9 ms·

>In some areas, US administrative capacity remains world-beating, most obviously the military, which enjoys bipartisan and popular support, and vast investments

>In some areas, US administrative capacity remains world-beating, most obviously the military, which enjoys bipartisan and popular support, and vast investments of resources. Haha, the military is not well-administered. It is well-administered for a military, but things go on that would never be allowed in a private company. Remember the two recent naval accidents? The gang they found operating out of a fort? The fact that on-base accidents are the leading cause of casualties?

bwb 4y ago
Which is good in some cases. Goverment, military, education, and health care should not be run like a private company.
- willcipriano 4y ago
  Yeah, someone with the public purse should have a much higher degree of accountability than someone who is spending their own money. In OP's examples, they were much less accountable.
  - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    In both public and private organizations the US suffers from people being less careful with other people's money or property than they would their own.
    - bern4444 4y ago
      Is that not true generally of people regardless of where they live?
      - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
        Certain cultures don't seem to be letting it run so out of control as to prevent them from getting anything done.
  - bwb 4y ago
    I think it can be made to have a high degree of accountability. There are a variety of budget approaches that can change the current nightmare. I really like the Singapore model, where government employees are highly compensated, have built a culture of efficiency, and there are repercussions if they don't deliver.
- stop50 4y ago
  and yet is the us the worst example what happens when healthcare is privatised. higher costs for patients, regardless for insurance; more sick people, because the go less to the doc for an check up and the highest prices for meds, because they are unregulated.
jacobolus 4y ago
He didn’t say it’s “well administered” (how well or poorly administered it is is multifaceted and certainly arguable). He said it has high “administrative capacity”. For example, the US military was able to deliver billions of dollars of equipment to Ukraine in a matter of weeks, sending dozens to hundreds of planeloads every day across an ocean, as part of a complicated worldwide supply chain. They did not need to ask permission for this (except from the President), run public hearings in advance, go through court battles, etc., but could just get started right away.
- colpabar 4y ago
  Yes, I personally LOVE that the military can do so much without having to ask for permission.
  - robonerd 4y ago
    That didn't happen. They received orders to do all of this from civilian leadership.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    They did get permission from the civilian commander and chief.
    - olddustytrail 4y ago
      The title is "Commander in Chief". It's in the US Constitution. The phrase is a little older: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-chief https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-chief
sokoloff 4y ago
Something is going to be the leading cause of casualties. In peacetime, it doesn't seem outrageous that that would be on-base accidents (especially if that includes automobile accidents and injuries during training exercises).
- gibolt 4y ago
  Toilets kill ~40 people per year, obviously not all on military bases (I hope). Mundane things are deadly, simply because we use them everyday.
- InefficientRed 4y ago
  > In peacetime The US was in two wars for nearly 2 decades, to say nothing of various other special operations, and accidents were a leading cause of deaths and permanent disability for a large number of those years. Readiness is important, but IMO, the Army does a ton of unnecessary and unnecessarily dangerous training for capabilities that are almost never needed (jumping, in particular, but also certain types of combat training). Most importantly, this destroys people's physical health for no reason. Secondarily, this also costs the taxpayer enormous sums of money (each permanent disability retirement for a 30 year old is many millions of dollars). The other branches might be more reasonable. Not sure.
  - Juliate 4y ago
    > Readiness is important, but IMO, the Army does a ton of unnecessary and unnecessarily dangerous training for capabilities that are almost never needed. Readiness is precisely about training for things that will almost never happen. Until they do.
    - InefficientRed 4y ago
      That observation doesn't justify all risks. To reduce to absurdity, clearly we shouldn't train for war by running war games in which soldiers actually shoot and kill each other, even though there's a compelling argument that this would probably be a very good way to maximize readiness... IMO, the number of jumps the Army does each year is far in excess of what is necessary for readiness.
systemvoltage 4y ago
I like what DoD is doing with companies like Anduril[1]. Basically build first on their own dime, then buy. [1] https://blog.anduril.com/rebooting-the-arsenal-of-democracy-anduril-mission-document-67fdbf442799 https://blog.anduril.com/rebooting-the-arsenal-of-democracy-...
chrchang523 4y ago
Note that "well-administered for a military, but not well-administered in absolute terms" can be a feature rather than a bug, as long as the military is able to attract and utilize better human capital in times of trouble. I agree that our military has room for improvement, but I think it's fine that our most effective generalist administrators tend to be uninterested in the military when there are no dire threats.
Juliate 4y ago
Because that would never happen in private companies? Or, by contrast, that would be _allowed_ in the military? As if, private companies were the pinnacle of human organization? Some assumptions to clear up here.
Ensorceled 4y ago
> The fact that on-base accidents are the leading cause of casualties? Any demographic that is almost entirely young and, by selection, fit, accidents are guaranteed to be the leading cause of death.
- whatshisface 4y ago
  Unless they're fighting a war.
renewiltord 4y ago
> The fact that on-base accidents are the leading cause of casualties? What exactly do you expect here? You'd be happier if the leading cause were heart disease or warfare? The point is to be so good at everything else and so healthy that the only thing that can hurt you is error. That's success. The rank order of accidents isn't important. Only total quantity.

bwb 4y ago

Which is good in some cases. Goverment, military, education, and health care should not be run like a private company.

willcipriano 4y ago
Yeah, someone with the public purse should have a much higher degree of accountability than someone who is spending their own money. In OP's examples, they were much less accountable.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  In both public and private organizations the US suffers from people being less careful with other people's money or property than they would their own.
  - bern4444 4y ago
    Is that not true generally of people regardless of where they live?
    - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
      Certain cultures don't seem to be letting it run so out of control as to prevent them from getting anything done.
- bwb 4y ago
  I think it can be made to have a high degree of accountability. There are a variety of budget approaches that can change the current nightmare. I really like the Singapore model, where government employees are highly compensated, have built a culture of efficiency, and there are repercussions if they don't deliver.
stop50 4y ago
and yet is the us the worst example what happens when healthcare is privatised. higher costs for patients, regardless for insurance; more sick people, because the go less to the doc for an check up and the highest prices for meds, because they are unregulated.

jacobolus 4y ago

He didn’t say it’s “well administered” (how well or poorly administered it is is multifaceted and certainly arguable). He said it has high “administrative capacity”. For example, the US military was able to deliver billions of dollars of equipment to Ukraine in a matter of weeks, sending dozens to hundreds of planeloads every day across an ocean, as part of a complicated worldwide supply chain. They did not need to ask permission for this (except from the President), run public hearings in advance, go through court battles, etc., but could just get started right away.

colpabar 4y ago
Yes, I personally LOVE that the military can do so much without having to ask for permission.
- robonerd 4y ago
  That didn't happen. They received orders to do all of this from civilian leadership.
- scarface74 4y ago
  They did get permission from the civilian commander and chief.
  - olddustytrail 4y ago
    The title is "Commander in Chief". It's in the US Constitution. The phrase is a little older: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-chief https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-chief

sokoloff 4y ago

Something is going to be the leading cause of casualties. In peacetime, it doesn't seem outrageous that that would be on-base accidents (especially if that includes automobile accidents and injuries during training exercises).

gibolt 4y ago
Toilets kill ~40 people per year, obviously not all on military bases (I hope). Mundane things are deadly, simply because we use them everyday.
InefficientRed 4y ago
> In peacetime The US was in two wars for nearly 2 decades, to say nothing of various other special operations, and accidents were a leading cause of deaths and permanent disability for a large number of those years. Readiness is important, but IMO, the Army does a ton of unnecessary and unnecessarily dangerous training for capabilities that are almost never needed (jumping, in particular, but also certain types of combat training). Most importantly, this destroys people's physical health for no reason. Secondarily, this also costs the taxpayer enormous sums of money (each permanent disability retirement for a 30 year old is many millions of dollars). The other branches might be more reasonable. Not sure.
- Juliate 4y ago
  > Readiness is important, but IMO, the Army does a ton of unnecessary and unnecessarily dangerous training for capabilities that are almost never needed. Readiness is precisely about training for things that will almost never happen. Until they do.
  - InefficientRed 4y ago
    That observation doesn't justify all risks. To reduce to absurdity, clearly we shouldn't train for war by running war games in which soldiers actually shoot and kill each other, even though there's a compelling argument that this would probably be a very good way to maximize readiness... IMO, the number of jumps the Army does each year is far in excess of what is necessary for readiness.

systemvoltage 4y ago

I like what DoD is doing with companies like Anduril[1]. Basically build first on their own dime, then buy. [1] https://blog.anduril.com/rebooting-the-arsenal-of-democracy-anduril-mission-document-67fdbf442799 https://blog.anduril.com/rebooting-the-arsenal-of-democracy-...

chrchang523 4y ago

Note that "well-administered for a military, but not well-administered in absolute terms" can be a feature rather than a bug, as long as the military is able to attract and utilize better human capital in times of trouble. I agree that our military has room for improvement, but I think it's fine that our most effective generalist administrators tend to be uninterested in the military when there are no dire threats.

Juliate 4y ago

Because that would never happen in private companies? Or, by contrast, that would be _allowed_ in the military? As if, private companies were the pinnacle of human organization? Some assumptions to clear up here.

Ensorceled 4y ago

> The fact that on-base accidents are the leading cause of casualties? Any demographic that is almost entirely young and, by selection, fit, accidents are guaranteed to be the leading cause of death.

whatshisface 4y ago
Unless they're fighting a war.

renewiltord 4y ago

> The fact that on-base accidents are the leading cause of casualties? What exactly do you expect here? You'd be happier if the leading cause were heart disease or warfare? The point is to be so good at everything else and so healthy that the only thing that can hurt you is error. That's success. The rank order of accidents isn't important. Only total quantity.