Why unified defense administration should not erase service education

Was unifying defense administration and abolishing separate service ministries a good idea?

Central coordination was reasonable, but turning defense into a generalist department and extending unification into service-specific training weakened essential specialization.

The discussion treats the original unification of British defense administration as defensible while arguing that problems grew when defense became an ordinary generalist civil-service department. Separate services still require distinct professional cultures and technical education. Naval officers need engineering leadership, maritime history, and shipboard practice, while Army officers require land-combat training and RAF pilots follow an aviation-centered pipeline. A single school would naturally optimize around the Army because it supplies the largest officer cohort. Canada's costly reversal of service unification is offered as a warning that administrative tidiness can destroy useful specialization.