To defend our country in the 21st century

By Donald Rumsfeld

Congress soon will decide whether the Department of Defense has what it needs to support our forces in the 21st century, or whether it remains mired in the systems and processes of the century just past.

America's fighting forces are the finest in all the world, but the military is more than the forces fighting on the front lines. It is a broad complex of military, civilian and contract personnel who equip, support and sustain the men and women who defend our freedom.

While our troops operate in a fast-paced world of high-tech weaponry and precision-guided munitions, the men and women who support them here at home still slog through red tape and regulations that are, in some cases, decades old.

One thing is clear: The Department of Defense cannot meet the challenges of the future with an organization anchored to the past. That organization must be as agile, flexible and adaptable as the forces we field in battle. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

During Operation Iraqi Freedom, more than 80 percent of the civilians used in the theater of operations were outside contractors. Why? Because outdated regulations prevent the department from quickly moving civilian employees to new tasks. Thus, managers are forced to turn to contractors to do what DoD civilians could and should be doing.

The nation has asked nearly 200,000 reserve troops to leave their jobs and families to help fight the war on terrorism. Meanwhile, an estimated 300,000 active-duty military personnel are doing work (at additional cost) that could be done by civilians but isn't because the department lacks sufficient authority to manage its civilian personnel.

On average, it takes five months to hire a federal employee and 18 months to fire one. It can take years to negotiate needed reforms through collective bargaining with more than 1,300 separate local unions.

But personnel issues are not the only problem. It now takes the department twice as long to produce a new weapons system as it did in 1975. Running its finance and accounting programs takes 1,800 different and antiquated systems. And thousands of people are needed just to develop and justify a budget.

A few well-meaning but ambiguous environmental laws and regulations are also impeding our ability to realistically train our forces, threatening not only their readiness but also their lives on the battlefield. We are seeking clarifications that would actually safeguard long-standing, bipartisan regulatory policies that are now under attack by private litigants.

These are just a fraction of the reasons behind the Defense Transformation Act, legislation that would bring the department into the 21st century alongside our fighting forces. It would create a new National Security Personnel System that would enable the department to attract and hire new employees quickly and competitively; promote and reward them based on excellence and performance; and negotiate with a half-dozen or so national unions, rather than 1,300 local units.

It would provide the financial flexibility the department needs to respond to urgent needs; eliminate onerous regulations that impede commerce with small companies; get the military out of nonmilitary jobs and back in the field; and, while honoring our commitment to protect the environment, allow our troops to train in the same way they will have to fight.

The security challenges facing our nation have changed dramatically in recent years, and we must change to meet them -- not only on the battlefield but also in the bureaucracy.

Transformation of our military capabilities depends on our ability to transform the department that runs the military. Congress has a vital role to play in providing new authority and relaxing or eliminating old restrictions. It's necessary. It's important. It will allow us to meet the threats to freedom already before us, as well as those certain to arise in the years ahead.

Donald Rumsfeld is the secretary of defense. This calumn was published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch last week.