I like to offer my perspective whenever these threads pop up. Hope nobody minds again.
The issue with the military is structural, an inherent flaw within the way the officer corps works that almost guarantees certain behavior.
Officers have a hard time leaving the service. Remember, the military’s not a job, but a way of life. It’s own culture, it’s own little world. The longer you’re there, the more “institutionalized” you become. The longer you’re there, the harder it is to make the transition to civilian life.
This is true of the enlisted corps too, but unlike officers, they aren’t (usually) in senior leadership positions practically from day one. The average O-1 has more responsibility than many people with 10+ years experience in their civilian career field. Yes, it is that stark. You are taught from day one not how to perform technical tasks, but how to be in charge of people, situations, crises, large projects, and so on. And what job-specific skills you do gain are usually very specific to the military.
So what does this mean? It means that for most officers, they have to either start over in a career when they separate/retire, or take a job that’s almost identical to what they were doing. This is tough after the 4-5 year commissioning commitment. After 10, it’s almost impossible.
For colonels or generals, this usually means that their only options upon retirement are in defense contracting, think tanks, or other stuff like that.
Now, everyone in the military loathes military contracting. Like full on hates that system. But at the same time, most people know it’s their best chance of employment after they leave. Defense contractors have shareholders to answer to, of course, but they’re also former military and still have some mental allegiances to some of the ideas/ideals. Not just the oath of office, but some of the ideas they spent 20 years believing we were fighting for.
So there are all these weird incestuous relationships that form. And a lot of things get justified or rationalized away that probably shouldn’t.
You also can’t discount the reality that generals are all appointed by Congress and that makes them all politicians by necessity.
I like to offer my perspective whenever these threads pop up. Hope nobody minds again.
The issue with the military is structural, an inherent flaw within the way the officer corps works that almost guarantees certain behavior.
Officers have a hard time leaving the service. Remember, the military’s not a job, but a way of life. It’s own culture, it’s own little world. The longer you’re there, the more “institutionalized” you become. The longer you’re there, the harder it is to make the transition to civilian life.
This is true of the enlisted corps too, but unlike officers, they aren’t (usually) in senior leadership positions practically from day one. The average O-1 has more responsibility than many people with 10+ years experience in their civilian career field. Yes, it is that stark. You are taught from day one not how to perform technical tasks, but how to be in charge of people, situations, crises, large projects, and so on. And what job-specific skills you do gain are usually very specific to the military.
So what does this mean? It means that for most officers, they have to either start over in a career when they separate/retire, or take a job that’s almost identical to what they were doing. This is tough after the 4-5 year commissioning commitment. After 10, it’s almost impossible.
For colonels or generals, this usually means that their only options upon retirement are in defense contracting, think tanks, or other stuff like that.
Now, everyone in the military loathes military contracting. Like full on hates that system. But at the same time, most people know it’s their best chance of employment after they leave. Defense contractors have shareholders to answer to, of course, but they’re also former military and still have some mental allegiances to some of the ideas/ideals. Not just the oath of office, but some of the ideas they spent 20 years believing we were fighting for.
So there are all these weird incestuous relationships that form. And a lot of things get justified or rationalized away that probably shouldn’t.
You also can’t discount the reality that generals are all appointed by Congress and that makes them all politicians by necessity.
This perspective needs to be offered more often.