Interservice Rivalry

Competition between branches of the military over resources and the role each plays in U.S. national security. Rivalry between service branches of the military is not a new development. Friendly competitions such as interservice boxing matches and the annual Army–Navy football game have long been a way for soldiers to build camaraderie and express pride in their particular services. However, since World War II, a more corrosive form of rivalry has arisen, with each branch of the service competing for limited reserves of money and human resources.

During World War II, U.S. Army and Navy commanders frequently struggled with one another for overall leadership of major joint military operations. After the war, such rivalries were one of the factors that pushed the U.S. Congress to enact the National Security Act of 1947. That act created the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a combined body of top-ranking officers from each of the armed services that was responsible for overall coordination and planning of military strategy. Although the new group did help to unify military planning, it did not eliminate interservice competition for funding or questions of joint force command.

In 1986, the Goldwater-Nichols Act addressed the latter issue by requiring individual services to cede power to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Critics of the Goldwater-Nichols Act contend that it was much less effective in unifying military administration. Its vehicle for coordinating military spending requests is a committee of the vice chiefs of each service. Former high-ranking defense officials say that the system is plagued by logrolling—members approve other services' priorities to ensure theirs are approved, as well.

Some observers, though, argue that interservice rivalries are not always bad. Harvey Sapolsky, a professor of military studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, points out that competition with the navy during Vietnam helped the air force improve its capabilities. After being outperformed by the navy in Vietnam, the air force invested in smart bombs and new training, which have yielded dividends in recent U.S. military conflicts.

In spite of such views, the Department of Defense continues to look for ways to eliminate unnecessary rivalry and duplication of effort. In 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld created the Joint Forces Command, a mix of current and military retired officers, to develop joint force strategies and serve as a voice for regional combat commanders in the development of new weapons. Rumsfeld also pushed for a more coordinated strategy to develop and buy weapons. To achieve that goal, he asked Edward Aldridge, former undersecretary of defense for acquisition, to head a group that would have greater power to determine centrally the military's equipment needs.