it is forced to take them to meet manpower demands.

The Navy is in no such bind, but it loses fighter pilots to commercial airlines and key administrators to business.

When the draft was discarded during the Vietnam War, the understanding was that competent personnel to fill all the slots would be attracted by adequate pay and benefits. That has generally been the case, but apparently the future is dimmer.

The Navy officers and enlisted personnel we've met show admirable dedication to their jobs. But declining pay, inadequate base housing and repeated long deployments - especially deployments on short notice - combine to make civilian life seem rosy by comparison. Poor family services further sour many military dependents on the military lifestyle.

The military, in its lust for the best possible weapons, easily can shortchange its personnel. That is not wise. In fact, it's stupid.

According to a business cliche, a company is only as good as its people. The same goes for the military.

Something has to give when civilian leaders cut funds to the military but not demands upon it. What usually gives are pay and living conditions for military personnel.

The military's civilian bosses must provide sufficient funds to hire and treat decently their crucial high-tech personnel. But while the push is on to balance the budget without raising taxes, there's little room to maneuver. Better to reduce demands on the military than to spread it thin to the point of incompetency.

If military personnel are treated like second-rate citizens, the military surely will become second-rate, no matter how good its weapons systems.

Send Suggestions or Comments to webmaster@scholar.lib.vt.edu