{"id":59022,"date":"2015-04-01T12:15:21","date_gmt":"2015-04-01T16:15:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/valorguardians.com\/blog\/?p=59022"},"modified":"2015-04-01T10:45:19","modified_gmt":"2015-04-01T14:45:19","slug":"bad-idea-sir-a-really-bad-idea","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/?p=59022","title":{"rendered":"“Bad Idea, Sir. A Really Bad Idea.”"},"content":{"rendered":"

It didn\u2019t take too long. Some [insert adjective of choice here]<\/em> individuals in the 5-sided asylum have sent the Good Idea Fairy over to the new SECDEF\u2019s office to whisper a batch of nonsense in his ear.<\/p>\n

Personally, I wish someone would grab that little winged troublemaker and . . . \u201cgive them a firm handshake and a warm cup of soup.\u201d Then clip their wings and send them on a one-way journey to the Aleutians.\u00a0 (smile)<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, it looks as if the SECDEF apparently is seriously considering implementing some of the nonsense<\/p>\n

Why do I say that? Well, the other day Fox News reported that the SECDEF is considering allowing the military to relax certain military entry standards to \u201cattract more qualified manpower\u201d<\/a> (or some similar wording). Entry standards being considered for relaxation include current physical, pre-entry conduct, and age restrictions.<\/p>\n

Frankly, I\u2019ve got no problem with relaxing age restrictions; I\u2019ve never really understood the rationale behind those. If a person is physically qualified and can do the job at age 40, in my book they can serve. If they won\u2019t be able to serve long enough to qualify for retirement because of age restrictions on military service in Federal law, have them sign an acknowledgement of that fact on entry \u2013 but still let them serve. We found in World War II that older troops generally worked out OK.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s the other standards being considered for relaxation I find troubling.<\/p>\n

Relaxing physical standards IMO is hugely problematic. People in uniform \u2013 regardless of their MOS \u2013 can end up in combat. That\u2019s true of clerks, mechanics, supply specialists, truck drivers, HQ staff, you name it. The enemy gets a vote in what happens, and sometimes hits areas we don’t expect.<\/p>\n

If new troops are not physically capable of performing to current standards due to a relaxation of same, then IMO they stand a much better chance of coming home in a body bag than someone who can.\u00a0 And while that’s bad enough, they’ll also quite possibly bring their battle buddy along with them for the ride.\u00a0 That’s even worse.<\/p>\n

I don\u2019t know about you, but the prospect of seeing that doesn\u2019t thrill me at all. And I\u2019m guessing it doesn\u2019t thrill the people who might have to fight alongside those who are admitted under relaxed physical standards, either.<\/p>\n

Bottom line: the military’s current physical standards have, by and large, worked. There\u2019s no compelling reason to change them.<\/p>\n

Lowering standards for pre-entry conduct is similarly problematic. We\u2019ve done that multiple times in the past. Each time we\u2019ve done that, we\u2019ve ended up with a marked increase in \u201cproblem children\u201d. So the argument in this area strikes me as specious as well.\u00a0 Seems to me that we’ll be buying more problems than it’s worth.<\/p>\n

But that\u2019s not what bothered me most about the SECDEF considering this. Rather, it was one particular career field singled out as an example where relaxed standards would help.<\/p>\n

The career field specifically discussed as an example in the article linked above was the cyber career field. Lowering physical and pre-entry conduct entry standards for that field is IMO a monumentally<\/em> bad idea.<\/p>\n

Cyber workforce authorizations can be either civilian or military. So, if a cyber \u201cslot\u201d is military, presumably there is a good reason for it being so coded \u2013 e.g., that the individual has a reasonable probability of being deployed to combat, or that military knowledge and experience is essential to their performance of duty in a noncombat environment.\u00a0 Ergo, that means there’s a good reason for them to meet the military’s physical requirements.\u00a0 Period<\/p>\n

If a qualified individual interested in such a position cannot (or doesn’t want to) meet military physical requirements, then perhaps they should be offered one of the civilian positions instead.\u00a0 Why?\u00a0 Well, for starters:\u00a0 because meeting those physical standards just might save their butt one day if and when the organic fertilizer impacts the rotating air circulation device.<\/p>\n

Second: it\u2019s my understanding that the vast majority of cyber slots tend to be at major HQs (which tend to be located in relatively safer rear area) and in CONUS. In today\u2019s DoD, there is no shortage of civilian employees in either CONUS or major headquarters \u2013 including those HQs located in combat zones. Further, DoD can require prospective civilian employees to sign a mobility agreement acknowledging the fact that they may be sent anywhere in the world, to include hazardous locations, as a condition of employment.<\/p>\n

This further undercuts the argument that military-side physical standards need to be \u201crelaxed\u201d for the cyber career field (or pretty much any other career field, for that matter).\u00a0 If push comes to shove, DoD can augment any military shortfall with civilian personnel.\u00a0 Lowering current military physical entry standards simply isn’t necessary.<\/p>\n

But it\u2019s that other standards area being considered for relaxation \u2013 pre-entry behavior \u2013 that really bothers the hell out of me when you’re talking cyber.<\/p>\n

You see, DoD\u2019s cyber workforce is typically highly cleared.\u00a0 That’s necessary given what they do and the knowledge required to do it.<\/p>\n

If you can’t get them cleared, then there’s no point in recruiting them in the first place.\u00a0 So it seems logical that relaxing pre-entry conduct standards when recruiting them also strongly implies\u00a0 relaxing the standards governing the process of granting those same individuals security clearances.<\/p>\n

Doing the latter is IMO a monumentally<\/span><\/em> bad idea. Why? Two words. The first is \u201cManning\u201d. The second is \u201cSnowden\u201d.<\/p>\n

The SECDEF IMO desperately needs someone to come talk to him about this subject. And that individual needs to read the title of this article to him.<\/p>\n

We don\u2019t need a bunch more body bags coming home because we’re recruiting people who are not physically able to perform routine military duties if push comes to shove. And we damn sure don\u2019t need any more Mannings or Snowdens with access to the nation\u2019s secrets, either.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

It didn\u2019t take too long. Some [insert adjective of choice here] individuals in the 5-sided asylum … “Bad Idea, Sir. A Really Bad Idea.”<\/span>Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":623,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[84],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-59022","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-military-issues"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59022","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/623"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=59022"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59022\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=59022"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=59022"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=59022"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}