Regrounding the Front Line
Today’s national security innovation conversation exists within the context of global competition with China. China is doing X, the party is investing in Y, Beijing is closing the gap in Z. When the innovation conversation at large is so heavily sprinkled with mentions of America’s largest global strategic competitor, it is both surprising and disheartening that reports from the Reagan National Defense Forum that include “running out of time” in the title don’t mention China in any substantive way. Those responsible for “running out of time” are American sellers and American customers.
The much too long time it takes for innovative startups to get their technology into the hands of a DoD or IC end user in any meaningful capacity is well documented. The efforts to cut this timeline down to make sure the American warfighter has the tools to succeed on the modern battlefields are also well documented. Unfortunately, it is obvious the theoretical solution has not proved efficient to degrade the potency of the drag of the American government’s procurement process.. But in the back and forth over this process, the real issue has been co-opted by VCs and startup founders.
Much of the conversation in and around the DoD procurement mechanism focuses on the need for culture change: DOD procurement mechanisms need to be more agile, less risk averse, and more capable of staying abreast of the capabilities created by the private sector.. This culture and procedural shift needs to happen, without a doubt. Also, private sector advocates who attend and contribute at an important event like the Reagan National Defense Forum need a new attitude.
This piece is not meant to argue in support of the lagging Pentagon timelines, or the sometimes over the top and ridiculous requirements that the Department of Defense has built into its procurement apparatus, or to divert some of the blame away from prime defense contractors who continue to laugh all the way to the bank. The piece is meant to encourage a re-focusing of the conversation around America’s ability to harness new private sector technologies. Recontextualizing the very real implications of the slow time to adoption demonstrated by the Department, and the detriment that a VC retreat from the space because of delayed returns would be valuable steps in diminishing the internal finger pointing and making sure everyone understands the fundamental truths of not finding a solution. That recontextualizing should include two key aspects: the realization of who the real adversary is, and the recognition of who stands to lose the most if changes to get private sector tech into the DoD’s hands are not successfully implemented.
The real adversary is not the private sector or the DoD, it is America’s near-peer competitors who will have a very real say in how this next era of global strategic competition plays out. While differences between private providers and federal customers need to be reconciled, the tension between both sides, and the blaming of one by the other only serves to reinforce the divide between the Pentagon and Silicon Valley. Instead of letting the internal divisions that need to be navigated create the overarching narrative, effort and focus should be on solving issues that keep the best tech out of the hands of the people who need to be able to use it to make sure America’s ability to compete and win against countries like China and Russia is not degraded.
The ultimate end user in most cases are the war fighters: the people who have made the decision to put themselves in harm's way to defend the safety and values of their homes. The emphasis of the conversation between the Department of Defense and the private sector has moved too far upstream and has unhitched itself from the real world implications of leaving American servicemen and women without the best technology possible.
This reframing of the conversation will not solve all the problems that have to be solved to optimize the relationship between private enterprise and the Pentagon, but it will be a useful step in making sure that the people who are decision makers on each side of that relationship maintain focus on what is truly important.