4 ms·

If incompetence in the army is rare, this means that when 90% of the "smart i-drone" attacks killed innocent people instead their "real target" it was on purpos

If incompetence in the army is rare, this means that when 90% of the "smart i-drone" attacks killed innocent people instead their "real target" it was on purpose? Hum, or maybe their bosses were just lying to them all of this time to support a theater of competence?...

s1artibartfast 5y ago
I don't think civilian deaths says much about competence. It speaks more where we have drawn the line on on acceptable confidence and collateral damage.
SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
Please note the person said the navy, not the army. The branches of military function more like independently cooperating organizations than one large organization is my understanding. When discussing military errors and processes, specifics like which branch matter quite a bit.
- pvaldes 5y ago
  Fair point.
- bilbo0s 5y ago
  The idea would still apply. The 7th is staggering around the Pacific like a drunken Irishman right now. These incidents are obviously not intentional and many are textbook cases of incompetence.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
    I fully agree that there can very well be incompetency in the navy. I’m only pointing out that talking about incompetence in the army to a naval veteran is asking an orange to answer for an apple’s flaws due to the fact the two organizations have independent structures, cultures, and systems of how responsibility is managed. An accurate criticism would be pointing out existing incompetency in the navy or in naval sub-divisions.
  - crikeym8 5y ago
    "drunken Irishman"? Why's saying this okay?
- KineticLensman 5y ago
  > The branches of military function more like independently cooperating organizations Yes. My experience is with the British Army. It's a collection of multiple tribes with distinct and powerful local loyalties and rivalries. There may be shared trust, especially when the different parts have trained together or been on ops with each other. [Edit]. Before I started working with them, I thought that 'uniform' meant 'something that is the same everywhere'. Boy was I wrong. There is a phenomenal variation in the regalia, badges, belt buckles, head dress, etc, etc. And the arcane career development paths, rank structures, e.g. depending on whether your ancestors were foot, cavalry, guns, etc. [Edit] And these historical variations and beliefs translate into substantial procedural variations. E.g. is an armoured vehicle driver a glorified bus driver or a hardened warfighter? Infantry and armoured units could have very different perceptions of this role, and this would translate into variations in training, career development, prestige, etc.
  - zdkl 5y ago
    Even their own dialects, as if the acronyms weren't enough!
noselasd 5y ago
It may just mean that the same level of competence is very different between certain branches in the army vs branches in the navy. Drone strikes killing civilians does not imply incompetence though. It's complicated ... - https://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/human-rights-institute/files/The%20Civilian%20Impact%20of%20Drones.pdf https://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/...
blitzar 5y ago
You are assuming that the drone strikes were failures of some sort. When your mission is to kill any military aged male that looks suspicious and collateral damage is acceptable then its incredibly easy to be competent.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
soneil 5y ago
My impression of the USN, and specifically submarines (from the outside looking in) is they're trained as primarily as nuclear engineers who just happen to have some rather awkward sleeping arrangements. It's very possible that this results in a slightly different management structure compared to the army.
- indymike 5y ago
  It does make a difference. One of the largest differences is this: Army Colonial says go over there and draw fire. You go over there and draw fire. Navy Captain says go over there and draw fire. You and the Captain go over there and draw fire. Another difference: Your boat is all by itself a strategic asset that can literally alter the outcome of an entire world war. Every submarine fits this description (even fast attack subs can carry fairly long range nuclear weapons if needed). So the mission is important, and the people who carry it out treat it that way.
jjk166 5y ago
Competent people still make mistakes, they are not omniscient nor omnipotent. Being competent means that you did everything that a rational person ought to have done in a situation, and you did those things effectively. A perfectly competent person can be given bad intelligence about where their target will be, or the bomb they're dropping could have a faulty guidance system. Even with no external factors, if something were so easy that there was no need for human judgement, it would have been automated already. It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life.
Spooky23 5y ago
Incompetence is anywhere. Anyone who think the <insert entity> here has their shit together all of the time doesn’t have a clue or has their eyes closed. There may be some nuance between the Army, Navy and whatever, but they all take similar paths to achieve the same ends, and all are good at what they do. Military people are usually strong leaders who understand and perform in a large organization very well. That said, there’s literally millions of soldiers, and they are in a normal curve like any other large population. You might be a stellar naval officer, but if the navy makes a policy decision to not train seamen to navigate ships, stuff will happen in spite of your abilities. But the culture of the naval service is such that the captain has absolute authority and absolute accountability. That’s often unfair and creates other problems, but that’s how it goes.

s1artibartfast 5y ago

I don't think civilian deaths says much about competence. It speaks more where we have drawn the line on on acceptable confidence and collateral damage.

SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago

Please note the person said the navy, not the army. The branches of military function more like independently cooperating organizations than one large organization is my understanding. When discussing military errors and processes, specifics like which branch matter quite a bit.

pvaldes 5y ago
Fair point.
bilbo0s 5y ago
The idea would still apply. The 7th is staggering around the Pacific like a drunken Irishman right now. These incidents are obviously not intentional and many are textbook cases of incompetence.
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
  I fully agree that there can very well be incompetency in the navy. I’m only pointing out that talking about incompetence in the army to a naval veteran is asking an orange to answer for an apple’s flaws due to the fact the two organizations have independent structures, cultures, and systems of how responsibility is managed. An accurate criticism would be pointing out existing incompetency in the navy or in naval sub-divisions.
- crikeym8 5y ago
  "drunken Irishman"? Why's saying this okay?
KineticLensman 5y ago
> The branches of military function more like independently cooperating organizations Yes. My experience is with the British Army. It's a collection of multiple tribes with distinct and powerful local loyalties and rivalries. There may be shared trust, especially when the different parts have trained together or been on ops with each other. [Edit]. Before I started working with them, I thought that 'uniform' meant 'something that is the same everywhere'. Boy was I wrong. There is a phenomenal variation in the regalia, badges, belt buckles, head dress, etc, etc. And the arcane career development paths, rank structures, e.g. depending on whether your ancestors were foot, cavalry, guns, etc. [Edit] And these historical variations and beliefs translate into substantial procedural variations. E.g. is an armoured vehicle driver a glorified bus driver or a hardened warfighter? Infantry and armoured units could have very different perceptions of this role, and this would translate into variations in training, career development, prestige, etc.
- zdkl 5y ago
  Even their own dialects, as if the acronyms weren't enough!

noselasd 5y ago

It may just mean that the same level of competence is very different between certain branches in the army vs branches in the navy. Drone strikes killing civilians does not imply incompetence though. It's complicated ... - https://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/human-rights-institute/files/The%20Civilian%20Impact%20of%20Drones.pdf https://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/...

blitzar 5y ago

You are assuming that the drone strikes were failures of some sort. When your mission is to kill any military aged male that looks suspicious and collateral damage is acceptable then its incredibly easy to be competent.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

soneil 5y ago

My impression of the USN, and specifically submarines (from the outside looking in) is they're trained as primarily as nuclear engineers who just happen to have some rather awkward sleeping arrangements. It's very possible that this results in a slightly different management structure compared to the army.

indymike 5y ago
It does make a difference. One of the largest differences is this: Army Colonial says go over there and draw fire. You go over there and draw fire. Navy Captain says go over there and draw fire. You and the Captain go over there and draw fire. Another difference: Your boat is all by itself a strategic asset that can literally alter the outcome of an entire world war. Every submarine fits this description (even fast attack subs can carry fairly long range nuclear weapons if needed). So the mission is important, and the people who carry it out treat it that way.

jjk166 5y ago

Competent people still make mistakes, they are not omniscient nor omnipotent. Being competent means that you did everything that a rational person ought to have done in a situation, and you did those things effectively. A perfectly competent person can be given bad intelligence about where their target will be, or the bomb they're dropping could have a faulty guidance system. Even with no external factors, if something were so easy that there was no need for human judgement, it would have been automated already. It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life.

Spooky23 5y ago

Incompetence is anywhere. Anyone who think the <insert entity> here has their shit together all of the time doesn’t have a clue or has their eyes closed. There may be some nuance between the Army, Navy and whatever, but they all take similar paths to achieve the same ends, and all are good at what they do. Military people are usually strong leaders who understand and perform in a large organization very well. That said, there’s literally millions of soldiers, and they are in a normal curve like any other large population. You might be a stellar naval officer, but if the navy makes a policy decision to not train seamen to navigate ships, stuff will happen in spite of your abilities. But the culture of the naval service is such that the captain has absolute authority and absolute accountability. That’s often unfair and creates other problems, but that’s how it goes.