|
they are a hammer, and therefore see every problem as being a nail. What has happened is we have too many governments that seem to hold the military in almost mystically high esteem, making the military untouchable, when what is needed is firm civilian control of the military. Washington decides the role of the military - not the other way around.
There are steps to help assuage the situation.
1) Fire a half-dozen generals. It's overdue. As with ANY large organizations, a certain percentage of the leaders will rise to the point of incompetence. If you are not firing two senior generals a year, you are doing something wrong. Far too many who have REALLY screwed the pooch continue to muddle along in positions of authority.
2) Give them what they need, not what they say they want. Like all boys, they like their new toys, but their toys cost billions and THEY don't have to pay for them.
3) Pass a law requiring a five year gap before any officer of command rank can take a job in the defense industry.
4) Let policy define the military mission, not the other way around. There is really NO sound reason for having 30,000 troops in Japan; 35,000 troops in Germany; 25,000 troops in Korea. If the reasoning is to have stockpiles in advance areas ready for quick deployment, fine - have the materiel there under guard of a couple hundred troops. We can fly in the men within 24 hours, anywhere in the world. We don't need to have 5,000 men and their families living on bases that look like they were plucked out of the suburbs of southern California, complete with strip malls and McDonalds and Dominos. There are over 700 military facilities overseas, half of which come complete with all the amenities of home and family. Most have long since outlived their purpose, but remain because of military appropriations (cut the base, cut the budget - cut the budget, cut the perceived importance of the military) and sheer inertia.
When we went to the so-called all volunteer force, the idea was to have a dedicate corp of professionals. The draft system was retained just in case - in the case of emergency a draft could be resumed, and the professionals would be the foundation of the military who would guide the draftees. The problem is, the military bureaucracy resisted shrinkage - some bases were close and consolidated with others, but many more new bases were built, actually expanding the military's presence. Military pay languished, because even the military had a limited budget and could not expand the number of bases and purchase fancy new equipment to fight the (defunct) soviets with and at the same time keep their enlisted men off food stamps.
It all comes down to maintaining civilian control. Frankly, too many politicians do not really understand the military or its mission. When it comes to military matters they simply defer to the military itself - and the military will always push policies that support its own self interest, no matter how they affect general national policy. It's like asking the inmates how best to run the assylum. No matter what the problem they will say "What's that? Another nail? I'm your hammer!"
Which takes me back to point 1.
|