Submitted by Greg Alderete.
I have seen firsthand how organizations expand rapidly in times of crisis, only to face painful reductions once the mission shifts. In the military, this cycle played out after Vietnam and again after Desert Storm. The post-war drawdowns were necessary but often brutal. However, they were not random. The military has a system—flawed but structured—where reductions are based on performance. Those who excel stay; those who fall short are more likely to be let go. It’s harsh, but at least it follows a logic that prioritizes capability and readiness.
I believe the federal government should take the same approach when downsizing. Too often, workforce reductions are dictated by arbitrary percentage cuts or computer-generated algorithms, with no regard for mission effectiveness or employee merit. This kind of approach weakens institutions rather than strengthening them. If instead we focused on performance and necessity, ensuring that reductions left agencies more effective rather than just smaller, we would be far better off.
One of the biggest dangers of unchecked expansion—whether in the military or civilian government—is that it creates inefficiencies that sustain themselves. I remember seeing organizations balloon during the Iraq War, some growing by over 1,000%. What started as a necessity quickly turned into a self-perpetuating cycle. People justified their existence not by mission need, but by the fact that their jobs had already been created. It reminded me of the old military joke: Why is the artillery by the airfield? To protect the airplanes. Why are the airplanes there? To protect the artillery.
I am not opposed to a reduction in the federal workforce. In fact, I think it is often necessary. But it must be done thoughtfully and methodically, with clear metrics in place to ensure that, at the end of the process, we have a stronger, better-functioning government. Downsizing for the sake of downsizing is foolish. The goal should always be efficiency, not just elimination.
Leave a Reply