Open Thread – Which US DoD Dinosaurs Would You Slay?

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

First the only President Appointed, Senate approved individuals in DoD should be the SecDef, DepSecDef, and undersecretaries. All the rest should be hired by the SecDef within criteria set by the Congress and be career SESs.

Second, nearly all Defense Agencies and Field Activities probably could be eliminated or scaled down considerably. The litmus test would be:

What do you do to directly support the warfighter?

What functions/capabilities do you have that are not already resident in the Joint Staff, COCOMs, and Services?

If you scrubbed hard you could eliminate a lot of beauracracy and use the savings realized to plus up the similar functions/capabilities within the Mil Deps. It would be cheaper and more efficient.

[selil]

Please delete "cyber" anything. It is my specialty but like an electric engineer told me no other utility has there own department why does something as ubiquitous as computing have "cyber" agencies?

Another little thing. If you are in the military you fight. Everybody fights. I don't give a freaking flying monkey bungler if you have twelve stars on your shirt and a small boy to sweep before you. If you wear the uniform you fight. You don't sit in a command shed a continent away and "coordinate". Remove impediments to understanding by requiring EVERYBODY to fight. Staff positions are ancillary to fighting.

As a second point even more high flying and involving illicit substances if it isn't done by a soldier it isn't done. Flexible, capable, smart, and prepared are not supported by a contracting staff who quiver and charge un-godly wages of sin and sue for sexual harassment in a war zone. Everybody will say they need their contractor prepared Hagen Daz and Pizza pie.. WTF?

People whining about carrying batteries into combat (subject to explosion upon contact with water), but they want there dots ice cream. In a 130 degree heat.

Building the green zone is the biggest boondoggle in the history of the American military. The cost, the expense, the strange logistical trials of supporting that monstrosity.

Weapons and weapons systems should be serviceable in the field by the war fighter with the tools attached to the system or light enough. Lighter, faster, cleaner, sustainable, capable should be the technology feats. Not more battery, more logistics, more support... Critical, brittle, high-tech are what make contractors rich. Not a military that can fight wars.

I have more but I've likely peeved about EVERYONE off. Now to be told why none of that will happen.

[Schmedlap]

I have more but I've likely peeved about EVERYONE off.

Anyone peeved by what you wrote about the Green Zone should probably have their heads examined. I think the Green Zone should be placed under responsibility of the National Park Service and designated as a national monument... to fraud, waste, and abuse.

[CR6]

Another little thing. If you are in the military you fight. Everybody fights. I don't give a freaking flying monkey bungler if you have twelve stars on your shirt and a small boy to sweep before you. If you wear the uniform you fight. You don't sit in a command shed a continent away and "coordinate". Remove impediments to understanding by requiring EVERYBODY to fight. Staff positions are ancillary to fighting.

As a second point even more high flying and involving illicit substances if it isn't done by a soldier it isn't done.

In no way angered by what you write Sam, but am curious about how to reconcile one and two. I wear a uniform but my current job makes me responsible for the refurbishment of equipment returning from combat to prepare it for the next deployment. When I went to war, I carried a weapon and was prepared to fight. That goes with the job. But now I am a continent away. If, because I am a soldier, I should be fighting who should do my job in CONUS? According to your second point, a soldier, but how can that be done if all the soldiers are fighting? What am I missing?

Ben

[John T. Fishel]

and Senator (and the Pres, while you're at it). DOD political appointees(about 1300 in all) are there because the Congress and the Executive want them. they want to make sure the President's (and Congress') policies are followed and not misinterpreted by the permanent bureaucracy (civilian and uniformed) as happened in DS/DS with the PSRC. One of Pres Obama's best appointments, IMO, is Michelle Flournoy as USD-Policy. But where do you think she got her experience that qualified her for the post? In the Clinton Administration she was a DASD and Principal DASD (political appointments just below the level of Senate confirmation). So, there is reason for the political appointments as they stand, whether we agree or not. (BTW, the Brits do it kind of like you suggest but their career civil service has far more power than ours does.)

Cheers

JohnT

[Ken White]

and Senator (and the Pres, while you're at it). DOD political appointees(about 1300 in all) are there because the Congress and the Executive want them. they want to make sure the President's (and Congress') policies are followed and not misinterpreted by the permanent bureaucracy (civilian and uniformed) as happened in DS/DS with the PSRC. One of Pres Obama's best appointments, IMO, is Michelle Flournoy as USD-Policy. But where do you think she got her experience that qualified her for the post? In the Clinton Administration she was a DASD and Principal DASD (political appointments just below the level of Senate confirmation). So, there is reason for the political appointments as they stand, whether we agree or not. (BTW, the Brits do it kind of like you suggest but their career civil service has far more power than ours does.)

Totally correct and unlikely to change. Sadly.

The 'however' above is for the fact that all of them -- as often happens -- put a band aid on a festering problem which affects not only DoD but most government agencies and particularly including that agency -- politicization.

The Federal Civil service is bureaucratically constrained from doing a good job by a mass of conflicting laws and regulations. It has also become politicized in several senses of that word but one dangerous trend which Congress has fostered with well intentioned (mostly...) but dumb laws is their penchant for inertia and keeping the comfort of the status quo by simply stalling or obstructing, item dependent, until the political climate changes or sheer exhaustion overtakes those with a policy sensed by the SES types as 'wrong.' it makes little difference to them whether the grounds are moral, practical or a delusion -- they had the power to affect it because they're almost un-fireable.

Attempts to change that in many Administrations were thwarted by Congress on several grounds but the real issue is protecting congressional sources and pets in the CS system plus cozying up to the employee Unions and Associations (most of which are de facto Unions).

The correct solution is to fix Civil Service and hold the SES accountable. Those about 1300 appointees in DoD are matched by broadly similar numbers on a pro rata basis throughout the government and not only is their quality in many cases (Paul D. Wolfowitz, Douglas J. Feith.Michael D. Brown, George C. Deutsch, George Tenet, John M. Deutch and a host of others...) quite poor, the rotation factor and resultant lack of continuity is literally dangerous -- and inimical to every new Administration.

Not smart...

(Yes, I know some of those were in the 'ought to be Presidential appointee in all cases' category -- but all of them got their start in lower level jobs and went on to prove the Peter Principle works in later administrations.)

[selil]

In no way angered by what you write Sam, but am curious about how to reconcile one and two. I wear a uniform but my current job makes me responsible for the refurbishment of equipment returning from combat to prepare it for the next deployment. When I went to war, I carried a weapon and was prepared to fight. That goes with the job. But now I am a continent away. If, because I am a soldier, I should be fighting who should do my job in CONUS? According to your second point, a soldier, but how can that be done if all the soldiers are fighting? What am I missing?

Ben

Appologies. I should have constrained the point about fighting to in theater. In CONUS lord help us and the river don't rise we shouldn't be doing to much fighting, but a whole lot of training.

Previously in another thread I posted about "b" billets which is also a good idea for soldiers returning and to take the wear out of the training cycle. What can't be forgotten though is while serving in "b" billets "you" are in the kill chain. Everybody in that chain should be military. I know that is a huge military personnel component but it is also a lot more flexible. Every time we toss a contractor into the chow hall to serve food that is a job/billet that has to be compensated outrageously in the field. When we talk about CONUS every soldier should train. I imagine you do that. You do your job in CONUS but more importantly if you are serving in that capacity in CONUS you take that experience to the conflict zone...

I'm remembering Beirut 1982-3 and Cafeteria carts being delivered to Marines from ship for their hot meal. Another example of a systemic break down. MCAGCC supposedly has all contractor staff. Who feeds Marines in the field and what is the logistical chain to support that effort?

In barracks or in the field the roles should remain. In the Marines, every Marine is a rifleman loses something when there are 200+ contractors on a FOB necessitating protection beyond what a "b" billet Marine would require.

Highly flexible, sustainable, capable, agile, war fighter centric, mission ready, low-drag, cross-trained they all sound great and appear to be missing in the current military.

That said I critique because I take ownership and in my own small way to try to help make things right.

[Bob's World]

National Guard:

I am a huge fan of the National Guard for many reasons, but there is one important inaccuracy in Bullmoose's filabuster. I don't know the exact %, but the Guard is roughly 96% funded with federal dollars due to it's national warfighter mission. This is a tremendous value back to the states that only have to pay for what they actually use in response to a state emergency (pay, wear and tear on equipment, flight hours), and for facilities.

So when Governors try to say "I need the Guard at home in case of emergency" or "We wore out our equipment fighting a war." They really dishonor themselves by not being honest about the nature of the bargain. They get a great resource of highly trained, highly motivated, well equipped men and women that they can use whenever they want at virtually no cost to the state. The payback is that when the President calls, they go. To complain that the trucks provided to them for warfighting got worn out in the process of warfighting is little more than an attempt to PSYOP the state's populace to oppose the war on false pretenses. Not what I expect from a Governor.

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

totally agree Flournoy is an excellent choice for USD(P) but I think her real experience was perhaps better suited for the position of DSD (plus she has no 'big defense contractor stink' on her. IMHO anyone considered for a senior position in defense should recuse themselves if they have worked in any capacity for any of the top 10 defense contractor in the last five years, is it just me, or is it smart to let the wolves guard the henhouse?). At CSIS she cowrote BGN I & II and as DSD could actually have seen them put into effect quicker, although her position in USD(P) is also well placed for that, assuming POTUS, the SD, and DSD agree. While her ASD experience certainly makes her familiar with the inner workings of the building it is her subsequent work with CSIS and CNAS that IMO really saw her rise to the top.

I did note the the USDs should remain PASs since they are PSAs to the SD/DSD. It's the appointments beneath them that should not be political. Two reasons, one is that while they work for the SD they don't always feel that they answer to him. Second, RAND and CSIS studies have shown the average turnover in politicals is about 2.5 years. Not an effective way to provide leaderhip and governance for a vast enterprise that functions like a small country (as Sec Gates has noted).

Some of the career folks can additionally be a part of the problem since they are usually aware of the 2.5 year average and will take the stance that they can slow roll many issues until the political appointee leaves, then just let it die.

I have little faith my congressman would change things, but Jim Webb might.

Plus I might be in a better spot than either of them.