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.

 

I think you're overstating what will happen. An accountant is not coming in to lead troops.

 

The portion of the article in post 1 referenced IT. That seems logical to me. If we as a country have people who are better-suited at using technology to help the troops and to be more efficient OR get better intel then why would we oppose that? Isn't the name of the game to protect? Why can't an IT exec from, say, Google be a huge asset to the military?

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.

 

What issues would be created ?

 

Let me state that I have not spent ONE day in the military so I am NOT speaking from experience.

Edited June 20, 201610 yr by Clyde

Stupid, stupid, stupid idea. Do you realize an 06 is a full bird Colonel? Talk about de-moralizing the military.

 

The military academies used to get the best and brightest out there because many of them thought it was their duty to do so, and also had a high "love of country". Don't get me wrong, there are still some great guys and gals in the service academies and they are very hard to get into, BUT many of the "best and brightest" no longer feel the obligation or need to pursue a career, or at least start it, in one of the military branches. It's a lifestyle, a culture that some guy high on the management list at Google has not been involved with or lived his life in or showed he/she wants to live in/ be a part of, the way many of those in the military profession currently have, especially those career officers. And now you want to make that guy a Colonel?

 

Why can't these guys be brought in as consultants and do the same thing? Or brought in as a governmental services (GS) employee? Making them actual military officers is NOT smart, in my honest opinion as an Army veteran.

What issues would be created ?

 

Let me state that I have not spent ONE day in the military so I am NOT speaking from experience.

 

See @BigVMan23 post....part of the process is the process. While not perfect, it still requires you pay your dues to get there. The selection process is brutal, so you could effectively be ending someone's career by inserting a dude with no military experience over him, and then you lose all that training and ability.

 

There are a limited amount of slots available at any given grade, for any given year, so if you got passed over because someone was inserted into one of those slots, it could end your career short of retirement, even though you met the criteria and were rated high enough to be slotted.

I think you're overstating what will happen. An accountant is not coming in to lead troops.

 

The portion of the article in post 1 referenced IT. That seems logical to me. If we as a country have people who are better-suited at using technology to help the troops and to be more efficient OR get better intel then why would we oppose that? Isn't the name of the game to protect? Why can't an IT exec from, say, Google be a huge asset to the military?

I know an accountant isn't coming to lead troops...but will that accountant determine if men in the field get equipment or not based on his expert crunching of the numbers. While I'm sure some of that is done even today, an outsider would heave even less of an idea of what is or isn't required.

 

If the Pentagon needs IT guys, then by all means hire the best you can get...just don't give them military rank over actual soldiers.

 

During the Gulf War the Pentagon asked Walmart for help with RFID Logistics. Seems the Pentagon had 1000's of containers on ships and had no way outside of listing in on paper what was in each. Walmart helped them streamline that process, which IMO is how it should work.

I know an accountant isn't coming to lead troops...but will that accountant determine if men in the field get equipment or not based on his expert crunching of the numbers. While I'm sure some of that is done even today, an outsider would heave even less of an idea of what is or isn't required.

 

If the Pentagon needs IT guys, then by all means hire the best you can get...just don't give them military rank over actual soldiers.

 

During the Gulf War the Pentagon asked Walmart for help with RFID Logistics. Seems the Pentagon had 1000's of containers on ships and had no way outside of listing in on paper what was in each. Walmart helped them streamline that process, which IMO is how it should work.

 

In WWII we didn't make Rosie the Riveter a Sargent.....

....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.

 

That's been the problem beginning with Viet Nam.

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

 

Hit the nail on the head ! :thumb: