TSK should include the knowledge and experience of its retirees in its collective memory

Officers, non-commissioned officers, specialised sergeants, civil servants, civil servants, civil labourers, etc. who serve in the Turkish Armed Forces retire when they complete their professional service and return to civilian life. Due to the share of attrition, armed forces personnel can retire slightly earlier than their civilian counterparts.

Approximately 70 per cent of the retired armed forces personnel continue their retirement lives, while approximately 30 per cent continue to work in trade, industry, academia, law, health and other sectors after returning to civilian life.

Personnel who have served in the Turkish Armed Forces (TAF), which has been fighting against terrorism for nearly 40 years, return to civilian life with an enormous amount of military professional and warfighting knowledge and experience when they retire. However, our armed forces do not think of or need to utilise the knowledge and experience of their retired personnel, but other armed forces do, and utilise the knowledge and experience of their retired personnel to the maximum extent.

The armed forces are a structure that has been transferring its knowledge and experience from one generation to another for thousands of years, harbouring this knowledge and experience in its collective memory, and this will continue to be the case; however, it would be very appropriate not to underestimate the knowledge and experience accumulated in the repertoire of the generation that has carried the flag race of this institution for about 30 years, to attach importance to it, and to benefit from this knowledge and experience to the maximum extent. In this way, this accumulation will not go to the grave with them and will be preserved in the collective memory of the organisation. 

The knowledge and experience gained by the retired personnel during their service life will of course be transferred to those who come after them through education, training, human training, human management, system building, system management, directive development, directive preparation, etc., the hearts of this ancient institution and its members are at ease in this regard, but these people who have given years to this profession will not forget the knowledge and experience they have gained in the profession after their retirement, they have only completed the relay race. Would it not be wise to utilise the knowledge and experience of these people in their retirement? 

Some examples from the armed forces of other countries that constantly benefit from the knowledge and experience of their retirees:

In your opinion, which institution or department would carry out the activities listed below? 

- Designing and operating Procurement Strategies and Processes for Defence Systems

- Defence Business Strategy and Bid Support

To play key technical roles in both private sector and government programmes. Analysing technical issues and risks in depth and developing workable solutions. 

- Engineering and Technical Support

- Defence Programme Management

- Defence Logistics and Product Support

Today's emphasis on product support is on capability-driven, performance-based outcomes. Governments want to buy performance rather than manage and buy "things" (e.g. spare parts and repairs). They can design and manage processes based on measurable performance outcomes that are aligned with their government's integrated logistics support (ILS) missions.

- Defence Contracting and Procurement Law

- Financial Management and Budgeting

- Business and System Analyses

- Academic and Practical Education

As a retired soldier, my answer to the question "In your opinion, which institution or department carries out the studies listed below?" would immediately be "either the Ministry of Defence or the General Staff of the relevant country, or the Chiefs of Staff of the Land, Naval or Air Forces of the relevant country".

However, the above-mentioned studies are carried out by a civilian company "established by retired soldiers" for the US Air Force. 

The civilian company established by these retired soldiers carries out similar studies not only for the US Armed Forces or other state institutions, but also for the private sector. The founders, managers and other employees of this company are all retired officers, non-commissioned officers and civil servants from the US Armed Forces. The company accepts not only retired members of the armed forces, but also those who served in the armed forces but resigned before retirement. Moreover, it is a "non-profit" organisation. In other words, the company does not make a profit when costs and earnings are compared.

There are many such organisations, especially in the USA, but they also exist in the UK, France, Russia, etc.

There are also companies such as the US Blackwater and Russia's Wagner Group that are used as mercenary subcontracted armed forces, and most of the founders, managers and employees of such organisations are former members of the armed forces of the respective countries. Such organisations are often referred to as PMCs (Private Military Contractor). They are a bad example, but they are also companies that rely on the knowledge and experience of retired military personnel and make maximum use of this knowledge and experience.

US Aviation MRO (Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul) companies make maximum use of retired military experts.

So, why do these armed forces tender the above-mentioned and similar tasks to a civilian company, which they can - and do - carry out within their own organisations?

Because these and similar "retired military companies" that carry out the tasks they contract out are retired senior military or civilian experts with an average of 30 years of experience in the armed forces. Each of them held important positions such as commander, manager, centre/laboratory commander, system programme director, programme execution officer, manager, financial manager, supervisor, chief, chief engineer, etc. in their professional lives in the armed forces. 

Many of the employees of this company also have academic education at doctorate and master's level. However, this company has a basic rule regarding the past armed forces service life of the people it hires, which cannot be changed; this rule is described by the numerical indicator of 1/4. One quarter of the former armed forces personnel's service life in the armed forces is to have served at headquarters and in education and training, and three quarters is to have performed field duties in the continent. In other words, this company does not prefer its personnel to have spent much of their past professional lives in desk duties or studying, but to have carried out the subjects, concepts or plans that they have studied or planned at the desk, in the field, that is, on the continent. 

The company attaches great importance to armed forces knowledge and especially experience; according to the company, armed forces experience means the knowledge, skills and experience gained by performing a specific armed forces job for a long period of time. In particular, the value of having served in "combat conditions" is considered invaluable. In this sense, experience, according to them, is the knowledge and experience gained in practice. In addition, according to this company, the difficulties, successes, failures and the knowledge gained as a result of these experiences in the life of the armed forces are also considered as valuable experience.

The company's reputation within the US Air Force (USAF) and the Air Force Life Cycle Management Centre (AFLCMC) is well known in the industry, but it has successfully supported a wide range of customers beyond this area. Its customers include all US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps Armed Forces, other US Government agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security and the Environmental Protection Agency, and customers in every sector from the US defence industry, as well as allied foreign governments and international organisations. It also has a very broad customer base, including customers in space, laboratory, special operations, commercial manufacturing, information technology and medical organisations.

The company's employees are highly familiar with US government procurement procedures and processes because they have been trained in them. The firm's expertise is in major weapon system programmes, science and technology requirements and operational needs.

Civilian-owned aggressor F-16s in action.

In the USA, especially retired members of the armed forces do not like to retreat, and their entrepreneurial enthusiasm and efforts are very high. The closed environment of the Armed Forces to civilian life overwhelms them, but they do not want to break their ties with the Armed Forces when they enter civilian life. For example, approximately 46% of the workforce of AAFES (also known as The Exchange, BX or PX), which provides goods and services to US Army and Air Force personnel in 50 US states and more than 30 countries through shopping malls, markets, restaurants, military clothing stores, theatres, sports facilities, consists of US Armed Forces retirees.

There are even companies established to represent air squadrons hostile to the USAF, which even have "civilian F-16s" and are staffed entirely by retired USAF personnel.

There are also many MRO&U companies providing Maintenance, Repair and Modification services to the US Armed Forces, the majority of which are composed of retired or resigned personnel from the US Armed Forces.

In some of its exercises, the British Armed Forces have even contracted out the role of the enemy and the preparation and execution of the enemy's war plans to private companies established by retired members of the armed forces.

Those who have had the opportunity to watch our NATO and national military exercises know that in the exercises, the blue forces represent the friendly armed forces and the red forces represent the enemy armed forces, and for some reason the blue forces are always victorious. However, let's tender the preparation and management of the war scenarios of the red forces to experts who have laboured for thirty years in our armed forces, for example, retired experts who have spent thirty years searching, combing, hunting, skinning and bloodying terrorists in mountains, stones, beds, swamps, forests, deserts, seas and lakes in a counter-terrorism exercise, and let them implement the plans of the red forces in this scenario. 

Is there a decline in the sortie production capacity and capability of your air force? Well, let's let the experts who have worked for thirty years for the effective maintenance of this role of your air force analyse the root causes of this decline, then let them design the method of how to increase production and efficiency, apply this method, see that the results are positive, and then pay for their services.

Can't active employees of organisations carry out similar activities within the scope of R&D? Why should such activities be outsourced to pensioners? Of course they can, but neither in state institutions nor in the private sector can R&D be carried out by specialists who also have to carry out current activities, current activities will always take priority and R&D will remain in the second plan. The best person to know how to organise the traffic at a busy intersection is the traffic policeman, but if you go to that traffic policeman while he is doing his current work at the intersection and ask him "what should we do to make the traffic here more regular?", he will probably tell you "get the hell out of here". 

R&D is carried out by experts in an environment where they are freed from their current work, institutions find it difficult to take experts from their current work and channel them into R&D environments, so wouldn't it be wise to get such services from experts who have completed their current work and retired?

There has always been and will continue to be turmoil in the world. In order for nations to overcome these turmoil without accidents and troubles, critical and vital tasks fall to their armed forces. The planning, execution, coordination, supervision and evaluation of these tasks are carried out by military experts. The value of the knowledge and experience accumulated by these experts throughout their professional lives cannot be measured in material terms. Our armed forces should make maximum use of this knowledge and experience.