Calls for reform within the Department of Defense (DoD) have gained momentum over the past decade, as various stakeholders from Congress to defense industry leaders have united in the belief that change is necessary.
The urgency for reform is underscored by the rapidly evolving technological landscape and the geopolitical climate, with China significantly strengthening its military and Russia continuing its modernization efforts amidst the ongoing war in Ukraine.
In this context, the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has identified the Pentagon as its next target for reform, promising to bring business-like efficiency to the Defense Department.
However, this approach may overlook the fundamental differences between the military and the private sector.
The Pentagon operates under a structure that starkly contrasts with corporate governance. Unlike a private business, which may have a limited board of directors making unified decisions, the Defense Department’s direction is influenced by all 535 members of Congress.
While the President serves as the commander in chief, significant military decisions, particularly those related to declaring war, ultimately reside outside the military’s chain of command.
This misalignment of authority is a critical difference between military governance and corporate leadership.
The Pentagon’s budgetary process further complicates its operation. While the Department of Defense oversees a budget larger than any business in the United States, it has minimal control over how those funds are allocated.
Each year, the Department proposes its budget based on the National Defense Strategy, yet Congress retains the final say, often reshaping funding proposals based on a range of political considerations or constituent pressures.
This disconnect is exacerbated by Congress’s failure to approve timely funding, leading to continued resolutions that restrict innovation and adaptability.
For example, the recent inability of Congress to agree on the defense budget will mean that the Pentagon will operate an entire fiscal year without a full appropriation, limiting its ability to purchase new capabilities or shift resources in response to changing security needs.
In contrast, a private company would rarely face such rigid constraints, allowing for adaptability in strategy and budget alignment.
Moreover, the Pentagon’s workforce, comprising 3.5 million military and civilian employees, differs substantially from a typical corporate environment. This workforce is not only the largest in the country but also consists of individuals who have made the personal commitment to serve in potentially life-threatening situations worldwide.
Many employees have prior military experience, and approximately one-eighth of them hold security clearances, signifying a unique trust that private sector employees do not typically possess.
The Pentagon’s recruitment and firing processes reflect these complexities. Hiring is notoriously slow due to the specialized skills required, and decisions to fire personnel typically require a careful evaluation to ensure that essential employees are not lost inadvertently.
Critically, it is essential to understand that the core mission of the Pentagon—national security—demands a relationship to risk that goes beyond that of a conventional business.
Failures in a corporate environment may result in financial losses or job changes, while failures within the military can lead to the loss of life.
The stakes of military decisions necessitate a more thoughtful approach to managing risk, making the military’s operational context markedly different from that of a private corporation.
Despite these considerable differences, there is a need for reform within the Pentagon aimed at enhancing effectiveness.
Fortunately, there exist numerous models of successful reform, particularly within entities like the U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Special Operations Command, where efficient practices have been implemented in alignment with evolving defense strategies.
The Marine Corps has achieved notable success by passing financial audits consistently while implementing transformative measures, demonstrating that reform can be achieved without compromising the military’s fundamental mission.
On the other hand, historical examples of failed reform attempts serve as cautionary tales about the complexities within the Department.
For example, efforts to streamline the Defense Acquisition Guidebook resulted in an unwieldy expansion that ultimately failed to improve efficiency, highlighting the challenge of enacting meaningful change amidst an abundance of competing reform initiatives.
The Pentagon’s unique governance structure, heavily influenced by Congress, plays a crucial role in shaping the reform landscape. Congress can contribute positively by moving away from harmful continuing resolutions and returning to timely appropriations processes that would empower the Defense Department.
Recent bipartisan efforts to give the Pentagon more flexibility in executing its budget could be a promising step in the right direction.
Max Stier from the Partnership for Public Service cautions that DOGE’s current approach may lack the nuanced understanding needed to navigate the complex dynamics of the Pentagon, likening it to a child recklessly experimenting in a nuclear power plant.
Without acknowledging the Defense Department’s unique role and significance, attempts to implement business-like reforms are likely to falter and could have dire consequences.
In conclusion, while the military is in need of reform, it is imperative that reformers approach the Pentagon with respect for its distinct characteristics.
The potential for failure in misunderstanding the military’s complexities not only hampers advancement opportunities but could also jeopardize national security and benefit adversarial nations, thus making it essential to tread carefully in any reform initiatives.
image source from：https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/pentagon-cant-be-run-business
