A caveat here. I am NOT a career soldier. While I loved my time of service, and still do love my country, I only have spent four years in the service. I was for many years before joining what is known as a "Military Hobbyist". Military History has always fascinated me and since I was 14 I've spent time studying it. I am currently about to return to college to finish my History degree. I also joined the Military when I was 32 years old. The military doesn't really like older soldiers, because you can make him do all the same things that you can make an 18 year old do, but you can NEVER make him think he likes it.

I say these things because the natural response of the military to suggestions of change is an institutional shout of "NO". The military has Traditions, and they will often claim that those traditions are the only thing that allows the service to function at all. Suggestions from one who did not reach the higher ranks and EARN the right to say these things are often ignored due to the ingrained resistance to change. What many in the service fail to realize is that the very act of rising to the higher ranks weeds out and selects for the very traits that continue to enforce this resistance to change. In essence, real change must come from both within the service, but from one who has not fully integrated into the traditions which prevent the change.

It is my opinion that the U.S. Military is an honorable service, but needs top to bottom reform in the way it does business and the way it is organized. We have allowed, for far too many years, political entities, with personal motives, to dictate how the service has done business, fought wars and treated our veterans. Reform must come from within, and we must allow those better elements of the service to take their rightful place as the defenders of freedom and enablers of justice. We need our Marius, and I hope that these suggestions will enable him or her to rise.

First, we must state what the purpose of the military IS. The purpose of our military is to defend and protect the weak from the strong. This is a simple statement, but at the same time it is revolutionary in both scope and mission parameter. The Military exists because there are strong people in this world who will use that power in order to victimize others. Be they dictator, bully, or overall sociopath, the fact remains that those with strength have an advantage that can override all logic, reason or justice. A military is a counter to that, and allows the strong to use their power to aid those who most need, it in an honorable and noble way.

Second, the military desperately is in need of reintroduction to the concept of military honor. As it is now, Honor is merely defined as following your orders and not breaking any laws. That is a shallow and legalistic interpretation of a concept that is all that has separated heroes from thugs for Millennia. Honor is the concept that YOU personally are responsible for your actions and, while you may delegate some of your agency to those above you, YOU are ultimately the one who makes the decisions on the battlefield and in your life. "Just following orders" is the defense of the Fascist, the Thug, and the thoughtless clerk. A Service Member is better than that, and MUST be able to make the hard calls to say "No" to the fools who would use them for purposes other than their charter.

Those first two concepts seem simple, but have been nearly obliterated in the Service. Our troops regularly fight against those weaker than they are, and thanks to technology, often do not even put themselves in harms way in order to annihilate suspected enemies against which we have no proof of wrongdoing. This is contrary to the very concept of an honorable service and should be relegated to the domain where it belongs: That of Mercenaries, Thugs and Assassins which it is the duty of a Soldier to OPPOSE. Our soldiers are often used in a manner more suited to bandits, robbers and other criminals, all under the flag of "Peacekeeping" or "Police Duty" which both denigrates the service in the eyes of the public and the soldier in turn.

If you've stuck with me this far, you probably have noted that I do not refer to the Army, Navy, Air Force Or Marines. That is because these distinctions are meaningless to the nature of Service. They are traditions, and while useful for installing camaraderie, are absolutely USELESS when it comes to overall military concepts. The Service member is a person who acts on behalf of the people, no matter what specific sphere of combat they specialize in. This arbitrary distinction between services made sense when communication was sparse, but has no purpose in the modern era. At best this merely inflates by four the complication of budgetary matters and supply. At worst you have a situation where services actively do not cooperate with each other due to the egos of officers. As a result I strongly favor consolidating all command and control of the military into a single branch, which I humbly suggest should be called "The Service". We do not need lengthy acronyms as many 20th century militaries have chosen or a lengthy and fanciful title as the irregulars often choose. We have a Service, and that Service is what separates us from the others.

The next concept which MUST be addressed is our over-reliance on lengthy supply lines and munitions from private enterprise. As it is our military is tethered in its actions to defense contractors who use the Service as their own private piggy bank. All defense contracts must immediately be canceled. Not put on hold, or delayed payments until late deliveries are secured, CANCELLED. This includes Mercenary contracts for guarding the gates of bases, Catering contracts for military rations, small arms ammunition, housing contracts for base maintenance, EVERYTHING. Many rely on the "Old Soldier" network for their contracts, or have been arranged through political expedience. All must be cancelled, because the Service cannot be subject to any obligations save that of serving the people of the county. I know this is an extremely radical step, and will cause great economic upheaval, but it is essential to the end goal, which is creating a Service that truly serves the best interests of our country.

New contracts for all essential supplies must be negotiated immediately, with oversight by the Sergeant First Class of each individual unit supplied. This ensures that local business will have the opportunity to meet the needs of the service, and the quantities will be small and precise. Cutting loose a sub-par contract will no longer involve millions of dollars and an act of Congress, rather just a phone call that the last batch of MRE's was not up to quality, and we'd like a refund or we're taking our business elsewhere. While this will complicate supply in the SHORT run, in the long run the Service will have the advantage of better organization, allowing supply for overseas activity to be coordinated on a national level. If Amazon.com can do it with DOD software, the Service can certainly come up with a technological solution to a simple shipping problem. In addition, this gives local business the opportunity to become more interested in the welfare of their customers, especially combined with the NEXT suggestion.

The Service must abandon the concept of paperwork as the solution to inactivity. When I was in the Service, we were often pressed into service as emergency firefighters during dry seasons in Texas. This concept should be expanded as far as possible. During the time of the Roman Legions, the Legions built roads, Public Works, and numerous other tasks, all of which benefited the society as whole. When not at war, the Service should be hard at work, every member aiding in their community as a whole. I am not suggesting a slave labor pace, rather a leisurely three day week building roads, clearing brush, and numerous other tasks that the community can use, but due to budget cuts or no budget whatsoever, cannot accomplish. This can of course be modified at need. If you think this is starting to sound a lot like the National Guard, you are beginning to see the benefit. Imagine the National Guard, supported by thousands of Regular Troops. With the crumbling infrastructure in this country, I look forward to signs on beautiful bridges proudly claiming that this bridge was built and maintained by the 1st Cavalry Division.

All of this of course will require a trained and intelligent Service. We cannot and should not expect our soldiers to be fools and desperate, and they should be paid commensurate with their quality. Soldiers should be CONSTANTLY learning. Tasks from laying concrete, to taking down a building all can be seamlessly integrated into military training. Clearing brush, starting a controlled burn. First aid for a child, to knowing how to properly sanitize an area with a plague. A enemy should fear that our soldiers will out think them at every turn, because they have a wide breadth and depth of knowledge. The current concept of online courses to ensure promotion should be completely abandoned, due to its uselessness AND exploitable nature. Practical, hands-on knowledge is the only way to truly ensure learning. As a side note, the lack of consistent and regular quality small arms training for non-specialist troops is an absolute disgrace in our current service and should be addressed as soon as possible.

Our soldiers should be able to comfortably support a family of four on ONE income, ensuring that the military spouse can concentrate on the support that is essential. Military spouses are the true backbone of the service, and the decline of the support they need under the Obama administration is despicable, especially considering the lip service the First Lady paid to it in her first year. It is only through the support of those around them that the Service Member can do their job. They are, for all practical purposes, a servant to the people of the United States. They should be treated with the respect they deserve, and not treated as a distraction from the Service Member's True Job.

Moving along to basic organizational problems, one of the MAJOR issues is that our service organizations are split into two main rank tiers. (For the purposes of this I am ignoring Warrant Officers; Although they have benefit in our current structure, in a reorganization they serve no purpose) While the occasional officer comes from the lower ranks, the vast majority come from service academies or officer training programs. This practice has a net result of separating the ranks, and creating a strong rift between them. The concept of "Grunts" and "90 day wonders" does nothing to create the respect that is needed. I feel strongly that all officers MUST be promoted from the non-commissioned officer rank. There is no substitute for actual experience commanding troops and being led. No classroom, hands on training, or any other simulation can properly help an officer understand the experience of the enlisted soldier. The hunger, exhaustion and stress must be felt before it truly sinks in. Officers must know exactly what they are asking their men to do, and be willing and able to put their OWN lives on the line as well. There is nothing so devastating to morale as an officer who cannot truly command, due to orders from above or sheer incompetence. Theory and learning are good, and an officer must demonstrate those qualities as well, but they cannot impart their knowledge to troops who do not respect them. Respect must be earned, and fundamentally changing the way in which officers are installed will do much to ensure that the respect is present, simply due to shared hardship.

With that in mind, LARGE military bases and installations need to be broken up. They provide no benefit to the community at large, and merely create a predatory group of businesses which depend on separating soldiers from their pay twice a month. Dishonest car dealers, bars with watered drinks, and various shades of prostitution are often associated with military bases. This has been endemic as long as we have had LARGE military units, and in the current low intensity warfare, there is no purpose for any large amount of troops to be gathered in one place. If anything the concentration of Service members serves only to corrupt the political process as politicians jockey for military contracts in their districts. Breaking up the service into smaller units will have the advantage of making the soldier a greater part of their community, AND have the second advantage of reducing the number of higher officers jockeying for control of large bases. The old saying that the second a Colonel gets his bird, he starts aiming for a star will be relegated to history, where it deserves to be.

Units should be no larger than 100 individual soldiers. This is a direct analogue to our current "Company" level of organization, and is a great building block for re-organization. At this level of organization, Captains in command can truly know every single soldier under their command. They can know who the weaker links in the chain are, and who can be relied upon without question. Historically, this was also the building block of the Roman Legions, known as a Century. This level of organization allows for limited control of a small area, and some flexibility with regards to specialization. A single Naval ship often has a crew in the neighborhood of 100, as does an aircrew for a fighter squadron. Slight specialization is perfectly acceptable, and necessary for larger conflicts, HOWEVER, the central flexibility, and general training of Service Members must never be abandoned for pure specialists. Down that path lies our current follies. (For larger commands, such as an aircraft carrier, of course modifications will have to be made, but the central idea of 100 service members working together must NEVER be abandoned. Carriers often end up with prostitution and drug rings due to the negligence of this basic tenet.)

These are just my most basic suggestions. The Service MUST emphasize its true goals, which is protecting the weak from the strong. Greater integration into communities as public servants will aid strongly in this, and have the secondary effect of bringing home the true cost of war to the people. Communities will feel it when the friendly Soldier who patched up their son after an accident, or fixed the potholes in their street gets called overseas. They will be much less likely to support endless long term wars when it's their friends and neighbors who are the ones who are called away. In the end, we will lose almost no capability to make war, but gain a strong perspective on what it truly means to vote yes on adventures in foreign lands.