http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/10/5-ways-to-make-our-military-great-again/
5 ways to make our military great again
- Share
Before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, America’s military totaled less than one and a half million soldiers, sailors, Marines, and coastmen. Waiting for our nation stood the Japanese at over 6,000,000 men at its peak, and the Germans at well over 10,000,000. Our adversaries had more ships as well, yet America, despite the odds, won. How?
While the short answer is the atomic bomb, the real question is how we got there, militarily, technologically, economically. A large factor was America’s entrepreneurial drive, combined with its citizen-soldier military. The men and women who joined the fight understood how to get things done. They were farmers, fishermen, mechanics, men from steel mills and shipyards; in short, they were producers. They brought with them onto the battlefields of Europe and the Pacific ingenuity, common sense, and free thought.
Having served in the military I can state without hesitation that our military lacks the qualities of World War II’s citizen-soldier force. Do not be confused; our modern military is comprised of good people, men and women who want to make a difference for the better. The system, however, the mindless and political bureaucracy, thwarts young service members and is leading to a weakened military. The majority of our ranking commanders have become career and rank obsessed, people of procedure and advancement, rather than leaders of men.
While in the Navy, I watched as politics sidelined the most productive, sharpest, and talented soldiers. Countless driven men and women left in fear that the unpredictable, inefficient, and random promotion system might stall their careers and leave them and their families struggling. We lived in a system that where many of the best who enlist or seek a commission only serve for a few years then move on to civilian life in the private sector.
Career soldiers and sailors can turn into bureaucratic zombies as easily as any EPA staffer. Recently, an order to ban the “Navy Jack” patch in the SEAL teams was issued, only to be denied. When called on it, the criticism was dismissed as a “misunderstanding” with an subsequest order to “update” the uniform policy.
These are the military “leaders” who discourage the free-thinker, institute needless rules and protocol, and stifle innovation and creativity. Sadly they are crushing our military with the weight of their bureaucratic machinery.
I hinted at some of the issues facing the modern military in my first book, Battle on the Home Front, but felt constrained from fully expressing the extent of the overhaul needed while remaining an active duty Navy SEAL.
During my time in service, political discussions often ventured into how to incorporate free-market, meritocratic principles into the Navy. Here are five possibilities.
Reform the promotion system
In short, the military’s promotion system is not a meritocracy. The most talented frequently leave, for two reasons. First, they can achieve more in less time in the civilian world. Second, they’ll be paid more.
To be promoted, one must be “in zone,” meaning that the individual has enough “time in rank,” to be eligible for promotion. Time is key, not effort or talent. In the free market, the best man or woman is hired without regard to abstract bureaucratic qualifications such as “zones” or “time in rank.”
So why not incorporate free-market hiring principles in the military? Abolish “zones,” put less emphasis on “time in rank,” and have open applications for positions. The military only stands to gain. If a young lieutenant is talented, then perhaps he or she could move from division officer to department head position (a position typically designated for a lieutenant commander or the next rank above their position). A free market promotion system would help retain the most talented and accelerate them to positions of influence. Meritocracy would prevail over a career flow chart.
The Navy Jack patch controversy is a case in point. When I brought it to the attention of the media, first the Navy denied it; a flat out lie. Then, when a source exposed the identity of the person who issued the order, it was then passed off as a “misunderstanding.” No one is held accountable. Commanding officers often make or pass on orders without thought, and instead of holding feet to fire for ridiculous or even unlawful ones, they are brushed off and forgotten about, and so the problem continues.
How does this happen? Simply put, turds take care of turds, and those who speak out against them are outnumbered. Yet if commanding officers were to pick their team, much like NFL drafts, unworthy officers would be branded as such and not be chosen for positions that help them advance even further. And if you are not picked at all then you would be out of luck. Your CO would essentially be the coach and the rank above him, the team owner. There would be the occasional Tim Tebow, a good player who just doesn’t get picked, but this method has far more potential for success than the current model.
Replies
Get rid of the problem Kick Obama's ass back to Kenya.
Let's do it! I'll help you!
I have seen the system at work from a very close range, 39 years 9 months of Enlisted/Commissioned, Active Duty/Reserve service. During my retirement ceremony in Oct 2005 I was asked why after all those years I had only been promoted up to LTC; I responded that I had not been a favorite of too many O6 people. Mt very first OER contained a single comment from my Senior Rater, in bold caps he had stated, "Definately not a yes man." I was there to train & maintain the health & welfare of my assigned troops and their families as well and would not deviate from my mission to make a less than worthy officer look good to get a promotion or maintain their position. The troops know what is going on and for some reason there are too many officers who think they can BS their way up the chain. If all officers had to be enlisted first and achieve E-5 status prior to enter any officer producing program (to include USMA or appropriate Branch academy) then there would be a much better relationship for improved performance of any particular unit. There are too many Pentagon Peacocks (US Army mostly) strutting around and making obnoxous noises, yet they do not wear a CIB; hard to ask the troops to do something you have not done. Get rid of these overrated "leaders" who assist the bho with dismantling the military, to much yellow for them to fall on their sword and die with honor, a term with which they are no doubt unfamilar.
IT IS PRETTY SIMPLE TO ME ( GET THE COMMUNIST OUT OF THIS COUNTRY === START WITH THE WHITE HOUSE ) .
I was initially impressed with the opening remarks of this post. However, the criticism about having officers train with business leaders in order to move up fails to recognize that this very same criticism was advanced more than fifty years ago and led to a very large and intensive effort to get advanced degrees for not only officers but enlisted as well. Today's Generals for the most part are better educated that many of our earlier Officer Corps and I know the enlisted are as well. Comparing our efforts to gear up to fight a war back in the early 1940's is not the same as trying to do the same today. It is so far removed that were we suddenly attacked again in a similar sneak attack, (given the same set of circumstances i.e. the need to gear up to manufacture the means to go on the offensive), there are no more Henry Kaisers, or giant manufacturing facilities to gear up any longer. Remember Pittsburgh with its giant steel mills? They no longer exist. Nor are there giant shipyards ready willing and able to start building ships to carry troops (who needs them anyway with giant aircraft able to move troops anywhere in the world in hours if not days....We have sent all our facilities overseas to China, India, Pakistan oh and before I forget we also sent them our communications capabilities....don't believe me? Have you tried calling your computer net supplier for help lately, or your phone company or internet provider, or cell provider for help? If you can understand their instructions, in sometimes fairly good English, sometimes not, you might get something fixed. Require our Generals to serve in a top management intern position for qualification as a General Officer? I think not unless he plans on eventually becoming a General in some other country's military.
Yes there are many ways to fix the military, but I am not sure these are the right ways. I served ten years and when my ten years were over as I sought to gain the education I believed necessary to join that Officer Corps which by the way was offered several times once I had obtained it, I still believed that some of the most honorable people I had the pleasure to serve with and under were Military Officers (both Army and Marines). But my career path changed and I served as a civil servant to our country as a Federal Auditor, interestingly auditing in large part Department of Defense activities including both civilian and Military.
I agree that there a lot of officers in the Pentagon who are indeed ticket punchers and even more hoping to get their tickets punched with the right marks. Not all are beyond help, not all are honorable and not all will ever become General Officers. I do know a few General Officers personally, and all of them, from each of the services earned their stars honorably so far as I know. Admittedly, there are few that rise to the level of Chief of Staff or Chair of the Joint Chiefs, but those that rise to four stars know their business and most have studied their subjects and know more about the areas of operations of the past three wars in IRAQ and Afghanistan better than the politicians that came in after the battle was over to shoot all the wounded and run the country after the military left (the real warfighters that is).
So in defense of our military, consider if you will the fact that the first IRAQ war ended in a little over 100 hours and had the fewest casualties on our side of any full scale war in history. The Second IRAQ war was also won in record time, but the General they initially brought in USMC General Zinni, was an acknowledged expert on the Middle East, its people, its military and shortly after he arrived they replaced him with a pusillanimous puissant politician that screwed things up so badly, that we had to stay longer and lost more troops than necessary.
Consider Afghanistan wherein our troops destroyed the Taliban in almost record time and again we sent in the civilians to run things and again we get mired down in Rules of Engagement decided by civilians. Nope, leave the warfighting to the Generals and then pull out all the troops and then send in the civilians to screw things up. That's just my two cents.