Kill the Department of Defense
Adopting the Progressive Era-esque naive reductionism that the authors of the National Security Act of 1947 did resulted in taking what pre-1947 were discernibly visible separate interests and consolidated them into one indiscernibly invisible single interest. What were once clearly feuding fiefdoms are now one internally squabbling Leviathan. What was one a diversified procurement base is now a narrow necrotic oligopoly of de facto state owned companies. It is more fitting with the spirit of republican institutions to return to pre-1947 practice. A more politically rational national defense structure, one that throws sunshine on inter-service squabbling rarely seen since 1947, could resemble the following:
- War Department – led by a cabinet level civilian Secretary of War who commands all military forces in event of a declaration of war. Oh yes, you don’t wage a long war without a clear congressional declaration of war. You don’t go to peace without a clear congressional declaration of peace. And you don’t appoint a the commanding general unless you declare war. Before that, it’s all colonels.
- Department of the Army – led by a cabinet level civilian Secretary of the Army, fights for dollars for the U.S. Army
- Department of the Navy – led by a cabinet level civilian Secretary of the Navy, fights for dollars for the U.S. Navy and commands its continuous efforts to deny the seas to foreign commerce. They have some nukes.
- Department of the Marines – led by a cabinet level civilian Secretary of the Marines, fights for dollars for the U.S. Marine Corps. Also handles all land-based tactical air support following the Safranski Plan. Shields land-based tactical airpower from Fighter Mafia depredations with glamorous dress uniforms. They have some nukes.
- Starfleet Command – led by a cabinet level civilian Secretary of the Navy, seeks out new life and new strategic air power targets in Douhet’s name. They have some nukes.
- Treasury Department – they run the Coast Guard
- Department of the Militia – led by a cabinet level civilian Secretary of the Militia, fights for dollars for state militias
Only through open feuding between the armed services, without opportunities to make intradepartmental peace treaties in house, can a diversified military-industrial base supported by feuding patronage networks be contemplated, let alone partially realized. As was said by FDR and as it was said of old, in the greatest strategic library of all time:
But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
Page 5 of 5 | Previous page
Purpleslog:
August 13th, 2013 at 5:20 pm
LOL: “Shields land-based tactical airpower from Fighter Mafia depredations with glamorous dress uniforms”!
J. Scott Shipman:
August 13th, 2013 at 5:52 pm
Splendid, simply splendid!
.
“…may his bones be crushed…”
Lexington Green:
August 14th, 2013 at 5:21 pm
I have never seen Kutuzov compared to William McKinley before. A new angle.
Breaking up the DoD and encouraging even more intense inter-deparment conflict is not what most rationalistic people would consider a good idea. But there would be benefits.
Lynn C. Rees:
August 14th, 2013 at 6:32 pm
Most “rationalism” is irrational naive scientism that implicitly accepts that exhaustive central planning will work with the right virtue, Führerprinzip, de-duplication, and boxes and straight lines (among other elements).
Inter-service rivalry exists. For the first 157 years of the republic, it took place without the fig leaf of Progressive Era “rational bureaucracy” and somehow we survived. Since 1947 it’s taken place under the fig leaf. Inter-service rivalry doesn’t seem any less intense since pre-1947. It seems less productive. Under the fig leaf, it is certainly more obfuscated.
Removing the fig leaf is not guaranteed to lead to any more or any less politics then is already there. Once congealed, the cartelized defense oligopoly may prove to have the same cockroach resiliency as the cartelized financial cancer. But it would be more clearly labeled for what it is instead of being pushed into back rooms in the name of a false zombified consensus.
Lynn C. Rees:
August 14th, 2013 at 6:38 pm
McKinley and Coolidge resemble the sage kings of the Taoists more than I’d considered. It reminded me of Tolstoy’s framing of Kutuzov as the living Tao of Russia as demonstrated by Kutuzov sleeping through the councils of war before Austerlitz. The hyper-frenetic governance of the 20C is very Corsican in its aggression.