Restructure the Military?

[Marlin]

   We haven't restructures our military for a long period of time and it's probably about time. Not just uniform changes and internal command structure but a real change in our military services in general. That is what Paul Kane says in the article below from the NY Times. He suggests we get rid of the Air Force as a redundant unused arm of the military and roll them into the Navy and Army. He also suggests getting rid of the up or out philosophy of promotion in the military allowing capable people to remain in positions that they are capable of, treating them as assets not widgets.
   The article is good read and thought provoking, I especially liked the redundancy comment about the Air Force. Who needs pansy pilots who are afraid to land on an air craft carrier  .

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/opinion/21kane.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

[withroaj]

...the archaic "up or out" military promotion system should be scrapped in favor of a plan that treats service members as real assets...

This right here is dangerously close to hitting the nail right on the head.  That, and corporate-buzz-word sounding phrases like "human capital" speak to the real issues facing today's military (alright... all I know is Navy) that need to be addressed.  The problem is, "reforms" in the military challenge the status quo... and we know what that means.

I see the biggest problems facing our military today as human resource management (we can't just recruit, burn out, discharge, repeat -- we need to create an environment conducive to retention or we wind up with a bunch of 24-year-old kids running divisions like we have now) and fiscal responsibility (does it violate OPSEC to say that we piss away A LOT of money?).  I have some ideas, but 1) I am a lowly E5 with six years active duty and 2) my ideas may challenge the status quo .

[withroaj]

After re-reading that I realize I have tunnel vision when it comes to improvements in the military.  I realize the columnist was talking about DOD-wide alterations.  Good article.

[Marlin]

Absolutely do not concur with deep sixing the up or out paradigm,....

Currently, it is a command imperative to "grow" servicemembers into the next level of responsibility as slots open up. This is a good paradigm, it keeps the command structures honest.
To wit, assume it is acceptable to keep a servicemember at a certain level of rank and responsibility. In fact, the command would prefer to not promote this servicemember because the command likes this servicemember right where they are, and frankly, doesn't really want that servicemember to have more authority or influence than they already have. The servicemember is "dead ended". 20 to 30 years and out on your keester with a lower monthly retirement check and fewer rank associated privileges. Do not project your own standards of conduct onto other prople, or the nuke standard onto other NEC's, MOS's, etc. I was conventional Navy and I can tell you there's plenty of career keelhauling practiced under the current system of aggressive advancement policies. I can only imagine the rampant abuse under a less diligent paradigm.
You see it often enough in civilian corporate structures. How many people leave a company just because they can't get ahead no matter how well they perform. All the while, corporate darlings and golden boys get the key to the executive washroom handed to them for the most gossamer of justifications.
Imagine this paradigm and the following shredding of morale in the armed forces.

Conversely a sailor who performs very well but has a problem taking tests should be put out of the Navy at the 10 or fifteen year mark because he cannot compete with sailors who much more adept on written tests? I think that was his point. Not a good one for nukes and missile techs but not bad for boatswains and stewards.

[G-reg]

I think the Navy's entire promotion system needs to be revamped.  Keep all of the current components [written exams, Performance Mark Averages, Time-In-Rate and Service-in-Paygrade, PNA and award points], and add in an oral board and possibly even a practical exam or two.  Ideally, the oral boards and practical exams would be conducted by personnel from outside the individual's command (for an added layer of objectivity).  And finally, the weight given to the written exam needs to be reduced considerably.  IMHO...

[Marlin]

Bo'suns and stewards do not compete with nukes on written tests or in-rate knowledge,....

Didn't imply they did. Only that each rate has to take a test and that it is not that relevent to some rates. Perhaps the concept of a hard line rate system itself should be challenged. Advancement in rate has to do with competence and leadership this has variable application to different rates. The Navy has an overbearing traditional bureaucracy that still has a promotional system applicable to wooden sailing ships.

[NukeLDO]

Indeed, if I understand correctly, in the contemporary Navy, conventional rates do not compete with their nuke counterparts for advancement either, somebody correct me if I'm wrong, I find that paradigm to be long overdue for conventional rates such as EM and MM, and conversely for a nuke rate such as ET,...

You are correct.  I was part of the task force that broke out the nukes from the conventionals with respect to the advancement exams.  The change took place around 1995-96.  I was part of that task force as an E-6, made Chief, and never had to actually take the nuke rating exam, but hopefully its better than it was back in the day.  Try explaining to the PN or YN who writes the EM nuke rating exam why he shouldn't have to know about glide slope indicators, or that the ability to calculate the dose from a point source is required knowlege (if it ain't in the EM 3&2, why do you have to know it?), continuiing training exams and required knowledge outside the technical rating just baffled them!