No Double Standards in Cutting Defense Fat

[unhappycamper]

No Double Standards in Cutting Defense Fat
Lawrence Korb
Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress
Posted: August 13, 2010 12:46 PM

If Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wants to ensure that the reductions he proposed on August 10, 2010 are meaningful, he can set a good example by trimming his own bureaucracy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, or OSD, and eliminating the civilian secretaries of the military departments.

Although the Department of Defense was created in 1947, it was not until 1948 that the office of the secretary (OSD) was established. In addition to the secretary of defense and the deputy, OSD had three presidential appointees at the assistant secretary level who supervised a staff of 50 people. Although the number grew to 15 in the 1970s, it stayed at or about that level until the mid-1980s. Today, in Gates' office, there are 26 presidential appointees: the deputy secretary, 5 under secretaries, 12 deputy under secretaries, and 8 assistant secretaries of defense, who have a total staff of about 3,000 people.

To take just two examples of how things have changed, the manpower position, one of the original three assistants, has morphed from one assistant secretary into an office that has four presidential appointees, an undersecretary, a principal deputy, and two assistant secretaries. But the office actually has less responsibility than the position did in the 1980s when one person at the assistant secretary level handled not just manpower, but installations and logistics as well (full disclosure: I was the assistant secretary). The policy shop, which did not even exist until the 1960s when it was manned by one assistant secretary, now has eight presidential appointees: an undersecretary, a principal deputy undersecretary and six assistant secretary level positions.

Ironically much of the growth in OSD occurred as the size of the Armed Forces shrunk. For example, in the 1950s when the active duty force consisted of nearly 3 million people, there were only 10 presidential appointees. Today, when the force has shrunk to 1.4 million, there are 26 presidential appointees.

There were several reasons for this growth. Some positions were forced on DOD by Congress to ensure that certain interests were protected, for example reserve forces and Special Forces. Others were created to deal with areas of particular concern to the secretary, for example, intelligence.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

1. I would argue that the current staff is not fat

People in those jobs are working their butts off, as are most people at that level. The better question is if what they are doing is actually essential and required.

To reduce the staff, fundamental choices need to be made about what will no longer be done. This is no different than reducing the size of the armored forces or ships. Declare what is not needed and make the changes accordingly. That however requires senior leadership to stand up for cutting the size of government.