In a recent article on Wall Street Journal, Elon Musk And Vivek Ramaswamyfuture leaders of the Dogesaid: “The Pentagon recently failed its seventh consecutive audit,” also suggesting that military leaders have a hazy idea of how the more than $800 billion annual budget is spent. But if the previous initiatives to recover efficiency within the Department of Defense (DoD) have largely failed, according to the two newly appointed managers this time it will be different. It’s true that Elon he revolutionized space launches and electric vehicles, and he always did it with the ruthless approach that he himself calls “The Algorithm”. As told in the biography of Walter Isaacsonit consists of five steps: 1) question each requirement; 2) eliminate any part or process possible; 3) simplify and optimize; 4) accelerate cycle time; 5) automate. However, it is difficult to say whether this approach will work at the DoDan institution that develops and purchases weapons, since the acquisition is only one third of the annual defense budget, while the rest is intended for military and civilian employees, for training, exercises and routine peacetime operations, for accommodation and services.
Point 1, questioning every requirement, would be useful across the Armed Forces, from the weapons it acquires to the processes it uses to evaluate people and grant promotions. Too often, military requirements are passed down from generation to generation without re-examining the assumptions behind why things are done a certain way. But for the DoD many of its requirements are external, that is, dictated by Congress or some other part of government, such asOffice of Personnel Management. The second step is to eliminate parts and processes associated with unnecessary requirements. This creates a somewhat aggressive environment that may be unpleasant to many, but for the US military it is a huge undertaking because the inefficiencies in DoD they are not always large programs or funding sources that are easily identified and eliminated. Real inefficiencies are often spread across a vast bureaucracy, and making decisions about what to eliminate or keep will require the active involvement of the next secretary of Defense. Some inefficiencies in the military are intentional: they are strategic choices that maintain options in unlikely but potentially serious scenarios. Musk he is used to cutting salaries and jobs, but in the military every elimination puts human lives at risk.
To “optimize” you need an objective and a comparison against which you can compare the alternatives. In industry it can be the time needed to build a product, its cost, profit, etc. The validity of an optimal solution is subject to testing to see if it works before adopting it. But in the Armed Forces the ultimate goal is to protect the nation and this can only be done by assessing threats and risks. And every person in every military leadership is different, they will evaluate every situation differently, so while it is possible to try some changes in operations and processes on a small scale, it is impossible to do so by “trying to see” what it means for example to reduce the commitment in NATO without undermining credibility with allies for decades.
Even decisions such as delaying the construction of a weapons system or temporarily reducing peacetime presence missions can have irreversible effects because they create a window of opportunity that an adversary can exploit. Speeding up cycle time and automating are relevant to the Army, but they undermine the quality and breadth of soldier training.
Instead, the US Armed Forces they need to accelerate the innovation of weapons programs and the time needed to make political, administrative, operational and tactical decisions. One example is the sorting of large amounts of data and information that are constantly sent from satellites and reconnaissance. Improving their cataloging frees up human resources to focus on cognitive and judgmental elements as well as planning, areas in which human beings are most valuable.
Automation therefore does not replace human judgment, but is a tool that allows humans to be more effective and efficient. Nearly everyone in Washington recognizes that the Pentagon it is in desperate need of reform, including many of the people who lead or have led it. Thus the ideas and methods of Elon Musk And Vivek Ramaswamy they can bring benefits but also create disasters, as the level of how much and what type of security they want USA it is a judgment expressed by politicians who represent the people. If the people elect politicians who talk about peace through strength, claiming to eliminate waste and inefficiencies, but then act in a way contrary to these ideas, one can only conclude that the people should not trust them. And we know, every people gets the government they deserve.
