More Pending Congressional “Help”
Every once in a great while, Congress actually steps in and makes DoD get something right. The 1999 Kosovo BSM Fiasco is a primary example. In reaction to the USAF’s abuse of the BSM during the Kosovo conflict, Congress acted and made it a legal requirement for someone to actually deploy and receive hostile fire/imminent danger pay in order to receive a Bronze Star. In that case, Congressional “help” was indeed sorely needed.
It now looks like Congress may again try to “help” DoD fix a problem. But this time I’m not so sure the “cure” is either necessary or appropriate.
Apparently Congressman Rob Wittman, R-VA, has introduced legislation that would put an Army officer in charge of the Army National Cemeteries (Arlington and the Soldiers’ and Airman’s Home National Cemeteries). The impetus is doubtless the serious issues noted recently at Arlington National Cemetery.
At first glance this seems like a good idea. But on reflection I’m not so sure it’s appropriate. In fact, the more I think about it the more I’m convinced that the proper answer is, “Bad idea, sir.”
The military’s mission isn’t to run cemeteries. The military’s mission is to fight and win the nation’s wars. Things that detract from that focus, for whatever good reason, are IMO counterproductive.
In an era of declining resources, tasking the military with yet another requirement that must by law be filled by a senior officer who is needed elsewhere simply doesn’t make sense. If that requirement isn’t military-unique (or necessary to support potential deployment to combat) and can be met by someone not in uniform, then it probably should be. We have too few serving in uniform today to fill actual requirements as it is. That’s why we have so damn many contractors deployed in combat zones supporting the force.
Further, Representative Wittman’s proposal is IMO nothing but a classic “feel good” knee-jerk response that frankly accomplishes little other than good PR. Civilians today run all other US national cemeteries. Those cemeteries are run well or poorly not because of the type of clothing worn by the individuals working at those cemeteries. Rather, they’re run well or poorly because of the quality of the individuals working at those cemeteries.
If the current incumbent at Arlington isn’t doing the job well enough, they can indeed be replaced with someone who can. But IMO we simply don’t need to create yet another inside-the-beltway billet for a soon-to retire O6 (or above) to do that.
Just my opinion, for what it’s worth.
Category: Military issues, Veterans Issues
Understand completely what you are saying and cannot disagree with any of it, Hondo. Must give this some serious thought.
The other side of it is that just maybe members of the military deserve to have active duty folks overseeing their final resting place? Not married to that idea, and it is indeed more symbolic than substantive. Having the best people there is probably more important than just another transient leader who really isn’t particularly suited for the duty.
Hmmm. Thinking…
OWB: the problem with giving that mission to the active duty military is that we have 131 national cemeteries and 39 “soldiers lots” and “monuments” (the latter two are VA-maintained military burial sites in existing public or private cemeteries). That’s a substantial mission – I’d guess brigade/wing sized when all functions are included – dispersed throughout CONUS and a number of overseas locations.
Not only is it a non-core mission, it’s also a resource drain. The two Army-run cemeteries (Arlington and the Soldiers’/Airman’s Home National Cemetery) have a budget on normal years of $40+M (it’s way higher this year due to construction associated with the projected expansion). I shudder to think of what the VA spends on all their national cemeteries.
IMO there’s also no way DoD would get a sufficient plus-up in either people or $$$ to do this new mission, either. It would be told to eat it “out of overhead”. Or, alternatively, they’d get that “slice” transferred from the DVA – after bureaucratic games were played by the VA to protect as much of their $$$ and staffing as possible, of course. Then DoD would have to rob Peter to pay Paul in order to finish doing the mission.
Yes, having national cemeteries staffed by DoD and run by military personnel is damned attractive at first glance. I’m certain many other ideas paving the proverbial road to hell were as well.
With logic like that, we would have civilian garrison commanders and rid ourselves of any officer not in a combat or combat support role? Historic military institutions deserve to have great leadership; and often it takes a “green suiter” to provide that leadership.
I’d prefer ANC responsibility be shifted to VA. While VA is horrible with claims processing, they seem to do a good job with National Cemeteries, at least based on my limited experience.
Gumshoe: actually, you can’t draw that inference from my article. Installations provide the fixed support base from which forces deploy. As such, running them is a function essential to supporting military deployments – and thus warfighting. Military leadership at the installation level is thus reasonable, and I said as much above.
In contrast, other than temporary in-theater burial grounds running a cemetery is hardly necessary to support a wartime mission. Recently even that has not been necessary; we’ve instead transferred our dead out-of-theater vice temporarily burying them locally.
Having said that, I’ll observe that most Army installations today appear to have civilian Deputy Commanders. I won’t make the argument, but one could indeed argue that replacing existing military Garrison Commanders with civilian Installation Directors might be worth a try. A Garrison Commander is essentially running a small town or city; civilian mayors have been doing exactly that for literally centuries.
Further: by extending your logic no DoD organization at any level should ever be led by a civilian, regardless. Your argument can also be extended to the absurd level to argue that there should be no DoD civilian employees whatsoever, since every job within DoD at least in theory supports some wartime requirement.
The actions of a certain recently-fired former MDA director would seem to undercut your argument that military leadership guarantees good leadership in a DoD organization. There’s also no way DoD would ever get the additional roughly 800,000 uniformed personnel authorized it would need to replace the existing DoD civilian workforce. That just ain’t gonna happen.
Outside an active combat theater, the clothing worn by the leaders and/or employees of an organization is almost never a critical factor. Rather, the critical factor is getting the right individual(s) in the right jobs.
Hondo- your last paragraph in 5 nails it. I have seen great – and shitty – leaders on both sides of the military/civilian fence… what is needed is for the the appropriate agency to hire – and be able to FIRE- the right people as needed.
I’m surprised Congress had the time to get to this being so busy trying to get the Washington Redskins to change their name and all.
There is something positive in this.
Somewhere, there’s a unit that won’t that POS officer inflicted upon them.
Culturally, this means the Army, which took ownership of you at the raising of your right hand, takes ownership of you in death. Now – if they could get that whole middle part straightened out.