Would you combine all Military agencies? Why? Would you completely restructure all agencies?Would you combine all Military agencies? Why? Would you completely restructure all agencies?

5 Answers | Add Yours

auntlori's profile pic

Lori Steinbach | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Distinguished Educator

Posted on

Combining five unwieldy agencies into one big unwieldy agency is probably not going to solve many of the competition, funding, and size problems.  Instead, I'd like to eliminate the wastefulness and duplication by streamlining each of them and combining where it seems most feasible.  I can't be the only one who thinks so, but I'm confident the task would be beyond daunting which is why it hasn't been done.  That and politics, of course. 

clairewait's profile pic

clairewait | High School Teacher | (Level 1) Educator Emeritus

Posted on

I'm not sure that combining military agencies would cause them to function better.  I look at it from a practical standpoint.  Anytime an organization gets too big, it becomes very difficult to micromanage.  Imagine combining all the schools in a town - to make sure all the kids were getting the same education.  Somehow, instead of improving education for everyone, it think this would be disasterous.

Each of the agencies and branches of the military have specific strengths when it comes to the kind of operations they specialize in.  While America's military may not be perfect, it is still considered the strongest military on a global scale.  I don't think it needs a radical restructuring.

pohnpei397's profile pic

pohnpei397 | College Teacher | (Level 3) Distinguished Educator

Posted on

I assume from your tags that you are talking about military intelligence agencies.  If so, I would say that I do not think that all agencies should be combined and restructured.

I think that it is probably healthy to have a few different intelligence agencies within the military.  If there is only one, it might have faults that would lead it to be ineffective in some way.  If there is more than one, they would hopefully not all have those faults and so they might "cover" one another's mistakes.  The competition between them might also make them all better.

As far as restructuring, complete restructuring of a bureaucratic agency is very disruptive.  The time spent adjusting to the restructuring might seriously harm the agencies' ability to gather and analyze intelligence.  For that reason, I would not restructure.

brettd's profile pic

brettd | High School Teacher | (Level 2) Educator Emeritus

Posted on

I am assuming by your tag line that you are referring to military intelligence when you say agencies, and if that is the case, then yes, I do believe we should combine the five separate branches of the military's intelligence divisions.  The military is a competitive entity, whereby each of the five are competing each year for funding from Congress.  This lends them to withhold information from each other sometimes, and at other times, the inefficiency and redundancy of their structure just turns into a right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing situation.  It seems it would be more efficient, effective and practical to combine those efforts.

In that sense, I guess I would be in favor of completely restructuring all of those agencies, but as "restructuring" is a fairly vague term I'm not sure if that is what you mean.  I would also tend to argue the CIA needs much more radical reform than military intelligence.

kapokkid's profile pic

kapokkid | High School Teacher | (Level 1) Educator Emeritus

Posted on

Interesting idea.  I don't know that I would go so far as to combine all of them, but some restructuring might be helpful.  One of the things that needs to be carefully defined is the actual mission of each branch of the military.  In many ways I would argue that spending more money on the coast gaurd would be better than buying more F-22's, an incredibly expensive aircraft that has no real mission.

Take a real close look at the decisions that drove the Air Force to buy the F-16 over the F-20 Tigershark.  Instead of clearly defining a role for an aircraft, you spend far more for one that could in theory play multiple roles.  Then the pilots have to be good at too many things instead of being great at one thing.

So too with the various branches of the military.  if you are going to have to build nations, maybe you should have a branch of the military that does that.  If you are going to invade Afghanistan, perhaps you should train your own version of the Taliban.

Bottom line, think carefully about the mission, then build towards that rather than spending trillions to try and cover all the bases.

We’ve answered 318,963 questions. We can answer yours, too.

Ask a question