4 ms·

I think one of the reasons for the strange 'assignment' and 'orders' system of filling job needs is overlooked by the author. 'Randomly'[1] rotating people aro

by count 16y ago

I think one of the reasons for the strange 'assignment' and 'orders' system of filling job needs is overlooked by the author. 'Randomly'[1] rotating people around in the service has a side effect (or, actually, it's main purpose) that is very beneficial to civilian society in the United States - it virtually eliminates any situation where soldiers are more loyal to their chain of command than to the country/Army as a whole. Getting a new boss every 3-4 years means you'll never really cultivate that lifelong attachment to the one boss you'd do anything for. This stems the a huge amount of potential military coup/uprising/etc., and keeps the armed forces focused on their jobs and loyalty to the mission and their country. Has there ever been a military vs. govt/civilian situation in the US once this policy was put in place? [1] It's not random at all - it's a 'who you know' system. 'Detailers' are staffed at the personnel bureau, and if you know your detailer well (or have other connections), you get the job you want. Just like any other major organization.

jackfoxy 16y ago
The potential for military coup had never been a problem in the U.S. military for the reason of well-established civilian control of the military as well. The closest thing to a real problem having been MacArthur's insubordination to Truman. That problem arose in part through the old system where senior generals kept their positions forever in a hard-wired seniority system. Many of the problems of that antiquated system were dealt with by the Goldwater-Nichols act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater-Nichols_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater-Nichols_Act
- locopati 16y ago
  There was the 1934 Business Plot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
  - jackfoxy 16y ago
    Gerald C. MacGuire was a $100 a week bond salesman for Murphy & Company. Smedley Butler was retired military and the one who blew the whistle on the whole affair, which most contemporaries and historians dismiss as a cocktail putsch, i.e. wild talk at a cocktail party. I don't think there's a way to spin any military involvement in an attempted, or even contemplated coup in this case.

by count 16y ago

jackfoxy 16y ago

The potential for military coup had never been a problem in the U.S. military for the reason of well-established civilian control of the military as well. The closest thing to a real problem having been MacArthur's insubordination to Truman. That problem arose in part through the old system where senior generals kept their positions forever in a hard-wired seniority system. Many of the problems of that antiquated system were dealt with by the Goldwater-Nichols act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater-Nichols_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater-Nichols_Act

locopati 16y ago
There was the 1934 Business Plot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
- jackfoxy 16y ago
  Gerald C. MacGuire was a $100 a week bond salesman for Murphy & Company. Smedley Butler was retired military and the one who blew the whistle on the whole affair, which most contemporaries and historians dismiss as a cocktail putsch, i.e. wild talk at a cocktail party. I don't think there's a way to spin any military involvement in an attempted, or even contemplated coup in this case.