The Unbearable Jointness of Being

Few pieces of legislation incite more controversy among the U.S. military than the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act. Responding to U.S. military mishaps in Vietnam, Iran, Lebanon, and Grenada, Congress passed Goldwater-Nichols in 1986 to enhance "jointness" (interservice cooperation) among the branches of the U.S. military. The legislation centralized military authority by designating the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) the key military advisor to the president, while also strengthening the authority of regional commanders in chief (CINCs).

Gen. Charles Boyd: The effect of Goldwater-Nichols has been to politicize and de-professionalize the officer corps. That consequence may have been unintended, but it’s real. It happened because Goldwater-Nichols was a politically derived solution imposed by Congress on reluctant military institutions. Military officers, even those who had great misgivings, have been very reluctant to speak their minds, particularly in their testimonies before Congress. One effect of the legislation is that young officers came to believe that ticket punching was more important than anything else — that where they served was more important than what they did. It also had a profound effect on the role of the chairman of the JCS. The tendency has been to make the chairman, I believe, a member of the administration, not in any way responsible to the larger professional body of the JCS.

Foreign Policy: What do you think of the condition of interservice rivalry today?

Boyd: I don’t think it’s any worse, but I don’t think it’s appreciably better. American society and culture seem to prize competition as sound and healthy, except when it comes to competition between our military services. I think competition between our services is a healthy thing. However, I don’t believe it is healthy for those services to develop systems and weapons independent of each other or to train unilaterally, and not in an integrated way in a joint environment.

Adm. William Owens: I would tend to minimize the problems with Goldwater-Nichols because I think the good it has accomplished is much more important. It was an attempt to generate true jointness in the way we look at conflict, the way we look at contingencies, and the way we look at wars. Are we complying with the intent of Goldwater-Nichols today? No, we are not. It is time to consider a Goldwater-Nichols II. Should the chairman become political? Absolutely not. Is it important that the military war-fighting abilities of the four services be brought together in terms of capability and the budget? Yes. And if there is any place to do this, it has to be at the level of the JCS.

Lt. Gen. Van Riper: I agree with the admiral. The uniformed military has had more than 10 years to make the kind of changes that were needed post–Desert Storm. It hasn’t done it. It’s going to take outside legislation to force the changes.

Owens: There is one thing that we should do tomorrow: Unify the four great enablers — logistics, medicine, intelligence, and communications — which would generate, in my estimate, $20 billion a year of savings.

Maj. Gen. William Nash: With respect to the chairman and that aspect of Goldwater-Nichols, I think the benefits far outweigh the unintended difficulties. As General Boyd also mentioned, there are provisions of Goldwater-Nichols that require certain assignments of service personnel in order to achieve flag rank. And, again, the intent is good. The problem is that it attaches other requirements onto what an individual should do to be a master at his or her profession. That can cause a lot of rapid turnover, as officers move from job to job to satisfy requirements. We need to reexamine that.

Van Riper: The way to solve this problem is to lengthen the time of service. Now it’s 20 or 30 years. I would advocate 30 and 40 years. The old length of service was designed for a population that was not as healthy, not as physically fit. I’m 63, and I don’t think there’d be any problem if we extend active duty.

Owens: That 63-year-old marine can check my perimeter any time. [Laughter.]