In May 1987, two Iraqi Exocet missiles slammed into USS Stark (FFG-31). The crew's courage and unwillingness to give up their ship is a shining example for the rest of us. Today's Navy is being hit with missiles that are sinking its ships, their crews never having a chance to save them. These missiles are not being launched by enemy aircraft, but by bean counters in our own government and military.
Recently, news stories trumpeting amazing efficiencies that will produce cost savings and allow one sailor to do the work of 50 have been much in evidence. The high-tech magic wands they will use will supposedly never wear out or require maintenance. As more and more is demanded from fewer and fewer, as existing equipment is used to the breaking point with inadequate or no available parts or fall-back equipment, I have to question the wisdom of some of these "savings." Cost-cutting is not a bad thing. But I ask, are these cuts really efficiencies, or are they false economies that are destroying our Navy?
Bean counters can be from any discipline, at any level, from any branch of an organization. They reduce everything to figures that can be reflected in the bottom line. While they will agree that there may be costs, benefits, and assets that cannot be expressed in dollars and cents, they do not make decisions based on that premise.
An example of bean counters at work can be seen in the plans for the DD(X). An article in the January 2005 Proceedings focused on the advanced gun system using the "precision-guided long-range, land attack projectile." It was said that the projectile has "three times the lethality of traditional 5-inch rounds meaning fewer rounds can produce the same effect. Fewer rounds means less cost."
This DD(X) hyperbole appears to be aimed at the bean counters in procurement. Rather than state the military case for the system, at $3 billion each the DD(X) is presented as a cost-saving measure. If the DD(X) is what is needed, it should be presented in terms of strategic and tactical need, cost be damned! But such arguments appear to have no traction in procurement.
Like bean counters, real managers understand the need to improve the bottom line and they consider the benefits of technical advancements. But they also have mission-capability and the long-term health and viability of the organization at heart. They recognize that sometimes you have to spend money to save it, and they make their decisions accordingly.
A real military manager eschews the illusion of readiness. He wants the real thing. He wants redundancy so he can cover the unforeseen and still achieve his mission. He thinks long-term, looking at trends, and applies cost-benefit analysis to risk assessment and management.
Real military leaders know that you cannot run military organizations like businesses, because the baseline assumptions are different. In business, costs and redundancies are bad. In the military, costs are necessary and redundancy is good because of the uncertain nature of the enterprise.
Bean counters constantly exhort people to "think outside the box" to find new and deeper savings. Real managers know that the term "think outside the box" actually limits the thinker by excluding historically successful solutions from consideration. Thinking outside the box stresses the new, devalues the old, and frequently requires the thinker to reinvent the wheel.
Imagine the effect that DD(X) manning levels would have had on Stark. The remote sensors on the DD(X) will not hold fire hoses or carry stretchers. Personnelmen ashore thousands of miles away will not carry equipment or man a pump for fire-fighting.
A bean counter sees only the short-term threat and thinks it will never change. Real managers think strategically and look ahead to prepare for future threats. The bean counter's focus is on himself and the bottom line. A real manager's focus is on the organization and the people in it.
In light of the cuts proposed in the recently completed Quadrennial Defense Review, I believe it is time for the real managers in the fleet to stand up and call the bean counters what they are, and to expose their short-term "efficiencies" for what they are-long-term disasters in the making.