Good Idea or just a purge? Chuck the militarys most experience leaders for new blood with new ideas? **Joshua** We should always be wary of over-generalizations. Obviously, some of the worlds most daring and innovative people are senior citizens, and some of its dullest and most conservative are in their 20s. But broadly speaking, these are exceptions that prove the rule. It seems hard to deny that there is indeed an inverse correlation between age and willingness to try new ideas, and between age and aggression, which are among the most critical features for military commanders. And that brings us to America. Today, the U.S. military seems both as strong as ever and as weak as ever. As strong as ever because it has no great power rivals that can even hope to match its conventional strength; and because it has the most aircraft carriers, the best technology, and unattainable command of the skies. And yet, no one but a fool would claim that the U.S. militarys recent war-making record is sterling. As Thomas E. Ricks has argued, a great many of the U.S.s military failures in Iraq and Afghanistan are directly attributable to poor generalship. That recommendation is simple: The U.S. military should have a firm retirement age of 50 for officers. (??? Poor Generalship? And their political leaders are blameless for tying their hands and hobbling their legs? Maybe this same argument can be used for politicians, retirement at 50.) This would be a sea change. It would mean the chairman of the joint chiefs would be in his mid-40s, instead of 62, as he is today. The career path would be compressed to an astonishing extent. It is not just generals who will be (much) younger; it will also be every type of superior officer. There are, of course, laws in America that ban age discrimination. There are very good reasons for these statutes, and I dont propose changing them anywhere — except in the militarys officer ranks. Now, you might be concerned that my plan will promote people past their level of competence. Dont worry about that. Bureaucracies promote people to their level of incompetence; startups and adventurous militaries promote people past their level into competence, into jobs that they must grow into as they do them. A very common feature of military campaigns, especially successful ones, is officers being promoted very early due to high rank turnover, whether due to dismissals or death in action. (Hmm, weve been engaged in war for twelve years and there hasnt been a whole lot of mid and senior casualties... if there was then this argument would be a moot point.) Plus, the U.S. military needs more accountability for senior officers. Some senior officers will not be ready for significant command by their mid-30s. Replace them! Arent there a lot of very valuable old commanders? Of course. As I said earlier, there are exceptions to every rule, and there are or should be a lot of exceptions to the current, never-justified, unwritten rule that says senior commanders should be in their 50s or 60s. The point of setting a general rule of this type is not to catch every single eventuality in its net. It is to find a way to shape incentives and culture and probabilities to improve the organization. One effect of this new rule is that, given the shorter career span, and, therefore, a much more brutal up or out promotion system, younger ambitious officers who want to make general very fast will be more incentivized to try to stand out, to try new things and methods. Eisenhower was 51 at the beginning of WWII, Gen. Patton was 56, Gen. Marshall was 61, Gen. MacArthur was 61, Gen. Stilwell was 58, Admiral Halsey was 59, Admiral Nimitz was 56, Admiral McCain was 57. And the list goes on and on and on. buff.ly/1BYXPNh
Posted on: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 18:01:08 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015