De-Wonking Defense

Like a lot of people, I am intimidated by “experts” in a field I know little about, and am thus sometimes a sucker for their jargon and gobblydegook. So it was refreshing to see, buried in a long WaPo article about efforts to downsize the number of top brass in the military, this statement from one of the Pentagon officials in charge:

[Pentagon Joint Staff director William] Gortney said the Pentagon review ordered each branch of the armed services to sort their generals and admirals into four categories: “must have,” “need to have,” “good to have” and “nice to have.”

At least 10 percent had to fall into the “nice to have” category, he said. In the end, many of those were axed. “We mandated that you had to put the low-hanging fruit in there,” Gortney said. “We made them defend every one of their positions.”

“Good to have” and “nice to have,” eh? Wonder if the Pentagon could apply this same scheme of categorization to weapons systems?

Support Nonprofit Journalism

If you enjoyed this article, consider making a donation to help us produce more like it. The Washington Monthly was founded in 1969 to tell the stories of how government really works—and how to make it work better. Fifty years later, the need for incisive analysis and new, progressive policy ideas is clearer than ever. As a nonprofit, we rely on support from readers like you.

Yes, I’ll make a donation

Ed Kilgore

Ed Kilgore, a Monthly contributing editor, is a columnist for the Daily Intelligencer, New York magazine’s politics blog, and the managing editor for the Democratic Strategist.