Kennedy's analysis is okay but he does very badly miss one point:

"...These strengths have been overshadowed during a near-decade of political irresponsibility in Washington, rampant greed on Wall Street and its outliers, and excessive military ventures abroad."

I'd say by any measure the irresponsibility and greed run back a lot farther than a near decade -- about 48 years in my book and I think at least 30 by anyone's reckoning. A whole lot nearer a half century than ten years. He must have slept through the 70s, 80s and 90s.

I'd apply the same measure to 'military adventures' as well but I suspect the good Professor and I would differ radically on what constituted 'adventure' and on which were excessive, which were necessary and which were not...

Surferbeetle asks:
"Do metrics apply for what he describes, and what are the significant differences to the 'metrics approach' used that you see with COL McMaster's thesis? How else do we measure things?"
I don't think they apply across the board; I do not understand the second question; and what is being measured?
I too understand what's going when I am in the thick of things on the ground, but other than having people in my chain of command who know and trust me how does one share one's understanding with the resource providers?
If you're in the thick of things on the ground, I'd bet there's no problem having your chain of command trust you...

That second phrase is where we've gone wrong. You should not have to share your understanding with the resource providers; it is not their job to second guess you to death (literally) it is their job to support you with the resources you require. It is your chain of command's job to insure you ask for what is needed and to fire you if you ask for excess; since we know you'd never do that, you should get what you ask for. It is also their job to fight any resource battles. I've seen exceptions of course but mostly that used to work, at least prior to my retirement in 1995 -- surely you guys haven't let things go downhill that much in 13 years???

That's what should happen; sometimes it does not, most always due to a number of well intentioned laws and regulations designed to protect the taxpayers money that effectively tie the hands of all. We tolerate that and I don't know why we do -- I do know why some in positions of power tolerate, even encourage, it. Because it enhances their own power.

The Bean counters have taken over the institution and everyone is okay with that? Weird.

Which doesn't answer your question. I don't have an answer. I've never had that problem, seriously. I cannot think of a time when I asked for resources I needed that I did not get them, almost invariably with no metrics involved. I'll acknowledge occasional use of the "Ask for ten, expect five...' rule and that I sometimes would only "...get three." However, that three always worked out. That applies to uniformed and civilian service, peace and war.

I do remember that when the Army, briefly, was going to "Manage Civilians to Budget" that I proposed to eliminate five civilian positions and regrade three others only to be told that I could eliminate just two because there was a Congressionally mandated floor for civilian employees and two was my salami slice. so much for a good idea and a good program that foundered on a metric.

A metric designed to protect jobs, union members and votes -- not the taxpayer's dollars.

Like I said, I don't know why we put up with that stuff...