The Pentagon's Controversial Plan to Hire Military Leaders Off the Street by Andrew Tilghman, Military Times
Defense Secretary Ash Carter wants to open the door for more “lateral entry” into the military's upper ranks, clearing the way for lifelong civilians with vital skills and strong résumés to enter the officer corps as high as the O-6 paygrade.
The idea is controversial, to say the very least. For many in the rank-and-file military, it seems absurd, a bewildering cultural change that threatens to upend many assumptions about military life and traditional career paths. But while it's not universally embraced, there is interest in Congress and among some of the military's uniformed leaders — even, they say, in exploring how the services could apply this concept to the enlisted force.
This is a key piece of Carter’s “Force of the Future” personnel reform. Unveiled June 9, it aims to help the military bring in more top talent, especially for high-tech career fields focused on cyber warfare and space. Advocates say it will help the military fill important manpower shortfalls with highly skilled professionals and, more broadly, create greater “permeability” between the active-duty military and the civilian sector.
At the same time, it suggests eroding the military’s tradition of growing its own leaders and cultivating a force with a distinct culture and tight social fabric, which many believe to be the heart of military effectiveness. Critics worry it will create a new subcaste of military service members who are fundamentally disconnected from the traditional career force…
Comments
This policy will be difficult to implement effectively. That said, if such a thing is going to happen anyway then it should not be limited to O-6 (i.e. we have already brought in SESs and political appointees who rank higher than many GOs, plus if this program is truly important then it can be important at the GO ranks as well as other ranks).
Some dissatisfaction with the status quo must be causing SecDef to consider this in the first place. Since many options already exist to bring talent in (e.g. wide range of contracts and contractors, all the civil service grades, SES, political appointees), we should be looking at what’s not meeting the SecDef’s needs already – so as to not replicate the deficiency. Yes, I read the part about “combat legal protection” as the reason to do this but I suspect there is much more to it than just that, especially since SecDef has acknowledged “unlikely…to affect operational career fields, infantry, surface warfare, combat aviation…line officers" (i.e. those most likely to be concerned with that ‘combat legal protection’). (Though, regarding that opns fields potential exclusion, SecDef might find it interesting that in the U.S. Civil War we had a schoolteacher join the Army and quickly become a successful combat brigade commander and MOH recipient.)
Back to the 21st century now, the Zuckerberg example is interesting, especially when viewed through the lenses of the range of application. For the sake of argument let’s say we were able to bring him in as a Signal Corps lieutenant. He would likely underperform as a commo platoon leader. (A quick test in a 5-day FTX in any combat arms battalion would prove, or disprove, my assertion.) On the other hand, what he could bring to the table big picture-wise for the Army (or DoD) in the specific areas of network communications, information systems, and enterprise-anything regarding information technology would be incredible. His particular abilities in these lanes eclipse that of many currently serving, and who have served, in these areas. So, bringing him in as an O-6 would be insufficient; multi-star level would be more useful for him in these particular areas. Of course it’s not going to happen with him either way; we just don’t have a good ability to get guys of his talent in all that often unfortunately – otherwise “Force of the Future” personnel reform wouldn’t be necessary.
This will be difficult because just any tycoon doesn’t necessarily make a good Finance Officer and just any stockbroker doesn’t necessarily make a good Comptroller (I’m sure my admonition will be put to the test however). This will be difficult because it will require an unprecedented level of attention to detail, vetting, due diligence, and squelching of cronyism to get it right.