Bloated Armed Forces Waste Valuable Resources

[webfact]

EDITORIAL

Bloated armed forces waste valuable resources

By The Nation

The Thai military doesn't need aircraft carriers, submarines and airships; it needs to become leaner and more professional

Just before the "Tom Yam Kung" financial crisis in 1997, the then Armed Forces Supreme Command was looking to purchase about 300 armoured personnel carriers, or APCs. In line with procurement policy, soldiers on the ground were instructed to carry out testing of various models. Men were leaning towards the Bradley fighting vehicle of the US, but the top brass at the Supreme Command had their minds set on a French model, which, incidentally, was a prototype. Buying a prototype was against procurement policy. But, of course, the top brass didn't call it that. It was an upgrade model, they said. When asked about the compatibility of the weapon system, as well as the differences in the engines between the two versions, they immediately became brain dead.

Local media continued to nag the top brass, wondering what business was it of theirs to be buying the APCs when it was units in the Army, a separate branch of the armed forces, that were going to use them. Squabbling among the Thai military cliques forced then prime minister, Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, to step in and order retesting of every model bidding for the contract. Besides this, according to government insiders, he had his eye on other manufacturers. But just as the new round of testing began, the economy went into a tailspin. The procurement project went down the drain with a lot of lucrative investment. Needless to say, the project had a bad smell attached to it.

It would be a long time before the country recovered from the financial crisis and military modernisation got back on track.

But judging from today's headlines - with the fiasco over the effectiveness of the GT-200 bomb detectors, and a gigantic airship soon to be flying over the deep South, where the ongoing insurgency has gripped the region - one wonders if our defence planners have actually learned anything form the past. Shouldn't closed-circuit cameras on the ground work just as well as an "eye in the sky"?

Besides the fact that the airship makes a big target, its sheer size and slow speed would easily tip off insurgents who reside in just about every village in the deep South.

The Thai military spending spree resumed after the country recovered from the financial crisis about a decade after it struck the entire region. Jet fighters, one of the main platforms in the Royal Thai Air Force, were diversified to include Swedish Grippens. In the Navy, there was talk of buying submarines. Those poor sailors looked and sounded foolish in reply to questions about what they were going to do with the submarines. Don't blame us if in the distant future the country gets attacked from the sea, the naval top brass said. They were lost for words, and such an answer was the best we were going to get from these men.

Of course, the insurgency in the South has become a great excuse to buy more hardware. But despite all the equipment and firepower, the Thai military has yet to make any real headway in curbing the insurgency and the daily violence. Unfortunately, the brass doesn't realise that it's not about being outfought but being outgoverned.

This is not to say that Thailand should not have professional armed forces with adequate capability. Sadly, during those crunch times, nobody thought seriously about the need to create a leaner and meaner military force. The country has over 1,000 generals strutting around, puffing out their chests. This makes the description "top-heavy" an understatement.

Much of the military budget - about 70 per cent, under the current structure - goes to administrative costs such as salaries, and not towards strengthening capacity and capability.

A master plan was pushed through in late 1999. Besides slashing nearly 80,000 personnel over 12 years, the plan also called for a more unified structure for the three armed services, the Office of the Defence Permanent Secretary and the Armed Forces Supreme Command. But more than 10 years on, the Thai military has little to show in terms of modernisation or downsizing.

Ideally, this 70 per cent on administrative costs should be reduced to 40 to 50 per cent. This would permit more money to go toward modernisation and restructuring. Such restructuring could include combining into one the staff colleges, with transportation and logistics under one roof. Moreover, military-owned enterprises such as radio and televisions stations could be privatised. Transportation and non-military related details, such as security guards, could be outsourced to civilian organisations.

Sadly, greed and incompetence is the order of the day among our generals

-- The Nation 2010-02-05

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[geriatrickid]

Wow.

I have a feeling someone is going to get a big dose of whoop, once the boys that collect the 70% cut find out who penned the editorial.

[Briggsy]

As has been said before, "a state within a state".

[Hardback]

It's what the military men spend their money on which is the real issue in terms of affecting wider Thai society. How do they put their gains from making these deals into play? When you start to look at this you'll soon see that the military having shiny new toys is merely window dressing. They don't buy guns for their families.

Edited February 5, 2010 by Hardback

[Donnyboy]

no great surprises here

[selftaopath]

Wow.

I have a feeling someone is going to get a big dose of whoop, once the boys that collect the 70% cut find out who penned the editorial.

Sadly, greed and incompetence is ????? perhaps everywhere in land of scams (LOS). The Thai people deserve better.

[jonclark]

Over a 1'000 generals !!! What do they do?? That must be more generals per capita than any other country in the world.

[Hardback]

Over a 1'000 generals !!! What do they do?? That must be more generals per capita than any other country in the world.

Even the USA (whose military is undoubtedly the "busiest" in the world) has less...I always wonder how it is these guys manage to get so many decorations.

[hammered]

To be honest the world would be abetter place if every military were a lot smaller.

There are also arguements that with fourth generation warfare now perfected by many non-traditional fighting forces that warplanes, carriers, subs, tanks etc are of no use and that budgets should be shifted to better training the infantry in things such as language and culture as well as improving basic military training too so that troops are actually equipped for roles they will be carrying out with terms of engagement now being decided by the non-trational fighting forces usually on their well known home turf.

[DP25]

Thailand's military budget is already quite small, both in terms of percent of gdp and in total terms, compared with it's neighbors and the rest of the world. Burma's military is larger, battle trained, and they spend twice as much money while their economy is 1/10th the size. For example, Thailand recently bought 100 new, modern APCs from the Ukraine. Burma bought the exact same model, except they bought 1000 of them.

[EyesWideOpen]

I personally am a bit confused by the size of the army here. The King of Thailand signed a defense pact in the late 1950s with America , meaning in essence that America will open a can of whoop ass on whoever decides to invade Thailand. Wait.......oh I get it now. To understand Thailand, just follow the money... Endless generals, and new military toys with contracts that are heavily padded. The capper really was the subamarine they wanted. Hope the guy who thought that one up is in a inactive post somewhere.....

Edited February 5, 2010 by rhiekel

[TAWP]

Old info, but it is fun to talk about the oddly sized military here when it comes to top-brass numbers. It seems people are raised through ranks due to years of service etc and not because the position opened up etc. Kinda like having 3 CEO's, 5 CFO's in a company. Doesn't make sense, but then again the military isn't really a smooth operation either here...

[jayjayjayjay]

What two countries share a large component of wealth due to industrial growth through research and development after WW 2. Two countries stood out from others in becoming powerhouses of industry........... by the mid 80's these two countries literally ruled the high tech area of business.....

Japan and Germany.

Why, no military to finance, so brains and money went into productive economic boosting pursuits of excellence.

Nuff said.

What happened in America when Bush started spending wildly on military pursuits......... great for the first 5 years.. then..... the predictable crash as money was again going into a military literal black hole.

Thailand's military strength is only matched by it's ignorance of the plight of upcountry poor.

[Lancelot]

Over a 1'000 generals !!! What do they do?? That must be more generals per capita than any other country in the world.

You not understand Thai culture

[toptuan]

I have frequent occasion to visit upcountry primary schools--most of which are in a sad state of physical disrepair, with teachers having to buy class materials out of their meager monthly salaries of less than 6,000B/month. Then I come across pictures and hear stories from my Thai friends about the training schools of the sleek and up-to-date Thai police and Thai military, which appear to be a century ahead and billions of baht ahead of the educational system. The facilities alone tell the tale of where the priorities are.

[Hawk]

Over a 1'000 generals !!! What do they do?? That must be more generals per capita than any other country in the world.

You not understand Thai culture

So is Thai culture all about a bloated army with far, far too many "generals" lining their own pockets at the expense of the common folk?

Also, the new Thai army hasn't won a battle to date, they lose to the Burmese, Cambodians and even to the communist Lao army, and isn't it appalling that they can't even subdue a handful of rabble in the south.

The Thai army is full of non descripts who don't want to fight, and what about the 1000+ generals, have any of them been in an actual warfare type battle, or do they just sit at home and watch old war films on the television?

Edited February 5, 2010 by Hawk

[jayjayjayjay]

From a post I made last year, I think 2008 figures:

These are some back-of-the-envelope calculations using World Bank, CIA Gov Library, CIA World Facebook and International Monetary Fund numbers:

What they represent is the budget for military spending, as a percentage of averaged GDP.

Country average GDP millionUSD / military spending million USD = %

United States avGDP 13,982,940 m USD / 713,100 m USD = 5%

Japan avGDP 4,534,093 m USD / 48,930 m USD = 1.07%

Thailand avGDP 254,423 m USD / 5,000 m USD = 2.96%

Singapore avGDP 171,832 m USD / 7,600 m USD = 4.42%

Malaysia avGDP 194,044 m USD / 1,690 m USD = 0.8%

Laos avGDP 4,407 m USD / 11 m USD = 0.2%

Cambodia avGDP 9,379 m USD / 112 m USD = 1.2%

Vietnam avGDP 77,679 m USD / 3200 m USD = 4.1%

at 5% we know the USA wants to run the world, 4.1% in Vietnam runs their government, so I can see why Thailand can't survive on 1 % of Japan or 0.8% of Malaysia.

Edited February 5, 2010 by jayjayjayjay

[scorecard]

To be honest the world would be abetter place if every military were a lot smaller.

There are also arguements that with fourth generation warfare now perfected by many non-traditional fighting forces that warplanes, carriers, subs, tanks etc are of no use and that budgets should be shifted to better training the infantry in things such as language and culture as well as improving basic military training too so that troops are actually equipped for roles they will be carrying out with terms of engagement now being decided by the non-trational fighting forces usually on their well known home turf.

I agree.

I served 15 months in Vietnam. The factor which has stayed with me ever since is that he on the ground troops (me) were nothing more than easily disposeable cheap pawns in a nasty vicious game played by people who were in fact pretty ignorant of sociology, and no tought or desire to go down a different path to build a non-violent world working seriously towards a peaceful respectful co-existance.

We never learn.

[Bagwan]

I served 15 months in Vietnam. The factor which has stayed with me ever since is that he on the ground troops (me) were nothing more than easily disposeable cheap pawns in a nasty vicious game played by people who were in fact pretty ignorant of sociology, and no tought or desire to go down a different path to build a non-violent world working seriously towards a peaceful respectful co-existance.

We never learn.

Indeed some people never learn. Did General Westmoreland or the Thai military ever hear of the Malayan Emergency and how it was solved by Sir Gerald Templer? Vietnam may have turned out differently if a more realistic strategy been applied. Did the US follow informed advice from people with actual experience regarding adoption of convoy systems and switching off the lights along the American eastern seaboard? Operation Drumbeat inflicted severe loses as a result. Why didn't the US build their aircraft carriers with armoured decks as advised? Wooden decks ensured severe damage and losses were caused by kamikazes at Okinawa. HMS Indefatigable took a hit abreast the 'island' and was back in full operation 20 minutes later. The 8th US Army Air Force took a terrible battering after going against RAF advice regarding daylight bombing of Occupied Europe. Do we put this down to the 'gung ho' factor, misguided optimism or sheer incompetence if we assume that an unwillingness to learn from others can be so described? History records that Britain and its powerful empire could not pacify the North West Frontier and I wonder if the present unpleasantness will bring an acceptable result in that area.

Some, particularly those a few cents short of a dollar, might think this is America bashing or flag waving. Not so. The above are facts, pure and simple. The Japanese learned the lessons of Taranto hence Pearl Harbour. Churchill was directly responsible for the loss of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse by insisting against all advice they attack Japanese landings in Malaya without screening or air cover. Dare I mention Crete?

Who picks up the tab for all the cock-ups that politicians and top brass make. G.I. Joe and Tommy Atkins, that's who.

[Bagwan]

Over a 1'000 generals !!! What do they do?? That must be more generals per capita than any other country in the world.

Even the USA (whose military is undoubtedly the "busiest" in the world) has less...I always wonder how it is these guys manage to get so many decorations.

Well you get a medal for finding your way to the Recruiting Office without Mummy to guide you there. Then there is the shiny shoes medal, one for having the least amount of hair after a visit to the barbers, one for being able to swing the right arm and the left leg at the simultaneously (Look Mum. I've learned to march), one if the ship's ice cream machine breaks down for more than 24 hours, one for actually knowing one end of a rifle from the other - the list is endless. I remember an occasion in the China Fleet Club in Hong Kong when one of my shipmates asked a bemedalled American matelot what his decorations were for. Not a lot apparently. "What is this one for then," the inquisitor asked. "Having the balls to wear the rest?" Handing out these baubles willy-nilly totally devalues the system.

Anybody else notice that nearly all BiB grunts are sergeants at least? Totally crazy, with too many Chiefs and not enough Indians.

[OZEMADE]

What happened to the cadh they the military were awarded for the purchase of the Submarines.

[tso310]

1000 generals in Thailand.

Clearly Thailand is the Hub of Generals. I knew they would get there one day with something.

[WeeGB]

Surely the whole purpose of the Thai military is to keep it's own people down? Therefore spending on weaponry, gadgets, balloons etc, is logical, as it removes massive amounts of money from the governments income. Leading to little or no money to spend on educating the masses. Didn't I read on here of a General, (can't remember his name, too many of them), who had amassed 90 million Baht, yet had spent his entire career in the Army?

[mca]

I feel the Navy brass fully deserve submarines.

What better way to get one up on an Army general with a mere Bentley?

"Yeah mate. Nice car. Walnut dash eh? Twin turbos right? But can it do this? DIVE! DIVE!"

[Jai Dee]

Some of the posts in this thread have been reported as anti-American or "yank-bashing".

After reviewing them, ThaiVisa moderators do not feel that this is the case and will allow the posts to remain.

Please consider however, that this is in response to an editorial opinion and not a news bulletin... therefore opinions and similes will be permitted as part of the discussion.

This does not give license to bash or overly criticize Thai or American armed forces... and please remember the rules with regard to defamation or libel.

[BSJ]

I am trying to be fair, so I started adding up the jobs in the Thai army that must be done by a senior ranking officer, one of rank higher than Colonel and I ran out of legitimate jobs at 22....plus 6 or 7 that are maybe's. My conclusion, on the face of it they are seriously out of kilter with reality!

[brahmburgers]

The Thai military would be smart to learn a thing or two from the Israelis.

Israel has its own line of weaponry and they know how to use them. There are several weapons manufacturers who are at the vanguard of innovations. They know that a few small weapons, ably handled, can cancel out/destroy big cumbersome weapons. They learned something from the David and Goliath story.

Thai top brass thinks it needs the biggest weapons (to keep up with the Joneses) like aircraft carrier and subs, yet smaller, cheaper weapons can be mighty effective.

....and the 70% of defense budget applied to administrative costs doesn't surprise me (with what I've observed of Thai bureaucracy), but it disgusts me. How much of that 70% are bribes and kick-backs, and does that 70% include endemic over-payments for products?

Edited February 5, 2010 by brahmburgers

[surangw]

most of the equipment the thai military has is out dated u.s. issue , radios from viet nam era, planes that cost a fortune to maintain. ect.

lots of money to be made by the munitions dealers.

[CLOD]

Army is the wrong word for this lot.

Good at jackbooting their own people, is as far as it goes.

Love to see em in some real action.

[Briggsy]

I am trying to be fair, so I started adding up the jobs in the Thai army that must be done by a senior ranking officer, one of rank higher than Colonel and I ran out of legitimate jobs at 22....plus 6 or 7 that are maybe's. My conclusion, on the face of it they are seriously out of kilter with reality!

You are confused because you are viewing The Royal Thai Army as a conventional army whose chief role is to provide defence for the nation.

If you think like this, you will always be confused.

If you consider the RTA as a privileged section of society that provides protection not for the nation but for itself, prosperity not for the nation but for itself, prestige not for the nation but for itself, you will understand its role far better.

Protection for soldiers, their families and perhaps, their friends is achieved through concrete measures such as the police not being able to enter army bases and less tangible measures such as effective immunity from prosecution for officers and the social prestige of having a high rank.

Prosperity is linked to concrete measures such as free or subsidised housing and food, subsidised supermarkets and often just having to sign on at 8am every day in order to get the low military salary. That leaves the day free to go and do a more profitable job or business. Some of these businesses may be very profitable and less than legal such as copying DVD's or running motorcycle taxis. The prestige of the uniform tends to prevent competitors from entering the same field.

Finally the army has never really answered to central government (see Prem's jockey comment). This gives it political power as the government of the day must bow to its demands or at least compromise to avoid a coup.

So, to summarise, the "bloated" size of the Army is perfectly matched to its needs in its real role. Conscription provides a cheap labour force for the generals. The large size provides protection in numbers. The large size 'justifies' the "bloated" budget. If it became 'small and professional' it would have no time to run all those profitable sidelines and would be trumped by the equally bloated police force.