The main point he's making, which I think is correct, is that instead of bouncing every officer from assignment to assignment as if they will all need that breadth of experience, instead of taking stock of just how many staff jobs there are versus cockpits open, is hurting our retention, hurting our budgets, and hurting our continuity.
What may be a decent solution is a preference-plus. How about if officers got the same "base of preference" options that the enlisted do after completing a 365 or a short-tour in Korea? How about if a guy states flat-out, "I'm not in the running for SQ/CC and above, I just want to keep flying airplanes...why don't you send the fast-burner over there to the staff job?", we actually listen? How about we pay attention to personal preferences instead of what leadership thinks will look good on the next board? All that requires leaders to know their people and their people's goals. Maybe one guy's goal is to provide some stability for his family, stay in one place for three more years while his kid finishes high school with his friends, while another guy's goal is to climb the ranks, no matter what base that takes, and another guys goal is to get an overseas assignment and see some of the world. Is it really so hard to give officers more of a voice in where they PCS?
And if, as would likely happen, people don't go to Cannon, or Minot, or Laughlin...then you can non-vol people. But it should be a rare thing, not the normal operating procedure, to drop orders on an officer's desk every three years, using only the ADP as a guide to what the officer wants.