Posted on 05/14/2014 7:17:34 AM PDT by Whenifhow
Senior Air Force leaders have drafted a budget-driven plan that would strip the three- and four-star generals who oversee major commands of their authority to manage their bases. A draft of the plan obtained by The Washington Times shows that the Air Force is aiming to consolidate support operations under the umbrella of a single center, known as the Air Force Installation and Mission Support Center.
The tricky endeavor would shuffle day-to-day base management issues — such as construction, maintenance and procurement of equipment and supplies — from under the authority of the senior generals who command the bases to the leadership of a two-star general who would run the support center, according to the draft proposal. The plan was born out of a directive from Air Force leadership last year to reduce headquarters operations costs at least 20 percent by 2019. It cites reductions contained in the Budget Control Act that were implemented by the Obama administration in 2011. The consolidation would affect the service’s 10 major commands, each of which specializes in areas such as technical training, management of non-nuclear combat air power and global air mobility.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Yeah, it doesn’t really work that well and makes for an organization which cannot adapt quickly.
This will be a ‘SNAFU’ that will evolve into ‘FUBAR’.
When I was a Battalion S-4 (Supply Officer), the Battalion Commander let me run my shop. I caught hell when he thought I did something wrong, but that only happened a few times in 18 months. Never bothered me...I was just a 1LT, ass chewings were expected.
There will still be the military equivalent of HR, IT, Facilities, etc. personnel based where they need to be to do their jobs. They just won't report to the base commander.
The advantages of a single command for all of these support services is that some services can be outsourced where it makes sense (e.g. computer help desks, etc.), they can standardize on technology across the Air Force, and they can get savings from purchasing for the entire Air Force rather than base-by-base.
We have to remember that Obama is more a pawn of Goldman-Sachs than he is a liberal. Goldman-Sachs is evil, but they aren't stupid. What they are telling Obama to do with the military is the same thing they are telling their corporate clients to do. It just makes good business sense.
Also, what is probably happening now is that whatever corruption is going on is going on at the base level. If there are kickbacks and bribes being paid to supply services to bases then all of that money is going to the base commander and his cronies.
Under this new organization, most of those decisions and the associated kickbacks and bribes will be happening at the national level. This will put more illicit funds in the hands of Obama's puppeteers.
And a downside. Someone is going to decide how much fuel is needed, whether your base is in Alaska or Florida, for instance. The people making the decisions affecting logistics (what is actually allocated) will not be those familiar with the needs of the individual bases.
I have seen this in corporate infrastructures, and the results may look good on a balance sheet somewhere, but result in off-the-books rat-holing of essential supplies, which means the actual amount used and the official amount used will never be the same numbers.
Either that or performance is negatively impacted.
I can also see where the logistical end could be manipulated to impair the mission tasking of any given base, intentionally. With the amount of apparent infiltration of our Government by persons at high levels who may be less than trustworthy when it comes to having the United States' best interests in mind, this is a dangerous level of authority to concentrate anywhere.
A central planner’s idea, probably. So, all an enemy has to do is take out the support center, then everybody runs out of ammo and fuel. It does make it easier for a govt, tyrannical or otherwise, to control it all, however. I suppose if you object to this plan, you will be purged.
Yes, MichaelCorleone, it’s very likely part of the larger purge of military commanders who may have some latitude in deployment and use of forces.
This is a dangerous and troubling development.
It’s time to take back the country. Start with the military forces.
I don’t see a purge here. I’m kind of torn on whether or not it will work. As long as the authority to manage the base as base commander doesn’t dive too deeply it might make some sense to consolidate major construction and supply operations. I have seen base commanders, until recently almost all colonels not generals, who were very good managers and planners and others who were complete nitwits or largely self-serving and trying to shine for the next promotion board.
Day-to-day operational decisions should still be at the base commander level. The major projects may be better managed under one head. It probably can’t be worse (yeah, I know it could).
Yeah - I was thinking it was similar to the NAVSEA setup in the Navy. The ship architecture, technical, drydock designs, and ship systems design stuff (including things like steering gear leases)all come from NAVSEA, the Bases have one command structure to run the bases for support, and the ships are operated out of an operational command structure.
They’re not talking about consolidating operations. It’s about base level support at the higher levels of effort like major construction and supply chain. If the base commander is also an operational commander it frees them up to pay more attention to the operational components and missions.
Absolute idiocy. Installation commanders used to control 80% of their budgets. Now they control only 12%, yet are still being told to get the mission done while having to go hat-in-hand to the fricking FINANCE people to free up money.
Did I mention this is absolute idiocy?
Colonel, USAFR
The Army has something called the Installation Management Command (IMCOM) that has been doing very similar things for years. The Commanding General focuses on operational mission requirement and has a Garrison Commander who runs the installation, reporting up the IMCOM chain.
When I was a Garrison Commander, there was no IMCOM and I worked for the CG. When he told me to close the golf course, I closed the golf course. When the Chief of Staff of the Army told him to reopen the golf course, I reopened the golf course. That’s the way these things work.
That’s how I got my Small Arms Expert ribbon - Navy Reserve Senior Chief called me up and said, “You still wanna qualify on the M-16? Get out to the range, cuz we’ve got 80 people’s worth of ammo and only 40 people.”
Colonel, USAFR
Yes an unaccountable one.
There was a time when a base commander or navy captain was like god. They were responsible for everything that happened under their watch including the mistakes of their subordinates.
If the vehicles did not run or the computers did not work, if there was no TP in the latrine the base commander was responsible.
Now striped of responsibility the base commander can't take action when things don't work. Some off sight, no name administrator centralized bureaucrat gets to make the decisions and allocate resources.
The problem with this kind of USSR central admin design is that no one is responsible for anything and nothing gets done.
Staff Sargent: “Commander our IT system is completely buggered.”
Commander: “I know, I can't do anything about it because IT department does not work for me, if they did they would be immediately removed and I would find someone who can do the job. As it stands now just fill out a task order and send it to DC perhaps this time they will respond.”
The Army did this over a decade ago, creating the Installation Management Command (IMCOM)(spit). Commanders had their authority stripped from them at that point and replaced with a multi-layered bureaucracy of pencil pushers, environmentalists and agenda pimps.
!
Consolidation of power is just another step towards subjugation - I don't see any stopping it.
Oh my... What ever could go wrong with this?
On the other hand the installation where I was a contractor at had the Commanding General order that all of the Fire Hydrants were to be repainted from red to Brown.
As a side note the number of vehicle accidents involving the brown hydrants increased greatly. The most common comment was that the hydrant blended into the background and the driver didn’t ‘see’ it.
Some of these generals might not implement the new ways of doing things fast enough for the centralizers, so we’ll do it for them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.