GovernmentExecutive.com

The Pentagon will study six potentially controversial issues in addition to the broad but emotionally charged topic of "unnecessary duplication" of efforts, which was required in a congressionally mandated study of the roles and missions of the military services, a senior defense official said Thursday.

The Defense Department also will ensure that the study is "leadership driven," rather than guided by the services' staffs, in an effort to avoid the rigid defense of "parochial stovepipes" that were believed to dominate previous examinations of what the individual military services do, the official said.

In a background briefing at the Pentagon, the high-level civilian defense official and a senior military officer, both of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the department considers the review an opportunity to reconsider a wide range of policies and practices in an effort to improve efficiency.

Congress ordered the roles and mission study in the enacted fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill, largely due to the efforts of House Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo., and ranking member Duncan Hunter, R-Calif. Skelton said the study was to "identify the services' core competencies, discover the missions going unaddressed, and examine possible duplication of effort among the branches."

Critics have complained that vast sums of money are wasted due to the military operating four air forces, two land armies and overlapping intelligence and space programs.

Defining "unnecessary duplication" would be one of the key issues, the senior defense official said. But the department has decided to also consider unmanned aerial vehicles, and the broader related area of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions; intratheater airlift; cybersecurity; irregular warfare; internal Pentagon organization and governance practices, and the complex subject of interagency cooperation in national security issues.

Control of UAV procurement and operations has been the subject of heated debate between the Air Force, which has demanded the role of executive agent for the flying drones, and the three other services, which also buy and fly UAVs. The Air Force also has fought the Army over the intratheater airlift issue, most recently in the Joint Cargo Aircraft program.

The Pentagon is required to report the results of its review with the fiscal 2010 Defense budget submission in February. But the officials said the goal was to finish the work by November so the senior civilian officials, who will depart with the Bush administration in January, can work with the next president's Pentagon transition team members after the Nov. 4 national elections.

COMMENTS

• I pretty much agree with Guy and some of the others. Truthfully, I think you can reduce defense by a third and not have a significant impact on the services provided. And of course Ketter just doesn't get it. Outsourcing costs more (all the real studies prove it) and the Gov't has less control of what these private concerns do. Just look at KBR. dfes2000 Posted May 14, 2008 1:06 PM
• I definitely agree with several of the comments. We never, ever, seem to really make this work because each of our services (and yes, especially the USAF, but not ONLY them) are too busy defending their turf and rice bowls to be able to step away from it all and recognize what is best for the DoD TEAM. The only way is to put it into statute and have independent inspectors tour and audit everything to make sure we are complying. A bit draconian, but it's clear that we can't do it without someone making us do it. Guy Posted May 13, 2008 6:39 PM
• And of course, our Congress represent individuals States, each conducting primarily the same business as well. Let's just consolidate all services across the whole country. Almost sounds like universal health care. Some concepts sound very good in theory, but are very difficult to achieve in reality. Why do four different gas stations on the same corner require different managers and owners...let's just consolidate and lower them gas prices while we're at it too. It is fair to examine opportunities to consolidate, but let's not become overly ambitious as that just stirs up conflict vice the collaboration needed to make progress. I know I'm being a little facecious. Greg Posted May 13, 2008 2:56 PM