Posted on Nov 17, 2018
How the Generals Are Routing the Policy Wonks at the Pentagon
645
11
11
3
3
0
I don't agree with the article, but wanted to post this so I could ask if anyone understands what the following quote is about:
“Put simply, allocating priority—and forces—across theaters of warfare is not solely a military matter,” the commissioners wrote. “Unless global integration is nested under higher-order guidance from civilians, an effort to centralize defense direction under the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may succeed operationally but produce profound—and potentially catastrophic—strategic problems.”
It seems to me that the NSC provides this function of strategic insight. If we want defense expertise, why would we go to anyone other than former career military leaders? The intelligence community and the State Department are also represented in the NSC, so I don't see exactly what the issue is.
What specifically does "nesting global integration under higher-order guidance from civilians" get us that we won't get otherwise?
My understanding is that policy drives strategy which drives tactics. So, there has to be a strategy to begin which in order to develop plans at the tactical level. Therefore, I assume that decisions made by the Joint Chiefs of Staff would be implementing a strategy that came from somewhere, so where is the need for additional civilians to provide guidance on "global integration?"
“Put simply, allocating priority—and forces—across theaters of warfare is not solely a military matter,” the commissioners wrote. “Unless global integration is nested under higher-order guidance from civilians, an effort to centralize defense direction under the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may succeed operationally but produce profound—and potentially catastrophic—strategic problems.”
It seems to me that the NSC provides this function of strategic insight. If we want defense expertise, why would we go to anyone other than former career military leaders? The intelligence community and the State Department are also represented in the NSC, so I don't see exactly what the issue is.
What specifically does "nesting global integration under higher-order guidance from civilians" get us that we won't get otherwise?
My understanding is that policy drives strategy which drives tactics. So, there has to be a strategy to begin which in order to develop plans at the tactical level. Therefore, I assume that decisions made by the Joint Chiefs of Staff would be implementing a strategy that came from somewhere, so where is the need for additional civilians to provide guidance on "global integration?"
How the Generals Are Routing the Policy Wonks at the Pentagon
Posted from foreignpolicy.com
Strategy
White House
National Security
Government
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 4
2
2
0
SGT (Join to see) so here is what I think.
Always check the author for agenda. I looked only briefly, appears she is a practicing defense reporter. If she were part of this think tank or that, there is agenda and narrative. Neutral in this case on a cursory look.
Put simply, allocating priority—and forces—across theaters of warfare is not solely a military matter,” the commissioners wrote. “Unless global integration is nested under higher-order guidance from civilians, an effort to centralize defense direction under the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may succeed operationally but produce profound—and potentially catastrophic—strategic problems.
Starting point. The pentagon has a vast ocean of civilian employees, senior to junior. I was once told that About 50% long term employees that are the bipartisan glue that hold it together, serving as continuity. The other 50% come and go with parties and are political appointees....more or less. The author glibly blew by what this commission is who conducted an independent review of national defense strategy. I don't have an salacious tidbits on them. If I knew more about them and the conclusions of their report, it may shed proper context. The gist of the whole article is the OSD policy folks have been attrited so that voice has been diminished in what Mattis would see in fully staffed products. The allegation just under the surface is that of the four elements of national power DIME, they are really only seeing Capital M options because the capital M folks are working on it. This is not new. Rosa Brooks wrote a book on it, How everything became war and the military became everything.
So if GEN Dunford is delegating, who is he delegating to? From this paragraph I'm guessing he is delegating to the COCOM Commanders. So forces are allocated to COCOMs through a joint staffing process. I think their argument is that simply allocating forces has other third order consequences in the DIME. So the meta message is that the elders of cobol in OSD temper all this.
I reject that this threatens the civ-mil balance. The DoD is part of the executive branch. They have not usurped the Oval Office nor taken congress into custody for re-education. This is a temporary fleeting issue of turn over and policy people differing on acceptable policy. Is there significant institutional experience lost? Oh yes. The strategic policy level is the brackish tide water between uniformed military, professional civil servants, and appointed people. To say that the military is the only source of this expertise is misguided. My 2 cents.
I think the alarm on who is appointed by the SECDEF is not really a cause for immediate alarm. People appoint those they know and trust. So if you serve 30+ years in the military....who is it you know and trust? I would like to see what alternative policy professionals (I believe wonks is unfair, it's usually thrown out by people who either just got bested or don't get the issues anyway) have the pedigree to handle OSD appointment.
Addendum: looking for this commission report: https://www.usip.org/publications/2018/11/providing-common-defense
Always check the author for agenda. I looked only briefly, appears she is a practicing defense reporter. If she were part of this think tank or that, there is agenda and narrative. Neutral in this case on a cursory look.
Put simply, allocating priority—and forces—across theaters of warfare is not solely a military matter,” the commissioners wrote. “Unless global integration is nested under higher-order guidance from civilians, an effort to centralize defense direction under the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may succeed operationally but produce profound—and potentially catastrophic—strategic problems.
Starting point. The pentagon has a vast ocean of civilian employees, senior to junior. I was once told that About 50% long term employees that are the bipartisan glue that hold it together, serving as continuity. The other 50% come and go with parties and are political appointees....more or less. The author glibly blew by what this commission is who conducted an independent review of national defense strategy. I don't have an salacious tidbits on them. If I knew more about them and the conclusions of their report, it may shed proper context. The gist of the whole article is the OSD policy folks have been attrited so that voice has been diminished in what Mattis would see in fully staffed products. The allegation just under the surface is that of the four elements of national power DIME, they are really only seeing Capital M options because the capital M folks are working on it. This is not new. Rosa Brooks wrote a book on it, How everything became war and the military became everything.
So if GEN Dunford is delegating, who is he delegating to? From this paragraph I'm guessing he is delegating to the COCOM Commanders. So forces are allocated to COCOMs through a joint staffing process. I think their argument is that simply allocating forces has other third order consequences in the DIME. So the meta message is that the elders of cobol in OSD temper all this.
I reject that this threatens the civ-mil balance. The DoD is part of the executive branch. They have not usurped the Oval Office nor taken congress into custody for re-education. This is a temporary fleeting issue of turn over and policy people differing on acceptable policy. Is there significant institutional experience lost? Oh yes. The strategic policy level is the brackish tide water between uniformed military, professional civil servants, and appointed people. To say that the military is the only source of this expertise is misguided. My 2 cents.
I think the alarm on who is appointed by the SECDEF is not really a cause for immediate alarm. People appoint those they know and trust. So if you serve 30+ years in the military....who is it you know and trust? I would like to see what alternative policy professionals (I believe wonks is unfair, it's usually thrown out by people who either just got bested or don't get the issues anyway) have the pedigree to handle OSD appointment.
Addendum: looking for this commission report: https://www.usip.org/publications/2018/11/providing-common-defense
Providing for the Common Defense
The final report of the National Defense Strategy Commission is a compilation of the assessments of the National Defense Strategy and recommendations based on its analysis related not just to defense strategy, but also to the larger geopolitical environment in which that strategy must be executed. They consulted with civilian and military leaders in the Department of Defense, representatives of other U.S. government departments and agencies,...
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Thanks for a thorough response LTC Jason Mackay. I see how the concern about DIME-bias could be a factor. With regard to the author, I wasn't meaning to question whether there was a underlying motivation for the article other than what it states outright; I have seen a couple of different articles from different writers lately that advocated for the inclusion of academic experts in national security decision-making, and this seemed to be in that vein. That's why I mention the inclusion of the intelligence community - to me, that's where academic expertise would seem to fit in best. But again, I see how the DIME-bias issue (and possibly other biases) would call for some broader analysis.
(0)
(0)
LTC Jason Mackay
SGT (Join to see) - I always look at the author. Sometimes people just run their suck to further an agenda and not to solve geopolitical problems.
(0)
(0)
LTC Jason Mackay
SGT (Join to see) - I'm reading the document now. That paragraph is in isolation in the execsum. I'll see what there is in the body of the document.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Funny thing it is nit out simply. I agree the NSC does this, but they want to ensure that military does not solely Mae the decisions and placement.
The interesting thing is each service had a Secretary that is civilian.
The interesting thing is each service had a Secretary that is civilian.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google