If the United States does not aggressively pursue comprehensive cyber superiority, competitors and enemies will. Larger budgets reflect this understanding. Cyber defense research teams will be needed at universities that are able to break down barriers among departments and schools and combine all their resources to establish cohesive cyber defense, as opposed to indulging the turf war mentality and other retardants. The aim must be actionable ideas and not just theory. A survey has found a disconnect between most research conducted and real Defense Department needs. Funds must be steered to institutions that transcend parochial issues and offer the Armed Forces and Intelligence Community more choices and include political theory, behavioral psychology, international law, international relations, and other relevant areas

The military apparatus is not only guilty of preparing for the last war but of reputedly aping the practices of Napoleon. To shake that stigma and meet the three imperatives of “improving efficiency, saving taxpayer dollars, and taking care of our people,” organizational reform is the blanket concept. Yet due to the sheer size of DOD, a natural disinclination to change, and top-to-bottom control, America is out of step with a flattening world. Leaders must recognize the harm the current structure does to organizational performance and behavior of personnel. One approach is “temporal separation” replacing stovepipes as the foundation of staff design. It would increase access to leadership, enlarge the span of control, and bring a healthy decentralization

Retirement reform must be addressed to match the Department of Defense (DOD) with the rest of the world. DOD shows many symptoms of an ailing General Motors. Unyielding management practices, hostility to change, and inattentiveness to financial indicators put the auto giant in an unsustainable condition that jeopardized employees and retirees. Likewise, the military personnel system must reward faithful service while not running the Nation into the ground. Policymakers and Servicemembers need a realistic dialogue on what is expected versus what is possible. Reform has to be based on fiscal reality. A variety of reports and sources show opportunities for involving career Servicemembers more in their own retirement initiatives and for other efficiencies. The Services should seek their own solutions