4 ms·

I'm sure the US military is a formidable force; but despite this, the US as a country loses many (most?) wars it engages in. So the lesson to learn may not just

by bambax 5y ago

I'm sure the US military is a formidable force; but despite this, the US as a country loses many (most?) wars it engages in. So the lesson to learn may not just be, how to build a good team on the ground, but: how to pick your battles wisely. A startup CEO isn't just a platoon leader: they are also a politician and a strategist. That's what makes it so difficult.

chrisseaton 5y ago
> I'm sure the US military I don't think this post is about the US military though. Uniforms look Singaporean.
- GravitasFailure 5y ago
  From the author's bio, "Space Lawyer and Founder. Former Singapore Army officer. Sci-fi author in general." Though I suspect the uniforms in the third and fifth pictures aren't Singaporean or American.
  - jcranmer 5y ago
    The fifth picture, from its source attribution, is (Scottish, I think) Highland Territorials in a trench in France in 1914.
- bambax 5y ago
  The post is about how we should learn about leadership from the military. The US army is the mightiest military force in the world. But that's not enough to win wars. Winning wars seems more interesting than having great teams.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    > But that's not enough to win wars. The blog post never says it is. > Winning wars seems more interesting than having great teams. It's ok to write blog posts about a variety of things, even if you think there's something potentially more interesting elsewhere.
    - bambax 5y ago
      Sure, but it's not like those things "elsewhere" are completely unrelated. It's implied that building great teams "military style" are a great solution to many problems, and are applicable to the corporate world. I would like to point out that having a great military force is not enough for what's important -- many times, it's not even needed!
      - Chan_Yuk_Chi 5y ago
        This isn't an article about winning wars, and I'm not advocating that building great teams is a guarantor of success. This is a guide for those who have decided on their own that they want to focus on building a great team, because their personal assessment is that a great team is what they need to succeed.
freedomben 5y ago
> A startup CEO isn't just a platoon leader: they are also a politician and a strategist. That's what makes it so difficult. In the US, the head of the military is a politician (the US president). As a side effect of that the majority of high ranking officers are politicians as well, albeit playing a different game since it's the politicians they are trying to impress rather than the people.
ryanmarsh 5y ago
When you have the opportunity to train with non-US militaries one quickly learns a bit of gratefulness. Our officer and non-commissioned officers are far more professional, and our junior enlisted are far better trained. There are some exceptions. British Royal Marines and SAS really impressed me. So why does the US lose wars? Because we don’t let the military fight them to win. How else does a 21st century military lose to someone living in the sixth century? The officer corp spends 10x more time restraining soldiers than gassing them up. It’s difficult to fathom what we’re capable of (even with the law of armed conflict).
- JamesSwift 5y ago
  I was never actually in the "armed" forces, but I did serve in the military, and I don't think the issue was lack of military force in Afghanistan. The problem was that we started off with overwhelming force, destroying civilian lives, and giving every opportunity for the taliban to generate anti-american sentiment in the process. It required a nuanced approach from day 1 and we didn't start that approach until day 300 (philosophically speaking). We needed to win the trust of the civilian population and we did nothing to secure that trust.
  - ryanmarsh 5y ago
    Exactly. This weird 21st century idea of military as gracious nation building conquerer is weird and we are not good at that. Note that, conversely, force on force "wars" are won very quickly. We should have left Afghanistan in 2002.
- neffy 5y ago
  The US didn't lose the war in Afghanistan, it won that remarkably quickly. It lost the peace - temporarily at least. But personally I wouldn't be quite so quick to write off 20 years of somewhat liberalism, and widespread internet access, in terms of that nation's development.
- WJW 5y ago
  > How else does a 21st century military lose to someone living in the sixth century? Part of the reason is this type of chronic underestimation of the enemy. The Taliban may hold some socially outdated ideas, but their use of digital communications and machine guns is absolutely not "from the sixth century". Rule 1 of warfare is to never underestimate your opponent. The main problem the US had was that from basically day 2 (day 1 being spent winning the conventional war) they were looking for a way to leave the country again and everybody there knew it. If you are not looking to annex the conquered territory indefinitely (which is extremely unpopular in western countries for PR reasons) then eventually you will have to leave and so your opponents only need to find a way to survive until then.

by bambax 5y ago

chrisseaton 5y ago

> I'm sure the US military I don't think this post is about the US military though. Uniforms look Singaporean.

GravitasFailure 5y ago
From the author's bio, "Space Lawyer and Founder. Former Singapore Army officer. Sci-fi author in general." Though I suspect the uniforms in the third and fifth pictures aren't Singaporean or American.
- jcranmer 5y ago
  The fifth picture, from its source attribution, is (Scottish, I think) Highland Territorials in a trench in France in 1914.
bambax 5y ago
The post is about how we should learn about leadership from the military. The US army is the mightiest military force in the world. But that's not enough to win wars. Winning wars seems more interesting than having great teams.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > But that's not enough to win wars. The blog post never says it is. > Winning wars seems more interesting than having great teams. It's ok to write blog posts about a variety of things, even if you think there's something potentially more interesting elsewhere.
  - bambax 5y ago
    Sure, but it's not like those things "elsewhere" are completely unrelated. It's implied that building great teams "military style" are a great solution to many problems, and are applicable to the corporate world. I would like to point out that having a great military force is not enough for what's important -- many times, it's not even needed!
    - Chan_Yuk_Chi 5y ago
      This isn't an article about winning wars, and I'm not advocating that building great teams is a guarantor of success. This is a guide for those who have decided on their own that they want to focus on building a great team, because their personal assessment is that a great team is what they need to succeed.

freedomben 5y ago

> A startup CEO isn't just a platoon leader: they are also a politician and a strategist. That's what makes it so difficult. In the US, the head of the military is a politician (the US president). As a side effect of that the majority of high ranking officers are politicians as well, albeit playing a different game since it's the politicians they are trying to impress rather than the people.

ryanmarsh 5y ago

When you have the opportunity to train with non-US militaries one quickly learns a bit of gratefulness. Our officer and non-commissioned officers are far more professional, and our junior enlisted are far better trained. There are some exceptions. British Royal Marines and SAS really impressed me. So why does the US lose wars? Because we don’t let the military fight them to win. How else does a 21st century military lose to someone living in the sixth century? The officer corp spends 10x more time restraining soldiers than gassing them up. It’s difficult to fathom what we’re capable of (even with the law of armed conflict).

JamesSwift 5y ago
I was never actually in the "armed" forces, but I did serve in the military, and I don't think the issue was lack of military force in Afghanistan. The problem was that we started off with overwhelming force, destroying civilian lives, and giving every opportunity for the taliban to generate anti-american sentiment in the process. It required a nuanced approach from day 1 and we didn't start that approach until day 300 (philosophically speaking). We needed to win the trust of the civilian population and we did nothing to secure that trust.
- ryanmarsh 5y ago
  Exactly. This weird 21st century idea of military as gracious nation building conquerer is weird and we are not good at that. Note that, conversely, force on force "wars" are won very quickly. We should have left Afghanistan in 2002.
neffy 5y ago
The US didn't lose the war in Afghanistan, it won that remarkably quickly. It lost the peace - temporarily at least. But personally I wouldn't be quite so quick to write off 20 years of somewhat liberalism, and widespread internet access, in terms of that nation's development.
WJW 5y ago
> How else does a 21st century military lose to someone living in the sixth century? Part of the reason is this type of chronic underestimation of the enemy. The Taliban may hold some socially outdated ideas, but their use of digital communications and machine guns is absolutely not "from the sixth century". Rule 1 of warfare is to never underestimate your opponent. The main problem the US had was that from basically day 2 (day 1 being spent winning the conventional war) they were looking for a way to leave the country again and everybody there knew it. If you are not looking to annex the conquered territory indefinitely (which is extremely unpopular in western countries for PR reasons) then eventually you will have to leave and so your opponents only need to find a way to survive until then.