U.S. interests in Africa have expanded in the past decade beyond such traditional areas as economic development through trade and investment, democratic governance and the rule of law, and conflict prevention with an emphasis on peacekeeping and rapid response capacities. The continent is now at the center of a number of critical security issues. These issues range from the emergence of potent violent extremist movements (Boko Haram, al-Shabaab and Islamic State in Iraq and Syria), with the capacity to destabilize fragile states, to a health security agenda catalyzed by the spread of infectious disease with global impacts (e.g., Ebola and Zika viruses). For the past several years, the U.S. Government (USG), in its national security strategy and related documents, has stressed building partner capacity (BPC) as an essential military mission, especially for the U.S. Army, to counter these threats and reduce their risk to African governments and societies.

For more than 3 decades, the term "hollow army" or the more expansive idiom, "hollow force," has represented President Carter's alleged willingness to allow American military capability to deteriorate in the face of growing Soviet capability. The phrase continues to resonate today. In this current period of declining defense resources, the President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have articulated how the newly released strategic guidance and budget priorities signify a concerted effort not to "hollow out" U.S. forces. They have affirmed their dedication to preventing the recreation of the ragged military and disastrous deterioration in defense capability the Carter administration allowed to occur. However, it is also time to reexamine the term "hollow army" and its meaning as the inevitable tug of war over defense spending gets underway. This Paper places the "hollow army" metaphor within its historical context: barely 5 years after the United States finally disengaged from a major war (Vietnam), a struggling economy, and an election year in which a President was not only tenuously leading in the polls, but also confronted substantial opposition from elements of his own political party. Over the years, a specific political reading of these events has taken hold. It is the purpose of this Paper to re-read the historical events, and in doing so, come to a better understanding of the domestic political and geostrategic environment during Carter's presidency, the U.S. Cold War strategy, and the assertions made concerning the readiness of the U.S. Army to perform its missions.

The term "hollow army" became a part of the American political vocabulary more than 30 years ago, in another election year, 1980. Highlighted by reporter in an article about the U.S. Army Chief of Staff's congressional testimony concerning the fiscal year 1981 defense budget, the term became a metaphor for the Jimmy Carter administration's alleged neglect of U.S. national security by political opponents as well as disapproving members of his own party in Congress, who believed him to be a liability. In the decades following, the expression broadened to a "hollow force" and its meaning expanded, serving as a way of describing the state of ill-prepared military forces in characterizing a presidential administration's shortfall in the resources needed to meet U.S. military commitments.