u/sethleyseymour

Every administration talks about improving how government works, but the approach is usually incremental—adjusting existing agencies rather than fundamentally redesigning them.

Some argue that this is the only practical path, since large-scale restructuring risks disruption, loss of institutional knowledge, and political resistance.

Others argue that incremental reform just preserves outdated structures, and that a new administration should start by redefining what government needs to do and then reorganize agencies around those functions.

Which approach actually works better in practice? What are the biggest risks of each? I would be particularly interested in input from people who used to work in these agencies before Doge as well as others who have worked for large private organizations with a high level of complexity.

Is there anyone who thinks the current way our federal agencies are working is just fine and should be continued?

I just read a recent New York Times opinion piece by Graham Platner describing his experience in post-ISIS Iraq and the broader pattern of what people call “forever wars.”

What struck me wasn’t just the human cost, but how these conflicts seem to persist without clear objectives, timelines, or exit conditions. They don’t necessarily expand dramatically, they just continue.

So I’m wondering from a policy and institutional standpoint what would actually prevent these "forever wars" from happening again?

Is this mainly a problem with war authorization laws like the AUMF or is it more about the balance of power between Congress and the executive branch? Are there realistic mechanisms that could force reassessment, such as requiring defined objectives or periodic reauthorization, or is this just inherent to modern military and geopolitical realities?

I’m especially interested in perspectives from people with military, legal, or policy experience.