Is the U.S. military ready? Texas Gov. and Republican presidential nominee George Bush brought this important issue into the political spotlight at the Republican convention, when he criticized the administration of President Bill Clinton and, by implication, vice president and Democratic nominee Al Gore, for allowing U.S. military forces to deteriorate badly during its watch. Democrats have denied the allegations, and claimed that the U.S. military has never been finer. Where does the truth lie?

A fair assessment must conclude that today's U.S. armed forces are excellent -- hardly the "hollow force" that characterized the early years after the Vietnam War, as is sometimes alleged by Republican critics. On the whole, the Clinton stewardship of the military has been reasonably good. But whether it has been good enough is a subjective matter that can and should be debated in the campaign.

Republicans are right that today's military, unit for unit, is not as healthy as the military of a decade ago. Equipment on average is not quite as serviceable; for example, 85 percent of military aircraft were typically "mission capable" at any one time in the early 1990s, whereas today the average figure is closer to 75 percent. Weapons are also getting older; many will soon need replacing. Troops are working harder, largely because of long-standing and demanding deployments in places such as the Balkans and the Persian Gulf. As a result, their morale is not as good as it was during the Reagan and Bush presidencies. As morale slips, recruiting as well as retention of experienced troops and officers becomes harder -- placing the country's long-term ability to maintain a top-notch volunteer force in some jeopardy.