Perhaps, but in the grand scheme this is going to be about priorities. Do you want a robust Chaplaincy, or can we ratchet that back so we can afford combat capabilities? That's what this is really all about. DoN is facing several very costly recapitalization requirements in an era where DoD budgets are likely to be fairly static. Of all the tough choices we may be faced with, scaling back the Chaplaincy seems like an easy one.
The article focused heavily on the chaplaincy, however there is significant bloat in all staffs and the admiralty that needs to be addressed. Sure, there are more chaplains per capita than WWII, but there are also drastically more Admirals now than in WWII as well. How many RPs could we keep if we got rid of an admiral?
It also gave no costs associated with a reduction, so how much of the $40billion would realistically be cut, even if you cut the entire 2,000 members of the chaplaincy? Chaplaincy requires almost zero hardware costs. They typically work out of extra offices in already existing buildings or work entirely out of the base chapels. In 20 years I don’t think I’ve ever seen a shiny new building built specifically for Chaplins. What does cutting people from the chaplaincy corps actually do?
I don’t have a problem with reducing the Chaplaincy but it misses the larger point, if the intent is to reduce personnel costs.
More importantly, it’s a slippery slope to prioritize hardware over personnel. For example, AFSOC has specifically created a resiliency program to address mental health, and chaplains are a big part of that. Big Air Force is coming around to the same conclusion after seeing how much it’s helped in AFSOC.
I think it would serve the Navy well to follow suit. Getting rid of Chaplains is a bad idea.