Submitted by Greg Alderete.
During the second Gulf War, a major logistical challenge arose with the influx of civilian contractors working on contracted equipment in combat zones. Ensuring these contractors were properly vetted and tracking maintenance issues became essential for operational effectiveness and troop safety. To address this, we implemented a control system that accounted for contractors while simultaneously capturing maintenance data. This system allowed for “just-in-time” logistics, ensuring that necessary parts and support arrived precisely when needed, reducing downtime and increasing combat readiness.
As the war continued, like all contracts and programs, our initiative underwent an efficiency review. The individual assigned to determine its validity was a 64-year-old soon to retire Department of the Army employee with no military or combat experience. Despite lacking firsthand understanding of the operational risks, she unilaterally concluded that the program was unnecessary. This decision, if upheld, would have endangered American lives by disrupting critical maintenance and logistical support.
Fortunately, her recommendation was overruled. We had to escalate the issue all the way to the Secretary of Defense, presenting a thorough justification for maintaining the system. Ultimately, our argument prevailed, and the program remained in place. However, for nearly a year, bureaucratic red tape put troops at unnecessary risk while a vital support system’s fate hung in the balance.
This incident underscores a broader issue in military decisions affecting battlefield effectiveness should not be left solely to individuals lacking operational experience. Lives depend on getting these decisions right the first time.
AMEN !!!!!!
EK CHANDLER
CWO, US ARMY RETIRED
Your story extends way beyond the military, to most professions. Managers or senior officials who have no ground level experience in the profession often don’t (and sometimes can’t) completely grasp the issues the “troops” face and hence the consequences of their decisions. Would you hire a building contractor who’s never hammered a nail? Go to a restaurant where the manager never flipped a burger? While the consequences might not be as serious as the ones in your story, the concept still applies.
We would fight wars differently today than we did 20 years ago, let alone 30 years ago.
To say that we should have someone investigating the billions of wasted taxpayer money throughout the government and that should include our defense systems should not be political. The problem with continuing down the path of debt without accountability is that the system is not sustainable.
Logistics remains the backbone of combat power, but the battlefield has changed in ways that make traditional doctrine almost obsolete. The combination of real-time situational awareness, persistent drone threats, and the erosion of rear-area sanctuaries has shattered the old paradigms of maneuver and sustainment. No longer can we count on safe resupply routes, static depots, or even reliable force protection deep in the rear. Every inch of the battlespace is contested, and the margin for error has never been smaller.
The implications for doctrine are staggering. Logistics must now be mobile, decentralized, and redundant—perhaps even autonomous. Survivability depends on dispersion, deception, and constant adaptation. A single drone swarm can obliterate what used to be considered a secure supply hub, and even in-theater headquarters are at risk in ways we’ve never seen before.
The sheer complexity and cost of modern warfare force us to reconsider its viability. But history suggests that military adaptation tends to outpace diplomacy. The challenge now is whether we can evolve our thinking about conflict resolution as fast as we’ve evolved our tools of destruction.
I agree.
Armed conflict has become more of an all or nothing situation, with no clear winners except those who profit along the way.
In the aftermath, there is nothing really, but humanitarian and budgetary regrets.
It seems to be corruption that stands in the way of good diplomacy, but you rarely see anyone held to account.
There should be real consequences for those who kill thousands and squander trillion$.