A top-heavy Army?
A senior associate at the Kennedy School’s Belfer Center is up in Defense One arguing that the US Army is burdened by excessive headquarters, staffs, and a top-heavy officer corps, hindering its ability to meet the demands of the National Defense Strategy. The author points to the significant growth of the Army Staff and the creation of new organizations like the Installation Management Command and Futures Command as examples of unnecessary bureaucracy.
This organizational bloat, coupled with an overabundance of officers, is cited as a major contributor to rising personnel costs and a bureaucratic culture that stifles junior commanders with excessive reporting requirements. The author suggests that the Army should streamline its structure, reduce the officer-to-enlisted ratio, and eliminate nonessential organizations to free up resources for warfighting units.
Some of these staff changes are the result of the technological advancement of warfare. Modern conflict demands expertise in areas such as cybersecurity, information operations, and space-based capabilities, necessitating specialized staffs. Further, failures of some programs do not necessarily indicate a flawed system. Meanwhile, a reduction in officer billets could undermine unit cohesion, morale, and operational effectiveness.
Comments ()