Issue 34 cutting the military March 15,2013

This topic is sure to be slightly more controversial, but I'm going to do it anyway. In fact, I would like my readers to participate if they like by adding there critics, and their own suggestions below in the comments section. So let’s get started.

Top Heavy: Currently, the military is very top heavy when it comes to leadership. There are hundreds of officers and other military leaders, in addition to a large civilian staff, that delay the decision making process. The Military has made strides in reducing the time it takes to make decisions by implementing the special operations style of leadership. That style uses a series of directives (goals) and lets the soldiers figure out the best way to get the job done, and thus it empowers field commanders. However, the transition is slow and the Department of Defense (DOD) has too many redundancies. From my understanding there are more officers than command positions as well leading me to wonder, why promote someone to officer rank or higher if there are no positions available. So rather than cut soldiers who fight on the battlefield, we have to cut the fat from the top ranks of the pentagon. Also, no one should be promoted if there is no position available.

Idiocy: While the military has made strides in its decision making process thanks to changes in warfare and technology, it is still playing catch up in other areas like cook books. The Army's brownie making recipe is 26 pages. Last time I checked, a normal cook book only has a page for the recipe and another for maybe a picture. Then there is the thousand dollar wrenches for air craft maintenance, $55,000 party planner and the fact that we have to pay military contractors to fix and maintain our missile systems among other things. Basically, the military needs to be stream lined when it comes to paper work as well.

Contracts: Then there is the issue with military contracts. The businesses our boys in uniform buy from can't seem to keep costs down. We buy ultra high tech systems before they are proven to work and then fix the problem as it is used in the field which jeopardizes our soldier’s lives. In addition, some of these machines and technology are so complex that commanders are hesitant to use them in the first place. It is no wonder there are thousand dollar wrenches. The Pentagons procurement process is a joke and must be reformed in a way that punishes contractors from going over budget, while ensuring development targets are met. Also, the adage "if it is too expensive to use, then it is too expensive to buy" must be followed. A safer solution to avoid cost overruns is to use "off the shelf" civilian products, but they must be militarized to some extent, and I believe the Special Forces have been doing that for a while.

Controversial: A very controversial idea would be to eliminate overlaps between the branches of service. For instance, the Navy and the Marines have their own criminal investigative service (NCIS, yes its real) as does the army. Why have separate groups doing the same thing, it makes no sense. The military already has joint programs for Special Forces, transporting goods in its joint transport command, amongst others, so if they have different groups doing the same thing, then merge them. A really controversial idea would be to merge existing branches of the military into each other. Probably the Air Force (as it is the youngest branch) and the Navy (one of the oldest) as their capabilities are slowly overlapping further into each other. Both have fighters, and bombers, with very little separating them and thus they should merge. In fact, both branches are made to command and dominate what is known as the commons (the sea, the air, and now space and cyber space) so it makes sense. Likewise, the Air National Guard and Coast Guard would merge providing new capabilities and thinking when protecting our shores.

A second controversial idea would be to merge the various intelligence agencies together and make the head of this new body a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As the intelligence groups in the U.S. are a hybrid civilian and military force with overlapping capabilities mimicking the Green Berets and strike missions like the air force, it makes sense. Plus, with terrorists and small enemy groups able to topple nations, the line between traditional army's and terrorists has shifted and will continue doing so. Basically, what the U.S. needs is an intelligence group that provides intelligence for both the active battle field and at home to protect our shores without the one-up-man-ship that some of the agencies have now. Still this is controversial, but while an army runs on its stomach, wars are won on who knows what first.

Eliminate Land Bases: The United States has a large number of bases overseas, and they are expensive. They are used as a form of power projection to basically say we control the area and don't you dare touch what we wish to protect. However, we have overstayed our welcome in some of these countries, while others may not let us establish a base to conduct military operations (as was the case with Turkey during our second war with Iraq that took down Saddam). A concept that would solve the expense and also decrease our vulnerability to reprisal attacks on our foreign bases (think the Beirut bombing in Lebanon) is sea basing. The concept is that all operations are conducted from ships far away enough to protect from enemy reprisal, but close enough to support land operations. It would solve the issue of having to pay rent to another nation (saving money) and having to protect the base from enemies and possibly dissidents in the country who don't want us there.

Conclusion: Our U.S. Military is changing. It is becoming faster and smarter, but the process is slow. Unfortunately, lives have been lost in obtaining the hard lessons learned by our men and women in uniform. Even now, the military is experimenting with technology that allows them to establish a small mobile base faster to ensure protection, technology that reduces the number of times troops need to be resupplied in the field, which protects those who have to bring those supplies to them and the troops from running out in a time of crises. I am not a member of the military, but I admire the men and women in uniform. I write this article, for one purpose, we don't have to waste money on junk and unnecessary expenses to have a strong military presence. The saved money can be better spent on our troops coming home, and give them the better the pay raise they deserve.

There is probably more things that can be cut, or changed, but I will leave it here for now as the DOD is a jumbeled mess along with the other agencies that defend our shores.  So please if you have any suggestions or critics, comment below.