In a New York Times Op-Ed, Marine and former Kennedy School fellow Paul Kane outlines three fundamental reforms to the United States military.  In reshaping the US Defense Budget, he argues, Secretary Gates should concomitantly reform the branches of the armed forces, personnel policy and broader service requirements.  Though bold, his suggestions are all plausible.

The policy seeks to reduce wasteful defense spending, improve the quality of military personnel and broaden the American commitment to national efforts, whether war, recovery or development.  Three specific policy changes are designed to meet these objectives.

First, Kane proposes to eliminate the Air Force and integrate, as necessary, the Air Force’s current resources into each remaining branch of the armed forces.  He argues that the Air Force does not have a role in current combat operations and represents superfluous spending.  Since each other branch can deploy air power, the Air Force will not be particularly missed.

Second, the military must abolish the “up or out” system. “Up or out” mandates that officers who are “passed up for promotion twice” must resign or face expulsion.  Kane laments Congress’s specific discretion over the Pentagon budget, proposing that the Pentagon assume responsibility to retain competent officers even without promotion.  Since it takes decades and thousands of dollars to develop military talent, the talent that the US currently has must be maintained, he argues.

Third, the US should implement a service requirement for all 18 year-olds.  In short, those leaving high school must spend a year working to fight poverty, perform disaster recovery efforts, train for the military or otherwise perform a national service.  Such a program, the policy argues, would give the nation’s youth a greater stake in the future of America’s defense and foreign policy.

 

The plan would likely save money in the defense budget, but cost jobs in the Air Force and building Air Force materiel.  Old-time hawks are likely to oppose it, as are military personnel.  The up or out system is subject to internal military agreement and might not be subject to a national political debate.  The final proposal, however, would require an accommodating change in the education system and would likely face some backlash from wealthy Republicans.