Streams

Military Brain Drain

Thursday, January 03, 2013

Tim Kane, chief economist at the Hudson Institute and the author of Bleeding Talent: How the US Military Mismanages Great Leaders and Why It's Time for a Revolution, talks about how the Pentagon is losing its best officers.

Guests:

Tim Kane
News, weather, Radiolab, Brian Lehrer and more.
Get the best of WNYC in your inbox, every morning.

Comments [12]

"Military brain drain"???

Isn't this redundant??

Jan. 03 2013 12:17 PM

The private sector routinely uses coercion. The threat of layoffs, firing. We've gone from guaranteed benefit retirement to guaranteed contribution, which proved to be disastrous as people saw huge percentages of their 401k's disappear in the financial crisis. Some firms have summarily decided not to honor their retirement commitments. Firms routinely offer early retirement packages. Firms routinely place a premium on 'loyalty,' which translates into obedience, accepting whatever is demanded.

Jan. 03 2013 11:46 AM
Tom from UWS

The private sector has proven long ago that buyouts can lead to loss of talent. Those fearful of re-entering the job market hold on tight to the job they have, those with talent and skill take the money, and parlay their assets into a new job. For them, it's win-win.

Jan. 03 2013 11:46 AM
Taher from Croton on Hudson

This “total volunteer force” looks like the Roman Legions. The legion’s commander hired his officer staff and the entire force. Loyalty was to the commander not the Roman Senate nor, at the times, the Emperor. So who would be loyal to who in this situation? To America, to the commander, to the government?

Jan. 03 2013 11:45 AM
MichaelB from Morningside Heights

Why is it taking sooooo long to update this page????

Jan. 03 2013 11:43 AM

What are the author's solutions to the obvious problems of favoritism, corruption that would come with his commander's freedom to hire/fire?

We already have enough trouble finding out about bad command decisions, hazing, rapes, etc.

Jan. 03 2013 11:42 AM
MichaelB from Morningside Heights

There is nothing to prevent having both career military folks within a conscription system... there always were.

All they'd have to do is offer the incentives and benefits for career folks, as opposed to the minimum conscription service.

The minimum & universal conscripted service should not pay a great deal (but offer good training), and consequently that should free up moneys to pay the career folks that much more.

The argument the guest made has long been put forward, but it is totally bogus -- a red herring. It would not be difficult to set up the correct incentives to get a significant group of soldiers to stay in the military.

Jan. 03 2013 11:41 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

So what would we end up with, "headhunters" from every brigade or unit looking to snatch away the best from a different unit? If there is no central command that decides where people belong, then it means every lower commander trying to "headhunt" way the best and brightest from a different unit!

Jan. 03 2013 11:41 AM
Soldier's Father from Westchester

Could you ask the guest what his own experience in the military was? It is important to know if he is speaking from personal experience or just academic research (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Jan. 03 2013 11:39 AM
kk from brooklyn

I am not, and have never been, in the military. However, I have a good friend that was and the reason he left--though decorated--was that he became older and more politically aware and started to question the sorts of conflicts our country engages in. He did not want to be part of that killing machine any more.

Jan. 03 2013 11:38 AM

For Petr, a round is a unit of ammo - rifle bullet, mortar shell, cannon shell. Reload time on single "shot" crew-served weapons varies with the skill of the mortar or cannon team.

Jan. 03 2013 11:34 AM
Jim

Please ask the guest to comment on the effect of political correctness on the retention of competent officers. Note the Washington Time article below written by a retired Admiral who is protesting the Army's new instructions that soldiers should look the other way when our "allies" engage in "cultural" activities such as sodomizing boys and raping or killing women.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/28/draft-of-new-us-army-handbook-must-be-scrapped/

If our soldiers are not supposed to stop this sort of behavior, then what are we really trying to accomplish with these wars? No wonder that intelligent people do not want to participate.

Jan. 03 2013 11:14 AM

Leave a Comment

Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.