This is a lengthy article, but an interesting read.....full article via link:

 

The Pentagon's controversial plan to hire military leaders off the street

 

 

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.

“They will enter a culture they don’t know, understand or potentially appreciate,” said Dakota Wood, a retired Marine officer and military expert at the Heritage Foundation. “The Marines around them will likely be challenged to appreciate them as they would a fellow Marine.”

If approved by Congress, the individual military services would be authorized — but not required — to expand lateral entry up to the rank of colonel, or in the case of the Navy a captain. It's part of a broader reform effort that may also include new rules for bringing enlisted troops in at the noncommissioned officer ranks, which does not require approval from Congress.

Yet the proposed change raises many cultural concerns and could result in a host of second-order effects. The services would have to tackle a range of questions. For instance, what kind of initial training will those officers undergo? Will lateral entry officers be eligible for promotion? Will junior officer retention be affected by the prospect of potentially leaving and returning years later at a higher rank?

Seems like a plot from a cheesy movie.

Seems like a plot to weaken the U.S. military.

I like it. Some valuable civilians with skill sets the services need, that they have little of or none at at all. What is wrong with that?

Far cheaper and better to hire people with established tech skills as opposed to taking a bunch of warriors and trying to train them up. This seems like an extension of the program for translators that caught similar flak several years ago. I'm sure the "military leaders" referenced in the headline will continue to come from West Point and not MIT.

Far cheaper and better to hire people with established tech skills as opposed to taking a bunch of warriors and trying to train them up. This seems like an extension of the program for translators that caught similar flak several years ago. I'm sure the "military leaders" referenced in the headline will continue to come from West Point and not MIT.

 

What's the problem with a West Point education ?

The same skill sets they are seeking are available as contractors. I don't see why these positions would have to be filled by career military.

What's the problem with a West Point education ?

West Point education always has been top-notch. The article laments a "culture change," which is what I was referencing. Defense Department is simply moving toward more of a business model (think P&G) in filling its ranks with highly qualified people.

The same skill sets they are seeking are available as contractors. I don't see why these positions would have to be filled by career military.

 

Probably doing that now. Cheaper and more control if your own staff in the long run. Also keeps that political payback stuff and favors limited. More likely to choose the best rather than someone who supports your political affiliation.

These new positions would be filled with political appointments, regardless what is said.

 

What private sector job is there that the military doesn't already have experts in?

 

I have no problem with the military partnering up with private sector to improve inefficiencies and learn from them, but I think having Poindexter from Accounting at P&G suddenly ordering around soldiers isn't the way to go. Reminds me of the Major in Heartbreak Ridge that only had experience in Logistics and was a cluster when it came to preparing a unit for combat.

West Point education always has been top-notch. The article laments a "culture change," which is what I was referencing. Defense Department is simply moving toward more of a business model (think P&G) in filling its ranks with highly qualified people.

 

....and therein lies the problem. The DOD doesn't want warfighters anymore but would prefer to handcuff the protectors of our freedom with ROE's that are unrealistic and politically based.

 

To be fair, the current head of the VA, who spent the majority of his career at P&G is no better at serving our military's medical needs, so I guess we got that going for us.

Ideas about shaking up the military's leadership and officer promotion system have been bounced around for a while. I don't have any comment on this specific idea, but I've linked an article with a fairly even-handed take on some of the issues. If you're interested in the topic it's worth the read:

 

The Army’s Leadership Problem

....and therein lies the problem. The DOD doesn't want warfighters anymore butwould prefer to handcuff the protectors of our freedom with ROE's that are unrealistic and politically based.

 

To be fair, the current head of the VA, who spent the majority of his career at P&G is no better at serving our military's medical needs, so I guess we got that going for us.

"Protectors of our freedom" come in all shapes and sizes. Ten thousand rock-solid soldiers with guns, grit and hand grenades won't stop a cyber attack designed to knock out the power grid in Washington, D.C. Therein lies the problem, which is why the Pentagon wants to employ more non-traditional soldier types with high-tech skills.

"Protectors of our freedom" come in all shapes and sizes. Ten thousand rock-solid soldiers with guns, grit and hand grenades won't stop a cyber attack designed to knock out the power grid in Washington, D.C. Therein lies the problem, which is why the Pentagon wants to employ more non-traditional soldier types with high-tech skills.

 

Let the CIA,FBI and Pentagon civilians manage this with civilian employees. They have access to the systems from their Pentagon offices as civilians already. No need to create issues within the military.

Ideas about shaking up the military's leadership and officer promotion system have been bounced around for a while. I don't have any comment on this specific idea, but I've linked an article with a fairly even-handed take on some of the issues. If you're interested in the topic it's worth the read:

 

The Army’s Leadership Problem

 

This is a good read and I agree with this entire article.

 

Up or Out has been a problem with the US Military for a long time...both Officer and Enlisted.

 

The title is a little misleading though, I would propose that the Army's Leadership Problem starts at the very top and has been that way for some time.