Many experts say the industrial-era personnel system still in use by the Pentagon -- with its up-or-out promotions, its non-vesting pension system for the first 20 years, and its decrepit means of evaluating officers -- was perfect for World War II. But now that we have an all-volunteer force reliant on skilled people who often can find work elsewhere, is the current system the best way to maintain the world's best military? John Nagl of the Center for a New American Security and your Battleland correspondent tussle with the issue, with help from Dave Barno, a retired Army lieutenant general, and Nora Bansahel, a former Rand Corp. military strategist now at CNAS.
More from CNAS
CommentaryTwo Cheers for Esper’s Plan to Reassert Civilian Control of the Pentagon
The longest-ever gap in civilian leadership atop the Department of Defense came to an end on July 23, when Mark Esper was sworn in as secretary of defense. His presence in the...
By Loren DeJonge Schulman, Alice Hunt Friend & Mara Karlin
CommentaryWhat should be done with report on military sexual harassment and assault?
After multiple delays, the Pentagon finally authorized RAND to release its report with estimates of installation- and command-level risk of military sexual assault and harassm...
By Kayla M. Williams
Why Military Personnel Reform Matters
The United States is notoriously bad at predicting future conflicts and changes in the international order. From the bestselling The Coming War With Japan in the early 1990s t...
By Amy Schafer
The Ghosts of Armies Past
The U.S. Army, like the nation as a whole, is facing difficult new strategic challenges. Thirteen years of constant warfare will end in 2014, when the last U.S. combat troops...
By Kelley Sayler, David W. Barno & USA (Ret.)