6 ms·

I think this article does a wonderful job explaining why the military is built the way it is: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/08/08/the-command-and-control

I think this article does a wonderful job explaining why the military is built the way it is: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/08/08/the-command-and-control-management-method/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/08/08/the-command-and-co... If Command and Control is such a bad way to run a team, why does the military use it? This was explained to me in NCO school. I was in the Israeli paratroopers in 1986. Probably the worst paratrooper they ever had, now that I think back. There are several standing orders for soldiers. Number one: if you are in a mine field, freeze. Makes sense, right? It was drilled into you repeatedly during basic training. Every once in a while the instructor would shout out “Mine!” and everybody had to freeze just so you would get in the habit. Standing order number two: when attacked, run towards your attackers while shooting. The shooting makes them take cover so they can’t fire at you. Running towards them causes you to get closer to them, which makes it easier to aim at them, which makes it easier to kill them. This standing order makes a lot of sense, too. OK, now for the Interview Question. What do you do if you’re in a minefield, and people start shooting at you? This is not such a hypothetical situation; it’s a really annoying way to get caught in an ambush. The correct answer, it turns out, is that you ignore the minefield, and run towards the attackers while shooting. The rationale behind this is that if you freeze, they’ll pick you off one at a time until you’re all dead, but if you charge, only some of you will die by running over mines, so for the greater good, that’s what you have to do. The trouble is that no rational soldier would charge under such circumstances. Each individual soldier has an enormous incentive to cheat: freeze in place and let the other, more macho soldiers do the charging. It’s sort of like a Prisoners’ Dilemma. In life or death situations, the military needs to make sure that they can shout orders and soldiers will obey them even if the orders are suicidal. That means soldiers need to be programmed to be obedient in a way which is not really all that important for, say, a software company. You need a 3 star general's blessing to get computers because the whole military is built around authoritarianism and slavish obedience. It is built on those things because, in war, they are necessary. This has an unfortunate knock-on effect of making every decision take way too long and severely limits the autonomy of everyone in the chain of command, in often ridiculous ways. But if it comes down to being better at developing new tech, and winning a war, the army clearly has priority on the later rather than the former.

llukas 8y ago
> This has an unfortunate knock-on effect of making every decision take way too long and severely limits the autonomy of everyone in the chain of command, in often ridiculous ways. Not necessarily: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission-type_tactics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission-type_tactics
chrisseaton 8y ago
> the whole military is built around authoritarianism and slavish obedience This is a huge misconception people have about the military. In fact the core philosophy of command in western militaries is one of enabling people to make their own independent decisions. The military wants nothing less than non-thinking obedient slaves because they know that’s how wars are lost.
- sgift 8y ago
  For an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission-type_tactics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission-type_tactics If you have only non-thinking slaves you are done the moment anything doesn't go to plan. Instead of working with the situation the whole operation would come to a halt until people could reach their superiors to find out how to proceed. They would probably be dead by then.
- j9461701 8y ago
  >This is a huge misconception people have about the military. I just gave you a first hand account of it, and a concrete illustration of it is the current topic of discussion. It's difficult to call what is being clearly demonstrated through multiple channels "a huge misconception". Especially considering this is an Israeli NCO saying this, when the Israelis have a reputation for actually being one of the most individualistic armies in the West. >In fact the core philosophy of command in western militaries is one of enabling people to make their own independent decisions. Compared to the earlier forms of warfare, this is absolutely true. A modern NCO has a level of independent from central command that would have utterly flabbergasted officers even a hundred years ago. Heck, Roman centurions were afforded less autonomy to make decisions than we give modernly to srgts. But in absolute terms, compared to the civilian sector? The military is still an extremely authoritarian place that is utterly slavish to obedience. Because it has to be, men still need to obey their superiors when told to do things they might not want to do. Yes lower and lower ranks are given the freedom to set their own objectives and adapt on the fly to changing circumstances, and compared to the rest of military history that is quite something, but they still are not remotely individualistic or all that autonomous compared to non-military contexts. I mean why do you suppose we retain the officer/enlisted divide, and still demand both sides keep a cordial but distant relationship? It's because we still need the authoritarian stuff as a backbone, so when an officer says "Jump" an enlisted man jumps rather than trying to argue. The Soviets found this out the hard way after the 1917 revolution, when they tried abolishing the officer corps. as a vestige of elitist authoritarianism and it backfired so horrifically they had to gobble up defecting white army officers just to survive.

llukas 8y ago

> This has an unfortunate knock-on effect of making every decision take way too long and severely limits the autonomy of everyone in the chain of command, in often ridiculous ways. Not necessarily: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission-type_tactics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission-type_tactics

chrisseaton 8y ago

> the whole military is built around authoritarianism and slavish obedience This is a huge misconception people have about the military. In fact the core philosophy of command in western militaries is one of enabling people to make their own independent decisions. The military wants nothing less than non-thinking obedient slaves because they know that’s how wars are lost.

sgift 8y ago
For an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission-type_tactics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission-type_tactics If you have only non-thinking slaves you are done the moment anything doesn't go to plan. Instead of working with the situation the whole operation would come to a halt until people could reach their superiors to find out how to proceed. They would probably be dead by then.
j9461701 8y ago
>This is a huge misconception people have about the military. I just gave you a first hand account of it, and a concrete illustration of it is the current topic of discussion. It's difficult to call what is being clearly demonstrated through multiple channels "a huge misconception". Especially considering this is an Israeli NCO saying this, when the Israelis have a reputation for actually being one of the most individualistic armies in the West. >In fact the core philosophy of command in western militaries is one of enabling people to make their own independent decisions. Compared to the earlier forms of warfare, this is absolutely true. A modern NCO has a level of independent from central command that would have utterly flabbergasted officers even a hundred years ago. Heck, Roman centurions were afforded less autonomy to make decisions than we give modernly to srgts. But in absolute terms, compared to the civilian sector? The military is still an extremely authoritarian place that is utterly slavish to obedience. Because it has to be, men still need to obey their superiors when told to do things they might not want to do. Yes lower and lower ranks are given the freedom to set their own objectives and adapt on the fly to changing circumstances, and compared to the rest of military history that is quite something, but they still are not remotely individualistic or all that autonomous compared to non-military contexts. I mean why do you suppose we retain the officer/enlisted divide, and still demand both sides keep a cordial but distant relationship? It's because we still need the authoritarian stuff as a backbone, so when an officer says "Jump" an enlisted man jumps rather than trying to argue. The Soviets found this out the hard way after the 1917 revolution, when they tried abolishing the officer corps. as a vestige of elitist authoritarianism and it backfired so horrifically they had to gobble up defecting white army officers just to survive.