3 ms·
Isn't this exactly the point of OP? >In Static Armies, you don't give field commanders a lot of lee-way or control. You send orders, they execute. If we had a
by nexuist 7y ago
Isn't this exactly the point of OP?
>In Static Armies, you don't give field commanders a lot of lee-way or control. You send orders, they execute.
If we had a Static Army, the Pentagon brass would have immediately yielded to SecDef and executed his orders. The fact that there had to be immense debate around the issue means that everyone is granted the right to do their thing and improvise in the meantime. You can bet troops were trying all sorts of wacky things to IED-proof their Humvees.
- burneraccount12 7y agoThis presumes the underlings were busy doing important things, aka "improvising" solutions that benefited the whole. Wrong. Most of the time they were slow-rolling initiatives or not getting things done because they want to promote initiatives that get them promoted. For example, take the Air Force. Every year it tries to sunset more and more Warthogs, a heavy plane that supports actual troops fighting actual battles. Why? Because it's old and no one gets promoted championing Warthogs. Instead they lean into the F-35, the most expensive weapons system ever built by mankind, and a system that appears to do everything worse than its predecessors. So no, Pentagon brass dragging their feet or refusing to execute is not some amazing example of them thinking on their feet, it shows how rotten the bureaucracy has become and how static and non-agile the military can be.