Are this author's observations on target or off base?

2015-10-29T15:30:05-04:00

The United States is notoriously bad at predicting future conflicts and changes in the international order. From the bestselling The Coming War With Japan in the early 1990s to our failure to foresee the fall of the Soviet Union, even the near future has often remained elusive to scholars and practitioners. We have always gone to war with the force we had — which has inevitably been geared toward a different kind of war than the one we ended up fighting. Perhaps in the next few decades, we will see war with China and continued conflict in the Middle East — but if the past in any indication, your guess is as good as mine.

Given the lack of predictability of conflict, the human capital in the U.S. military is of paramount importance. Rarely if ever do we have time to shift the composition or technology of our forces, but the personnel we invest in can pivot strategically and adjust as needed. Retaining “the best and the brightest” is of the utmost importance for a simple reason: More so than any other factor, personnel make the U.S. military the best fighting force in the world.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Undersecretary Brad Carson’s “Force of the Future” initiative has renewed interest in a long-bemoaned problem plaguing the all-volunteer force: its outdated personnel system. While recently proposed legislative changes are aimed at modernizing the military compensation and retirement system, the most important reforms are those that truly focus on capturing the “best and the brightest” by combining best practices in retention with reform of the billet selection system to ensure that the best people not only remain in the military, but are also placed in the right jobs. The proposed “Force of the Future” initiative is estimated to cost more than $1 billion a year to implement. In a time of fiscal austerity and drawdown, it is critical that these resources are spent in a way that yields true returns on investment.

The value of innovative and flexible thinkers in future conflicts is woefully absent from current personnel considerations. Rather, young service members must “check the box” until they reach O-6, whereupon those talented or lucky enough to be promoted to general officer are asked to strategize and innovate on a moment’s notice. Not only is strategy and innovation not a skillset that we should be confining to the upper echelons of our military, but the current method nearly guarantees that those who are innovative by nature will struggle to make it to the highest levels of military leadership.

The first step to effectively valuing our human capital is focusing holistically on retention. New proposals for personnel reform acknowledge the changing nature of society at large. There are pushes toward the more sustainable work–life balance and career flexibility of the private sector, since even those committed to public service may balk at the toll the current military lifestyle can take on a family. If the military can shift cultural norms to be more conducive to a two-career family and to lessen the stresses of constantly moving, it will enable the retention of younger generations past their initial commitments.

Second, if personnel are slotted into jobs in which they excel, it would make more sense to have longer tours. Adding this career stability not only aids in retention, but also lessens stresses that may lead to sub-optimal performance. With per-troop costs on the rise, it makes far more sense to allocate resources in ways that are productive and respond to current weaknesses in the personnel system, while also creating cost savings from fewer military-financed permanent changes of station. However, this type of stability-focused change will be most effective if implemented with a reform of the billet system and with a willingness to remove poor performers from key posts.

A personnel system that creates a higher level of stability by extending tours will make the military a more feasible option for mid-career personnel, as well. Providing easy “on and off ramps” in places with highly-skilled workers such as Silicon Valley and offering two- to three-year tours to accomplished experts will diversify thinking in the military and open the door to new levels of expertise.

As technology evolves at a breathtaking pace, maintaining a technically adept force requires the recruiting and retention of personnel who fall outside of the military’s normal profile. To maintain the military’s competitive edge will likely require a degree of flexibility that is currently untenable under our Soviet-style personnel system. Again, people are our greatest platform — investing in those who will create or adapt to changing technology makes far more sense than pushing them out of the military for not fitting the current mold.

With the human costs of war so heartbreakingly high, there is a moral imperative to recruit and retain the best people and place them in jobs in which their skillsets are best used. It does a disservice to our service members and their families to treat people as though they are interchangeable. There are many compelling proposals as to what this new system should look like, be it “on and off ramps” to the private sector or more meritocratic features. Improvements to the personnel system may require a hefty price tag, but the cost of not making these changes will be far higher. Without a significant and long-overdue investment in our military’s human capital, the United States will struggle to maintain military superiority. We may not be able to foresee where our military will be required next, but an investment in the “force of the future” will ensure we remain the world’s premier fighting force.

Why Military Personnel Reform Matters

The United States is notoriously bad at predicting future conflicts and changes in the international order. From the bestselling The Coming War With Japan

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Oct 29 at 2015 3:42 PM

2015-10-29T15:42:33-04:00

I'm fairly certain the military's inability to effectively manage it's personnel has been an open secret since 1777. So in that vein, yes, the author is on point.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Oct 29 at 2015 3:45 PM

2015-10-29T15:45:01-04:00

We can be so badass, but if we don't have a proper war campaign plan, then we are
definitely at risk of losing.

The Germans were very successful in the first in WWII because they conducted a military wide AAR on WWI. They produced the required vehicles, weapons, and trained using a new doctrine of mobility and combined arms approach.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 29 at 2015 3:52 PM

2015-10-29T15:52:42-04:00

All of these studies and proposals seem to focus on longevity and stability (fewer moves), but I can tell you that would have pushed me out quicker than anything. Especially when you are stuck in a crappy job, part of the attraction is you know it is short-lived.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Oct 29 at 2015 3:56 PM

2015-10-29T15:56:35-04:00

Hard to comment on something so superficial and meandering. I did agree we have problems with creating critical thinkers. Most of the services can take a page from what the Marines do at Quantico to develop the skill.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Oct 29 at 2015 4:42 PM

2015-10-29T16:42:36-04:00

I suspect that the author, Amy Schafer, is the alter-ego of Captain Obvious. Her article is rife with the obvious but totally bereft of any substantive hints at a solution. In other words, I wish I could have back the time I wasted reading this...

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Oct 29 at 2015 4:52 PM

2015-10-29T16:52:25-04:00

Rumsfeld was pilloried for his statement "You fight the war with what you have." (paraphrased) although he was right.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Oct 30 at 2015 3:56 PM

2015-10-30T15:56:09-04:00

Who can predict wars? I want to meet him/her.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Oct 30 at 2015 4:33 PM

2015-10-30T16:33:22-04:00

Who can predict wars? I want to meet him/her. Who predicted 911, Iraq attacking Kuwait, the US attacking Iraq and Syria, Bosnia? This mystery is prevalent around the world.

The most important step is having a winning doctrine, then personnel, weapons, vehicles, ships, and planes to support the doctrine.