Opinion

5 ways to make our military great again

Carl Higbie Author, 'Battle on the Home Front'
Font Size:

Before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, America’s military totaled less than one and a half million soldiers, sailors, Marines, and coastmen. Waiting for our nation stood the Japanese at over 6,000,000 men at its peak, and the Germans at well over 10,000,000. Our adversaries had more ships as well, yet America, despite the odds, won. How?

While the short answer is the atomic bomb, the real question is how we got there, militarily, technologically, economically. A large factor was America’s entrepreneurial drive, combined with its citizen-soldier military.  The men and women who joined the fight understood how to get things done. They were farmers, fishermen, mechanics, men from steel mills and shipyards; in short, they were producers. They brought with them onto the battlefields of Europe and the Pacific ingenuity, common sense, and free thought.

Having served in the military I can state without hesitation that our military lacks the qualities of World War II’s citizen-soldier force. Do not be confused; our modern military is comprised of good people, men and women who want to make a difference for the better. The system, however, the mindless and political bureaucracy, thwarts young service members and is leading to a weakened military. The majority of our ranking commanders have become career and rank obsessed, people of procedure and advancement, rather than leaders of men.

While in the Navy, I watched as politics sidelined the most productive, sharpest, and talented soldiers. Countless driven men and women left in fear that the unpredictable, inefficient, and random promotion system might stall their careers and leave them and their families struggling. We lived in a system that where many of the best who enlist or seek a commission only serve for a few years then move on to civilian life in the private sector.

Career soldiers and sailors can turn into bureaucratic zombies as easily as any EPA staffer. Recently, an order to ban the “Navy Jack” patch in the SEAL teams was issued, only to be denied. When called on it, the criticism was dismissed as a “misunderstanding” with an subsequest order to “update” the uniform policy.

These are the military “leaders” who discourage the free-thinker, institute needless rules and protocol, and stifle innovation and creativity. Sadly they are crushing our military with the weight of their bureaucratic machinery.

I hinted at some of the issues facing the modern military in my first book, Battle on the Home Front, but felt constrained from fully expressing the extent of the overhaul needed while remaining an active duty Navy SEAL.

During my time in service, political discussions often ventured into how to incorporate free-market, meritocratic principles into the Navy. Here are five possibilities.

Reform the promotion system

In short, the military’s promotion system is not a meritocracy. The most talented frequently leave, for two reasons. First, they can achieve more in less time in the civilian world. Second, they’ll be paid more.

To be promoted, one must be “in zone,” meaning that the individual has enough “time in rank,” to be eligible for promotion. Time is key, not effort or talent.  In the free market, the best man or woman is hired without regard to abstract bureaucratic qualifications such as “zones” or “time in rank.”

So why not incorporate free-market hiring principles in the military? Abolish “zones,” put less emphasis on “time in rank,” and have open applications for positions. The military only stands to gain. If a young lieutenant is talented, then perhaps he or she could move from division officer to department head position (a position typically designated for a lieutenant commander or the next rank above their position). A free market promotion system would help retain the most talented and accelerate them to positions of influence. Meritocracy would prevail over a career flow chart.

The Navy Jack patch controversy is a case in point. When I brought it to the attention of the media, first the Navy denied it; a flat out lie. Then, when a source exposed the identity of the person who issued the order, it was then passed off as a “misunderstanding.” No one is held accountable. Commanding officers often make or pass on orders without thought, and instead of holding feet to fire for ridiculous or even unlawful ones, they are brushed off and forgotten about, and so the problem continues.

How does this happen? Simply put, turds take care of turds, and those who speak out against them are outnumbered. Yet if commanding officers were to pick their team, much like NFL drafts, unworthy officers would be branded as such and not be chosen for positions that help them advance even further. And if you are not picked at all then you would be out of luck. Your CO would essentially be the coach and the rank above him, the team owner. There would be the occasional Tim Tebow, a good player who just doesn’t get picked, but this method has far more potential for success than the current model.

Now that we have a general understanding of the bureaucratic machine we are dealing with, here are four more proposals to fix it.

Fix the retirement system

In today’s military, many of the bad apples end up riding out their time until retirement. This is because service members can retire with 50 percent of their pay after 20 years and 75 percent after 30 years. This includes full benefits and yearly adjustments for inflation. Even the best officers can become complacent knowing that once they hit 20 years, they are all but certain to get a pension and full benefits for life. This must change. While changing the retirement system may seem drastic or even harsh, the current system is costly and has several negative side effects. For starters, the system encourages service members to become complacent after 20 years. Second, the military often uses retirement as tool to manipulate its members. In the private sector, individuals usually get a 401(k), often matched by their employer.

The pension system robs the service member of financial options and all but indentures them to the bureaucratic machine. Retirement is used as a tool of control in the military. Too often during legal proceedings do commands use retirement benefits to force individuals into compromising situations and rulings that sometimes have long-term impacts on their lives.

The Armed Forces should switch to a 401K system. If a service member leaves the military, then he or she should take their retirement with them. This is obviously a better deal for individuals, but it also takes away the incentive for military members to “ride out” their time, or for the military justice system to threaten to pull retirements.

End service obligations

Service obligations are another impediment to military effectiveness. For most, a service obligation is incurred upon enlistment or completing training or receiving a bonus. When service obligations are tied to expensive training such as medical school, flight training, or even a large bonus, this might make sense.  However, most enlisted personnel carry obligations frequently throughout their careers without such training or bonuses; god forbid the military actually retain members voluntarily. Unwilling soldiers remaining in the service helps no one. Anyone should be allowed to leave the military at any time with a few exceptions: during times of war, immediately prior to and during deployment, and to pay back certain specialized, expensive training.

These restrictions would create an environment where the military would have to compete with the private sector to retain their most talented. Additionally, tying the restrictions to a constitutional mandate would force Congress to act according to the Constitution when declaring war.

Reform federal contracting

Another weight around the military’s neck is that of civilian employees. The vast majority of the civilian employees are devoted workers and nice people. But in all fairness, they do not work nearly as hard as their private sector counterparts and are compensated extremely well. In 2008 federal workers earned an average salary of $67,691 in jobs that exist both in government and the private sector, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The average pay for the same mix of jobs in the private sector was $60,046 in 2010, the most recent data available.

The military and the American taxpayer would be far better off having all military civilians on a contract system. This way, Americans would save more money and the civilian employees would be cheaper and more productive. Additionally, the military could shed the legacy costs of these civilians by avoiding paying for healthcare and retirement long after these individuals leave military employment. A small measure? Yes. But a measure that would help create a leaner, more cost-effective military with a benefit structure geared toward combatants.

Officer education and fostering an entrepreneurial drive

The military would be far better off if it were run like a business rather than a bloated government bureaucracy. While the above solutions could help transform the military, so would another simple one: business education for officers. Perhaps, to progress beyond the O-3 level (lower management), officers must have an MBA. In order to be eligible for O-5, one might have to successfully complete a one year internship in a private business. In the internship, the officer’s, biannual evaluations — a “fitness report,” as it were — would be written by business executives. Simply said, if you can’t get accepted or successfully complete an internship in the private sector then you are not qualified to make rank. To move to the rank of general or admiral, the officer would again need to get a healthy evaluation from a business leader while serving and additional internship in a management position to show that he or she can lead in both the military and private sector. If the officer failed in the private sector, then retirement would follow (funded by a 401K, of course).

We must break bureaucratic mindlessness. Our great historic military masterminds of the past succeeded based their life experiences, most of them were farmers, plantation owners and tradesmen and soldiers second. As George Washington said, “When we assumed the soldier, we did not lay aside the citizen”. This taught them to out innovate rather than bark orders and make rules. We can change this with education and experience.   Our military must run itself like a business and we can only get there if our officers think and compete like businessmen.

In conclusion, the American military is the world’s foremost military power, but in need of much change and positive improvement. By making simple, common-sense adjustments that force the military to operate more like the private sector, America could save trillions of dollars for our nation and also ensure we have the most powerful military indefinitely.

Guy Reschenthaler contributed to this column.