As most readers of this blog already know, the Secretary of Defense announced yesterday his intention to dis-establish the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk/Suffolk VA. The announcement has energized an already prickly Virginia Congressional delegation, stung by the Navy's stated desire to move an aircraft carrier to Mayport, Florida.
This announcement is a continuation of Mr. Gates' stated desire to trim "tail" to enhance combat "tooth". There is in Mr. Gates' recent activity on this front, some to like and some to question. I'll do a bit of both here.
The Message: Secretary Gates' message here is a clear one, and it is directed squarely at the Services--"Look what I've done--now don't disappoint me". Any Service Secretary who comes forward with salami-slicing approaches to overhead reduction is likely to receive a cold reception. Gates wants broad strokes, and he is going to get them.
Confusion: As part of his announcement yesterday, Mr. Gates tried to build support for his move by tying the savings into investments in shipbuilding. After his two May speeches--each of which openly questioned the value of Naval preponderance--Mr. Gates' commitment on this front is questionable.
Contractor Open Season: Mr. Gates continues to hammer home an increasingly one-note approach to reducing cost--get rid of contractors. Yes--of course--I have a conflict of interest here. Of course I would bristle at this development. That said, I also wore the uniform for nearly 21 years. I served from the end of the Reagan Administration buildup--when we were a Navy of nearly 600 ships, to the Spring of 2008 when we had gone below 300. Along with these reductions came dramatic reductions in active duty personnel. What didn't get reduced? The workload. The US Military's commitments, interests and activities continue to be global, complex and time sensitive. At the end of the day, someone has to do the work, and throughout the course of that long, 21 year decline in force levels, the work increasingly came to be done by honest, hardworking, dedicated, patriotic and loyal civilian contractors. Yes--contractors cost money. But you don't own them and their family's healthcare, you don't have to pay them a pension, and you can fire them whenever you want. The answer, according to the Secretary? Insourcing. Cut the contractors and turn their jobs into GS level positions. The problems there are two-fold--the first is the ridiculously bureaucratic nature of the federal hiring system, and the second is the illusion of an even trade. When a retired O-6 making $190K through a federal contractor is sacked and the position is reclassified (at some point in the future.....) as a GS-12 job--you're not going to get 26 years of infantry experience including command at the company, battalion and brigade levels. So who suffers? The career bureaucrats, uniformed leaders and action officers who now have to slog through an undiminished workload with an across the board less experienced and less talented workforce--that is, when they can get OPM motivated to create, classify and advertise the position.
The Politics. It is ironic that Secretary Gates would announce the disestablishment of JFCOM and the loss of some 4000 jobs on the very day Speaker of the House Pelosi summoned that chamber back to Washington (an "emergency") in order to pass yet another infusion of public money ($26B) into state and local coffers to protect the jobs of teachers and other public union members. I'm all for cutting waste, and if SECDEF thinks JFCOM is an example of such, then so be it. But local governments that fattened themselves on the trimmings of high real estate values and concomitant tax revenue must now pay the piper, and teachers and public sector union employees should not be immune from the same economic forces that have created a persistent 9.5% level of unemployment throughout the country. Some jobs apparently, are more important than others--and from the looks of it, voting patterns are not unimportant in that determination.
Bryan McGrath
No comments:
Post a Comment