Modern Warfare: The Military Needs More Disruptive Thinkers

Print Page | Close Window

The Military Needs More Disruptive Thinkers

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Modern Warfare
Forum Discription: Military history and miltary science from the ''Cold War'' era onward.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31554
Printed Date: 25-Apr-2024 at 13:05
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: The Military Needs More Disruptive Thinkers

Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Subject: The Military Needs More Disruptive Thinkers
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2012 at 13:50

As noted provocative and controversial...as it attacks the baseline historical development of the military educational system and the concept of unified command and control on a hierarchical system basis of senior authority over junior... requiring compliance in preparations, planning and training not to mention real operations. Independent action is inherently risky for a number of reasons yet can be successful. Doubtful the force structure will adopt a business model of leadership...been tried before.

And that's even given the caveat of creative thinking and analysis. As those, while certainly encouraged, are ntl tied to the standardization theorems of teaching war (in all it's facets) to those, who by law and tradition, command the efforts or who might have an opportunity too.

Iow. the danger of self initiative in major decision making circumstances, without communicating the intent and receiving approval, as practical, can and often does lead to disruption and in-efficiency of effort and communications in a rapidly moving environment... not to mention unnecessary loss of resources or the threat of their loss or misapplication.

Primarily because the focus, willingly or not, is or might be, self centered in it's appreciation and implementation of the strat/tac/operational art goals that have historically here to fore proven reliable. While there can be found many similarities in succesful techniques used by business ect.. and the military... they are not entirely synonmous and should be recognized as such for obvious reasons.

The business models and concepts for running a multi-million dollar loan institution , or other such, for example, can not aptly be compared to running a multi-million dollar unit, maintaining equipment and personnel; whose primary focus is either direct military combat operations ie. in the application of the use of force as a political measure by a nation state....or supporting those who do. The psychology alone in the commitment of the preparation and then the conduct of effort is to wide. In the former, your concern is profit without major loss of capital...also so in the later, using business terms....the difference however lies in the loss of the greatest resource in the latter: human. The former faces no like threat.

This in effect, has been a major reason why the Defense uniformed heirarchy has kept it's distance and should, imo, continue to do so. Exceptions to sending members to civilian 'model' institutions have always been made when the force requirement for special expertise could not be supplied in any number of arenas and will no doubt be continued.

I neither condemn nor condone it's postulations. I don't believe the author is endorsing that but he has a long and difficult road ahead to un-bureaucratize the DoD's bureaucratic mentalities when it comes to leadership and training and educational standards.

They are there for a reason...perhaps the best of all reasons....they work. Again based on historical experience and tradition, US Military developement of it's leaders and even legal reasons.

Ntl, it's worth the read as his points and suggestions are credible and illuminating. And I applaud the effort to rattle the cage and make the thinkers...... think.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/the-military-needs-more-disruptive-thinkers - http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/the-military-needs-more-disruptive-thinkers

-------------
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman

Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'