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

[rangerrebew]

 The Pentagon's controversial plan to hire military leaders off the street
Andrew Tilghman, Military Times 5:04 a.m. EDT June 19, 2016
 

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.

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/careers/2016/06/19/military-lateral-entry-force-of-the-future-ash-carter/85884998/


READ MORE

[Doug Loss]

The Pentagon's controversial plan to hire military leaders off the street
Andrew Tilghman, Military Times 5:04 a.m. EDT June 19, 2016
 

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.

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/careers/2016/06/19/military-lateral-entry-force-of-the-future-ash-carter/85884998/


READ MORE

So the plan is to start putting zampolits into units?

[Free Vulcan]

So the plan is to start putting zampolits into units?

Ding! Winnah chicken dinnah!

[montanajoe]

Seems to me all these idiot ideas are the result of the simple fact that most American's are unwilling to serve....

[Sanguine]

Seems to me all these idiot ideas are the result of the simple fact that most American's are unwilling to serve....

Most Americans are unwilling to serve.  But, we don't need most - the all volunteer military has been a resounding success.

It seems to me that this is another effort to degrade or destroy the warrior spirit. 

You may find this article of a few ago interesting:

It’s time to toss the all-volunteer military
By Thomas E. Ricks April 19, 2012

Since the end of the military draft in 1973, every person joining the U.S. armed forces has done so because he or she asked to be there. Over the past decade, this all-volunteer force has been put to the test and has succeeded, fighting two sustained foreign wars with troops standing up to multiple combat deployments and extreme stress.

This is precisely the reason it is time to get rid of the all-volunteer force. It has been too successful. Our relatively small and highly adept military has made it all too easy for our nation to go to war — and to ignore the consequences....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-time-to-toss-the-all-volunteer-military/2012/04/19/gIQAwFV3TT_story.html

[Sanguine]

July marks 40th anniversary of all-volunteer Army
Today, the Army enlists only those civilians who voluntarily choose to enter into military service. That has not always been the case. It wasn't until 1973 that the military eliminated the draft, creating today's all-volunteer force. 1 / 1 Show Caption + Today, the Army enlists only those civilians who voluntarily choose to enter into military service. That has not always been the case. It wasn't until 1973 that the military eliminated the draft, creating today's all-volunteer force. (Photo Credit: C. Todd Lopez) VIEW ORIGINAL
...

Maj. Gen. Thomas C. Seamands, director of military personnel management, Army G-1, has served in the Army for 32 years now. As he grew up on a military post, he saw how the services transitioned from the draft to the all-volunteer force.

Now 40 years after the transition, Seamands says he continues to see the Army improve as a result of the all-volunteer force.

"Everybody in the Army wants to be in the Army," Seamands said. "Everyone's volunteered to come in and be a part of something bigger than themselves."

...

Only 20 percent of Americans are qualified to be in the Army under standards of health, behavior, and intelligence. Seamands said recruiting still remains a challenge.

https://www.army.mil/article/106813/169379

[montanajoe]

Most Americans are unwilling to serve.  But, we don't need most - the all volunteer military has been a resounding success.

It seems to me that this is another effort to degrade or destroy the warrior spirit. 

You may find this article of a few ago interesting:

I served when their were both draftee's and enlistee's in uniform. I never noticed a lot of difference between the two except when it was time to re-up. Very few of the draftee's did while quite a few of the enlistee's did. I don't agree with the author's premise that the success of the volunteer force is what has prolonged the war's in the middle east.

The author like many fails to comprehend the fact that an increasing powerful enemy has declared war on the United States and the West and they won't stop until they have achieved victory or they have been defeated.

The fact is that 1% of the country cannot carry the burden alone in the multi-generational conflict we are facing.  I would favor a limited reinstatement of the drat.

[rangerrebew]

They are already doing this to some degree with people in the medical professions and law degrees.  It has some real good possibilities as long as everyone understands these are not to be line officers and the rank is for pay purposes only.  On the other hand, it could be a bureaucratic nightmare.

[geronl]

I think they got this idea from Hugo Chavez or something. His revolution denied that some people are more qualified than others for any kind of job, no matter how technical.

The results have been awesome, hehehe

[mirraflake]

In a nutshell. The world is rapidly changing technology wise. US Military is looking to hire Zuckerberg -CEO types (age 50+) and making them officers to get their expertise  instead of cultivating younger officers for years.

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/careers/2016/06/19/military-lateral-entry-force-of-the-future-ash-carter/85884998/

[truth_seeker]

I can see reasons for getting the technical knowledge of those outside the military, by any means necessary since it is so vital.

We have historically accomplished that, with consulting engagements, and by hiring specialty firms as contractors.

And finally we have recalled service members from retirement.

http://www.usace.army.mil/About/History/Historical-Vignettes/Military-Construction-Combat/079-Oldest-Officer/

But today in an era of high tech, small military service headcounts, the necessary technical expertise may not exist inside the uniformed services.

The remaining question: Do they need to be in uniformed service, to contribute? Would Elon Musk, Zuckerman, Jobs, Gates lend hands if asked?

It may be the large question of Imagination. Do we have inside or outside the services, people that can imagine the necessary solutions?

Think Gen. Gage, and the atomic bombs.

[mirraflake]

The remaining question: Do they need to be in uniformed service, to contribute? Would Elon Musk, Zuckerman, Jobs, Gates lend hands if asked?

Maybe they want to make them officers so they have a commitment to stay and do the job. I'm sure they don't want to bring people in, give them boatloads of training and security clearance only to have them quit after a year.

[truth_seeker]

Maybe they want to make them officers so they have a commitment to stay and do the job. I'm sure they don't want to bring people in, give them boatloads of training and security clearance only to have them quit after a year.

The civilians that worked under Gen. Gage on the atomic bomb, got the job done.  The Corps of Engineers doesn't do all of their work, using Private E2's.

I had some experience in private industry, managing "knowledge" workers.

There is more to it, than giving a "direct order," to "get your ass in gear right now, and invent something."

There are private companies, which have expertise, along those lines. Among them are Microsoft, Apple, Boeing, etc.

[geronl]

Promotion through the ranks is an incentive to get good people to join, take that away and what do you have...

[RetBobbyMI]

Today's PC military is just not up to par with that of 15 years ago.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

They are already doing this to some degree with people in the medical professions and law degrees.  It has some real good possibilities as long as everyone understands these are not to be line officers and the rank is for pay purposes only.  On the other hand, it could be a bureaucratic nightmare.

I agree.  It was also common to do this during WW2 -- people with particular skills/knowledge, including industry executives, etc., were given rank at put it command of things within their area of expertise.  I don't have a conceptual problem with doing something similar in for things like cyber warfare, etc..

Different culture anyway between those ultra-REMF's, and other warfighters.  It's a bit different for the Marines simply because of the universality of 6 months of infantry/combat training for all officers in all MOS's already.  But Marines could always import Navy types for some of those jobs anyway, like we already do for medical personnel.