|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by Steve Deal
Are you worried about the president’s meeting with more than 800 senior generals and admirals tomorrow? Consider this: how our military prepares for global conflict hasn’t changed since the Obama era.
And if you also think that America is at an inflection point of global leadership – and, perhaps languishing in terms of defense production – then, maybe, such a unifying connection between senior military leaders isn’t such a bad idea.
So instead of asking why a large meeting of U.S. military leadership is happening in Virginia this week with the President and his Secretary, perhaps we should first ask why we are so concerned in the first place.
If our first thought is distrust of motive, then perhaps we aren’t really thinking for ourselves. That is the work of ideology – to presuppose or preconceive reality. Vermont’s congressional delegation already has that one covered.
Reality is far different. Secretary of War Henry Stimson met with his senior leadership multiple times to guide the country through World War II. So did Robert D. McNamara during Vietnam, for better or worse. As did Richard Cheney during Gulf War I, and again Donald Rumsfeld after 9/11.
Even when gatherings were limited to four- and three-stars, the impact upon their enormous, far-flung staffs — filled with two- and one-star officers, aides, and other support elements — has always made such presidential- and secretarial-level events momentous, if not temporarily paralyzing.
So, what might our concerns about this meeting presuppose? What realities lie behind such worry?
First, some may well believe that our country is fully ready for the next epoch in technology, weapons systems, and the kind of education, training, and talent management needed for Americans willing to serve. In that thinking, such a large meeting just slows progress for leaders already working on the right things.
No serious observer of American military power could agree with that belief today.
Artificial intelligence and advanced manufacturing sit at the periphery of defense execution, not at its core. The mainframe — shipbuilding, munitions, and readiness — is where we keep failing.
We cannot seem to get out of our own way in any of these areas, although we are making a lot of government contractors rich by our fruitless attempts thus far.
Next, we might be convinced that our most able and most senior people, fully selected by merit, are the best ones possible, leading us into this new era.
Yet any public scan of military leadership travails and criminal convictions, even at the highest levels, should disabuse us from the notion that our youngest are being led by the best and most virtuous leadership America has to offer.
As I wrote earlier this year, our senior officer promotion systems require serious reform. Providing our three- and four-star leaders, who are political appointees themselves, with strategic goals and results-based discipline has been long on intent but short on execution.
It is exactly our current closed-loop, replication of hierarchy promotion system that perpetuates a type of successor ideology. Without appropriate accountability, that system is enervating to the entire institution.
Finally, we could, impossibly perhaps, believe that America has ample strategic time and space for a geopolitical and technological renaissance, and thus any large meeting of our most senior officers with the President and his Secretary is an overreaction at best, a gratuitous show of force at worst.
That belief would be willfully ignorant of the intense conflict happening right now in just about every dimension of global competition. It is only becoming more, and not less, difficult for America to find overwhelming advantages in such competition. Just ask Israel, the Baltic states, Poland, Taiwan, and the Philippines among many others how modern war unfolds.
To the contrary, now is the time for exactly such a gathering of minds – but only if those same uniformed leaders have the courage of their convictions to recommend strategies and plans that convict the very lack of courage which got us here.
Even if, and especially if, that paucity of courage was exhibited by themselves.
Over twenty years ago, my first four-star boss used to say that the military’s job was to provide options for the President.
Yes, those options are well-informed with geopolitical insight, but they are not political in and of themselves. Above all else, those options need to have the advertised effect when called upon. That is why they are called options and not wishes or hopes.
No senior officer in this era is putting his or her stars on the table because of the failure of a program or platform, much less for conscience or their own convictions.
Too often, their vision ends at the one and a half or so years each one will occupy each rung en route to the next. Anything accomplished occurs either in hopes of their next promotion or their assumed place in the corporate (military contracting) world.
If the President and his Secretary feel that such a self-selecting, self-feeding bureaucracy will tend to try to wait them out, they are probably right.
It’s not (necessarily) personal. Such auto-immune behaviors as those exhibited in the Pentagon have been true of bureaucracies since the advent of the Industrial Age.
And as the President and Secretary are likely aware: the political environment surrounding senior military officer promotions (which are political themselves) has not appreciably changed for sixteen years, since President Obama took office.
President Trump’s first term interregnum did not affect the trajectory of appointments in the military branches, as he himself now realizes. Equity, rather than equality in measuring results, ruled during that term just as it did in the other three. We have been blind to the system that perpetuates our senior leadership, and thus our many disappointments in national security readiness, for far too long.
How our military prepares for global conflict – or better yet, to prevent one – hasn’t changed. If people are indeed the process, that is where the President must start.
Steve Deal is a retired naval officer who previously served as deputy chief of staff to the Secretary of the Navy and deputy chief learning officer of the Department of the Navy. He currently resides in St. Albans, Vermont.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Commentary, Military
I wonder what Mr. Deal thinks about Palmer Luckey’s pursuit of weapons manufacturing. Luckey’s approach decouples the connection of the government and manufacturing weapons of war. Luckey is not constrained by political tides. Instead, his motivation is USA first from a kind of “militia” perspective. Sort of in the background waiting to be called upon. He has weapons the military could benefit from, but the military didn’t request the weapons ahead of time. The military wasn’t involved in their development. But, if the situation is right, Luckey can be called upon to supply weapons and manufacturing that is fast, efficient, and affordable. So maybe where the government is failing, the free market is prevailing???
It could be argued, as the tide of AI progresses, that fewer hands are necessary in the military industrial complex. Certainly not all. We shouldn’t be planning to storm the beaches of Normandy as we did in the past. Instead, AI powered drones. We need more hands manufacturing drones than we do holding a gun.
Hi Nick, this is Steve. Thanks for your very insightful comments.
I completely agree, and wanted to reference a recent a16z podcast about Palmer and American Dynamism, on this exact topic: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a16z-podcast/id842818711?i=1000728689717
“In a recent podcast, a16z general my partner Katherine Boyle tells the story of how a U.S. senator, worried about the pace of iteration in global military technology, referenced Ukraine and asked technology experts, “Why can’t we do this?”
It is only in the national security space that we can’t, the answer went. Somehow, the American values of dynamism are hiding beneath our country’s capacity to defend itself.
“Perhaps you might agree with Boyle that “a unifying philosophical connection between the people who work in these ecosystems” is fundamental to realizing such dynamism.
“And if you also think that America is at an inflection point of global leadership – and, perhaps languishing in terms of defense production – then, maybe, such a unifying connection between senior military leaders isn’t such a bad idea.”
As you well know and the podcast repeats, no one would have bet on Palmer to be the hero of advanced military technology when he was living in a trailer next to his parents tinkering with video game equipment. Not even Palmer himself. Yet he was driven, kept learning, and believed.
My larger point is that our educational and normative defense manufacturing practices (aka, the military industrial complex) are not prepared for the Palmers of the world. The way we select our most senior leaders largely prevents that from happening. Failure should be a teacher, not a reinforcement for further promotion and lucrative positions in industry to “fix” what they themselves were unwilling or unable to accomplish.
How does this affect us in Vermont? Surely you and others know plenty of possible brilliant Palmers in this state, in high school technical training centers or our community colleges. How do we reach them? How to help them understand there is a larger national security mission to fulfill? Our educational and political leaders would keep our future Palmers working on social justice, on protesting, or working on further money transfers from the government rather than participating in national service.
This is a lot bigger than our uniformed military. Yet our senior military leaders are some of the very few with the tenure and application necessary to get involved with the country on this. Look where Palmer is working now: conservative Ohio. That is not by accident.
We need to wake up and understand where our congressional delegation is leading — their vector is for themselves and their own liberal political stars nationwide, not for future Palmers from Vermont. If we continue to elect them, we are merely ensuring our own irrelevance and damning our children’s futures, far away from the American dynamism movement happening right now.
Couldn’t disagree more both on weapons and AI . First weapons in the hands of the public is the reason the Criminal Federal Government hasn’t had the back bone to take the guns away.
AI is the biggest mistake to come down the pike for a long, long time along with allowing Corporations to exist at all. Constitutionally two forms were allowed; but of course we all know the Constitution was Sacked way back in 1871 starting with the original organic act and those following. The two forms of business to be used under a operational Constitution are proprietorship and partnership
The corporation does nothing but Rape and pillage and if you don’t believe just look out your window; Military industrial complex, Big Pharma, The Federal Government was a Corporation after they stuffed the Constitution in the dirt by the politicians of that time, Black Rock, etc,etc
What bothers me is the fact that the president, his secretary and 800 officers of the military services are meeting together under one roof. I hope it’s in a bunker far underground.