If the VA has always been led by a veteran, and it's clearly a huge mess, then why is a non-veteran VA leader not a reasonable idea?

I suspect the problem is not who holds the top seat but in trying to shed the corrupt and bloated middle executives. I think it is easier to cure herpes than fire a VA employee.

May take some heat for this, but for the near term I think it shouldn't be a vet. IMO the VA is more concerned with preserving its bureaucracy than accomplishing its mission of serving vets. Granted as a retiree I don't have a lot of interface with the VA, but from all that I've seen and heard their attitude is that it's the VA way or no way. Unfortunately I think too many veterans buy into this philosophy and may tweek things but never really change things. Someone from outside the veteran community with firm guidance from above to implement change may be more able to accomplish this. Get things fixed and then look to prior veterans to maintain the changed organization.

I don't really think it would make a significant difference but I do believe that if the VA is lead by a non-vet with the right credentials...that the new CEO's surround themselves with the quality VA leaders that are Vets to make it happen....Healthcare is all about three things. COST, ACCESS and QUALITY....Reduce COST + Improve ACCESS + Improve QUALITY = Increased VALUE....If any hospital or hospital system fails these and doesn't continually try to improve itself...then it fails its primary mission. I do believe that many processes need to be re-examined and streamlined b/c they are just too cumbersome....