Posted on Jun 19, 2016
The Pentagon's controversial plan to hire military leaders off the street
1.29K
8
4
5
5
0
Lateral entry, if approved, could open a door for civilians to join the military's senior officer ranks. Some leaders want to explore this idea for enlisted military jobs, too.
Defense Secretary Ash Carter wants to open the door for more “lateral entry” into the military's upper ranks, clearing the way for lifelong civilians with vital skills and strong résumés to enter the officer corps as high as the O-6 paygrade.
The idea is controversial, to say the very least. For many in the rank-and-file military, it seems absurd, a bewildering cultural change that threatens to upend many assumptions about military life and traditional career paths. But while it's not universally embraced, there is interest in Congress and among some of the military's uniformed leaders — even, they say, in exploring how the services could apply this concept to the enlisted force.
Lateral entry, if approved, could open a door for civilians to join the military's senior officer ranks. Some leaders want to explore this idea for enlisted military jobs, too.
Defense Secretary Ash Carter wants to open the door for more “lateral entry” into the military's upper ranks, clearing the way for lifelong civilians with vital skills and strong résumés to enter the officer corps as high as the O-6 paygrade.
The idea is controversial, to say the very least. For many in the rank-and-file military, it seems absurd, a bewildering cultural change that threatens to upend many assumptions about military life and traditional career paths. But while it's not universally embraced, there is interest in Congress and among some of the military's uniformed leaders — even, they say, in exploring how the services could apply this concept to the enlisted force.
MILITARYTIMES
The 4 big takeaways from Ash Carter's new push for military personnel reform
This is a key piece of Carter’s “Force of the Future” personnel reform. Unveiled June 9, it aims to help the military bring in more top talent, especially for high-tech career fields focused on cyber warfare and space. Advocates say it will help the military fill important manpower shortfalls with highly skilled professionals and, more broadly, create greater “permeability” between the active-duty military and the civilian sector.
At the same time, it suggests eroding the military’s tradition of growing its own leaders and cultivating a force with a distinct culture and tight social fabric, which many believe to be the heart of military effectiveness. Critics worry it will create a new subcaste of military service members who are fundamentally disconnected from the traditional career force.
“They will enter a culture they don’t know, understand or potentially appreciate,” said Dakota Wood, a retired Marine officer and military expert at the Heritage Foundation. “The Marines around them will likely be challenged to appreciate them as they would a fellow Marine.”
If approved by Congress, the individual military services would be authorized — but not required — to expand lateral entry up to the rank of colonel, or in the case of the Navy a captain. It's part of a broader reform effort that may also include new rules for bringing enlisted troops in at the noncommissioned officer ranks, which does not require approval from Congress.
Yet the proposed change raises many cultural concerns and could result in a host of second-order effects. The services would have to tackle a range of questions. For instance, what kind of initial training will those officers undergo? Will lateral entry officers be eligible for promotion? Will junior officer retention be affected by the prospect of potentially leaving and returning years later at a higher rank?
Cyber, principally, is driving the call for change, but lateral entry could extend to any high-demand career field with a robust civilian counterpart — logistics, for example, and military policing or public affairs. Those who work in such technical jobs often are lured away from the military's officer and enlisted ranks by high-paying jobs in the private sector. Offering personnel the opportunity to earn an O-6 salary — plus benefits — might alleviate that.
Defense Secretary Ash Carter wants to open the door for more “lateral entry” into the military's upper ranks, clearing the way for lifelong civilians with vital skills and strong résumés to enter the officer corps as high as the O-6 paygrade.
The idea is controversial, to say the very least. For many in the rank-and-file military, it seems absurd, a bewildering cultural change that threatens to upend many assumptions about military life and traditional career paths. But while it's not universally embraced, there is interest in Congress and among some of the military's uniformed leaders — even, they say, in exploring how the services could apply this concept to the enlisted force.
Lateral entry, if approved, could open a door for civilians to join the military's senior officer ranks. Some leaders want to explore this idea for enlisted military jobs, too.
Defense Secretary Ash Carter wants to open the door for more “lateral entry” into the military's upper ranks, clearing the way for lifelong civilians with vital skills and strong résumés to enter the officer corps as high as the O-6 paygrade.
The idea is controversial, to say the very least. For many in the rank-and-file military, it seems absurd, a bewildering cultural change that threatens to upend many assumptions about military life and traditional career paths. But while it's not universally embraced, there is interest in Congress and among some of the military's uniformed leaders — even, they say, in exploring how the services could apply this concept to the enlisted force.
MILITARYTIMES
The 4 big takeaways from Ash Carter's new push for military personnel reform
This is a key piece of Carter’s “Force of the Future” personnel reform. Unveiled June 9, it aims to help the military bring in more top talent, especially for high-tech career fields focused on cyber warfare and space. Advocates say it will help the military fill important manpower shortfalls with highly skilled professionals and, more broadly, create greater “permeability” between the active-duty military and the civilian sector.
At the same time, it suggests eroding the military’s tradition of growing its own leaders and cultivating a force with a distinct culture and tight social fabric, which many believe to be the heart of military effectiveness. Critics worry it will create a new subcaste of military service members who are fundamentally disconnected from the traditional career force.
“They will enter a culture they don’t know, understand or potentially appreciate,” said Dakota Wood, a retired Marine officer and military expert at the Heritage Foundation. “The Marines around them will likely be challenged to appreciate them as they would a fellow Marine.”
If approved by Congress, the individual military services would be authorized — but not required — to expand lateral entry up to the rank of colonel, or in the case of the Navy a captain. It's part of a broader reform effort that may also include new rules for bringing enlisted troops in at the noncommissioned officer ranks, which does not require approval from Congress.
Yet the proposed change raises many cultural concerns and could result in a host of second-order effects. The services would have to tackle a range of questions. For instance, what kind of initial training will those officers undergo? Will lateral entry officers be eligible for promotion? Will junior officer retention be affected by the prospect of potentially leaving and returning years later at a higher rank?
Cyber, principally, is driving the call for change, but lateral entry could extend to any high-demand career field with a robust civilian counterpart — logistics, for example, and military policing or public affairs. Those who work in such technical jobs often are lured away from the military's officer and enlisted ranks by high-paying jobs in the private sector. Offering personnel the opportunity to earn an O-6 salary — plus benefits — might alleviate that.
The Pentagon's controversial plan to hire military leaders off the street
Posted from armytimes.comPosted in these groups: 
Pentagon
Pentagon
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
1
1
0
1
1
0
SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL I have to admit that, when I first saw this article the other day, I thought it was another satire article from “The Duffle Blog” or something like that, as I thought it could not possibly be serious. However, much to my surprise, I discovered that it was, in fact, an actual option being considered by the Obama Administration.
As idiotic and destructive such a move would be on the military, I am not at all surprised that the idiots in the Administration could actually think this would be a good move for the military. After all, it has been very obvious that they have little regard for the morale, readiness and ability of the military to accomplish their mission and are much more interested in social engineering of the military to meet their liberal agenda. Allowing gays and transgenders to openly serve, directing that females be allowed to serve in combat arms, reducing the force to pre-WWII levels, and allowing maintenance of critical aircraft, ships and ground combat equipment, without any regard to the potential impact on the military clearly shows that they simply do not care what their policy decisions do to the military.
While I realize that the services have had direct commissions of “professional personnel” (doctors, lawyers, etc.) for quite some time, those personnel are in very specific career fields/branches and are carefully managed within those fields, not mingled in line branches/career fields, such as this appears would be the case. There is already the capability to bring these “highly qualified” people into the force – as civilian employees of the services or DoD. Why put them in uniform? If they want them to be in uniform, OK, create a different uniform that clearly identified them as “technical specialists” and not “line” officers/NCOs. I guess it is not enough that the Obama Administration has already struck down the ability to prosecute “posers” (ruling that it was a First Amendment right to lie about military service and to wear the uniform and unearned award and decorations), now they are planning to create their own posers.
This just smacks too much like the “Political Officers” of the old Soviet Union, whose primary purpose was to ensure the military commanders did not stray from the Communist Party line. Such a transition of these politically-appointed officers in the US military is, to me, not unthinkable, for this Administration.
Maybe this is just a precursor to allow that premier narcissistic Obama to walk around in a uniform like the other crazy dictators in the world.
As idiotic and destructive such a move would be on the military, I am not at all surprised that the idiots in the Administration could actually think this would be a good move for the military. After all, it has been very obvious that they have little regard for the morale, readiness and ability of the military to accomplish their mission and are much more interested in social engineering of the military to meet their liberal agenda. Allowing gays and transgenders to openly serve, directing that females be allowed to serve in combat arms, reducing the force to pre-WWII levels, and allowing maintenance of critical aircraft, ships and ground combat equipment, without any regard to the potential impact on the military clearly shows that they simply do not care what their policy decisions do to the military.
While I realize that the services have had direct commissions of “professional personnel” (doctors, lawyers, etc.) for quite some time, those personnel are in very specific career fields/branches and are carefully managed within those fields, not mingled in line branches/career fields, such as this appears would be the case. There is already the capability to bring these “highly qualified” people into the force – as civilian employees of the services or DoD. Why put them in uniform? If they want them to be in uniform, OK, create a different uniform that clearly identified them as “technical specialists” and not “line” officers/NCOs. I guess it is not enough that the Obama Administration has already struck down the ability to prosecute “posers” (ruling that it was a First Amendment right to lie about military service and to wear the uniform and unearned award and decorations), now they are planning to create their own posers.
This just smacks too much like the “Political Officers” of the old Soviet Union, whose primary purpose was to ensure the military commanders did not stray from the Communist Party line. Such a transition of these politically-appointed officers in the US military is, to me, not unthinkable, for this Administration.
Maybe this is just a precursor to allow that premier narcissistic Obama to walk around in a uniform like the other crazy dictators in the world.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Wow SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL. This is indicative of the realization of Hunter S. Thompson's statement "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" continues to run rampant within the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
When I was going through CGSC we had some senior Field Grade officers from the Nursing and Legal branches of the military. I spent some time educating these senior Field Grade officers who outranked me [I was as Major] on military strategy, operations and basic military customs and courtesy because they came into the military without going through the basic officer or advanced courses or even BCT. I understand that Doctors and Nurses with critical skill sets are needed by the military. In those cases I think it continues to make sense to bring people in at higher pay grades.
I am not in favor of expanding this more broadly within the military services. This should never be used to bring people in to positions that involve troop leadership for officers or NCOs.
It is one thing for a new platoon leader which the Army has dealt with for centuries. We do not need battalion commanders or platoon or first sergeants without military training and experience thrust into the service.
When I was going through CGSC we had some senior Field Grade officers from the Nursing and Legal branches of the military. I spent some time educating these senior Field Grade officers who outranked me [I was as Major] on military strategy, operations and basic military customs and courtesy because they came into the military without going through the basic officer or advanced courses or even BCT. I understand that Doctors and Nurses with critical skill sets are needed by the military. In those cases I think it continues to make sense to bring people in at higher pay grades.
I am not in favor of expanding this more broadly within the military services. This should never be used to bring people in to positions that involve troop leadership for officers or NCOs.
It is one thing for a new platoon leader which the Army has dealt with for centuries. We do not need battalion commanders or platoon or first sergeants without military training and experience thrust into the service.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google