5 ms·
Here's the thing, a military that isn't regularly exercised quickly falls prey to the iron law of bureaucracy, as Dr. Hugh Nibley once said "Leaders are those w
by kneebonian 4y ago
Here's the thing, a military that isn't regularly exercised quickly falls prey to the iron law of bureaucracy, as Dr. Hugh Nibley once said "Leaders are those who surprise and discomfort the enemy in war time, and rock the boat and upset HQ in peace"
If war isn't regularly and actively being prosecuted the military turns to infighting, the officers that are promoted are promoted because of their ability to suck up and kiss ass, meanwhile the people that get things done, that bruise egos, and deal with things directly end up phased out and pulled down.
Part of the reason WW1 was so horrible wasn't just because of the technological advances, or the environments they fought in but because of how many worthless brass were involved and f**ing things up regularly. Hell France was only saved from falling within a month because their top general went on a spree of firing over half the commanders and replacing them with people that produced results.
In the next substantial military conflict the US faces we will spend a long time losing until we fire most of the people currently in charge and the thinking changes.
As evidence let me point to the continual massive investment into the fighter program. Those advocating the fighter program are the cavalry commanders of the 1910, thinking in an outdated and outmoded way of thinking that they are wedded to, and will continue to rely on and push for despite the fact it is a clearly outdated and obsolete way of thinking.
EDIT:
As noted below Dr. Hugh Nibley was Professor of Ancient Scripture at BYU if you feel that substantially impacts your opinion of this quote.
- Invictus0 4y agoThe irony of criticizing the F-35 while complaining about armchair generals.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- NegativeK 4y agoHi. I downvoted you because your comment is a casual insult without bringing anything to the discussion.
- wl 4y agoFor context, Hugh Nibley was a prolific apologist for the mainstream Mormon church.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- PakG1 4y agoAttack the argument, not the person.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- wl 4y agoI'm not attacking anything. If anything, I mostly agree with the argument being made. I just think Nibley's prolific work as an apologist is interesting context to his words.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- adolph 4y agoThe description is oddly context-free, as if a reader is supposed to know if this other work about a religion was related to the observation about garrison vs field soldiers. apologist noun SYNONYMS: defender, supporter, upholder, advocate, proponent, exponent, propagandist, apostle, champion, backer, promoter, campaigner, spokesman, spokeswoman, spokesperson, speaker, arguer, enthusiast. ANTONYMS critic
- tomrod 4y agoAn apologist is a defender of a philosophy or religion that proceeds by first taking certain (often unprovable) axioms as true without proof (i.e. worldview), then proceeds to defend it vigorously with a veneer of logic. One can be an apologist for, say, the axiom of choice (an actual axiom), a Neopagan faith, #metoo, etc., regardless of how much evidence is against or for the worldview based upon the assumptions.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoIf experience is exercise, name a more exercised force than the US military.
- danans 4y agoAny number of war-torn countries' militaries would meet that criterion, from Afghanistan to parts of Africa.
- kneebonian 4y agoA fair point, and this is one thing we may have on any other country of similar size and standing, but as we've seen with Russia, that only counts if it's been what you've been working for. Our military is exercised to an extant, but it's also been exercising for fighting asymmetric warfare, and irregular combat, not conventional combat on a battlefield against a comparable enemy. It's like running 3 miles every day in preparation for a marathon, it's something and helps you work out some things, but its going to be very different once the gun fires to start the race.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoOne of Russia's big issues I've heard is that they command down from above. They do not have a strong force of decision-making NCOs. This seems plausible given their poor and reactive performance in Ukraine.
- fsckboy 4y agothat's certainly a good explanation for what we see, and I have no counter-evidence, but I'm also suspicious of the matchup with a common cliche/trope: the WWII Nazis and the Imperial Japanese forces were also not able to think for themselves, and how many Star Trek episodes and alien races are foils for the idea that it's the fluid complexity and individualism of "Americans" and "humans" that makes them so adept at succeeding in the shifting tides of battle...
- potta_coffee 4y agoHow many of those experienced personnel stick around to pass on their knowledge? Not nearly enough to have an effective military. We'll find out our true readiness when we face a competent enemy.
- swagasaurus-rex 4y agoWhats a better alternative to the fighter program?
- kneebonian 4y agoDrones. Sure you can buy a $22 mil next gen stealth fighter to secure air superiority but I can buy 200 drones that cost $2k for 1/100th of the price, launch them from much closer to the battlefield and good luck shooting all of them down to establish your air superiority. Or even better you send in your fancy fighter/bomber combo, I'm going to blanket the effected air with drones programed to move in an erratic and choatic manner and suddenly I just cost you $22 million for something that I paid $100 for. Remember the Panzer was a better tank than the Sherman, but it didn't matter because the Sherman was cheaper to build and faster to make.
- supergeek 4y agoIt's about a 1-2 ratio. F-35 costs around $80m and a single predator drone costs around $40m.
- pnpnp 4y agoThat's not even accounting for the fact that Predators aren't able to realistically be used with S-300/S-400 SAMs sitting everywhere. There's a reason you aren't seeing aircraft near the front unless you're talking about helicopters at or below treetop level. Neither side in this conflict has stealth fighters capable of fighting on the front lines.
- pnpnp 4y agoYou should check out the NGAD program. It's exactly what you're talking about. The problem with drones is that they're easily jammed. Ukraine is lucky that Russia has been so incompetent, but I bet the next major conflict has large scale jamming on just about every frequency. NGAD strikes a balance between drones and manned aircraft. I don't really like the WWI cavalry analogy, either. The fighters being used in Ukraine are a far cry from what 5th/6th generation technology can achieve. The gulf war is a better example of what happens when you achieve air superiority. It turns out that's really important in modern warfare.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- djmips 4y agoI could see this happening in the Russia / Ukraine conflict. Perhaps Russia will improve over time because of this.