The nature of bureaucracy is such that it supports consistency at the price of agility, flexibility,and speed of change. The counterweight to the bureaucracy is the rotating work force reprsented by the politcal appointees. Politcal appointees represent the new blood that brings new ideas; but they demand quick implementations in order to make their mark in the short(er) time they occupy their positions. In order for the system to work well, it needs an equilibrium between these two groups. Sometimes one side or the other seems to acquire more power, which tips the system out of balance. Buy it usually ends up correcting itself. America is currently at a watershed of shorts as baby boomer bureaucrats are exiting government jobs and retire in droves.

By the way, I suspect that military members observing and/or getting involved in the process tend to get rather frustrated because they, due to the rotational nature of their assignments and the "up or out" promotion policies that are carried out through centralized selection boards, need to make their mark in each assignment rather more quickly (sort of like a first-term President elected on a reform platform) than is common in the slow incremental change process that distinguishes the realm of government policy.

America could probably do this a different way. However, if we opted for a speedier process, I fear the US would be much more like certain Latin American countries in terms of the turbulence in its national leadership. Or, the US could end up taking as long as the UN or EU to implement watered down policies that really do nothing for any one.

You pay your money, and you take your choice.